G40 Economic victory condition

I have a question about the IPC total. You said that 133 equals half of the total IPCs available + 1 (NOT including true neutrals).
Okay, so this means all territories originally owned by one of the powers, all the pro-axis or pro-allied neutrals and the Dutch East Indies, right?
So, say the Axis counts up their total IPCs and find they have 130. Then Germany launches an attack on Sweden, a true neutral worth 3 IPCs. Then, according to the rules, all other true neutrals become Pro-Allied. This would allow the Allies to simply “walk” into any number of extra territories on their respective moves thus greatly increasing the total Allied IPCs. This would obviously be a big mistake on Germany’s part, but sometimes people react rashly.
In this case, the total IPCs available on the board would greatly increase so 133 would no longer be a valid half-way + 1 point anymore. I was just wondering if you had taken this possibility into account.
In our games, the true neutrals never get touched by either side. The Axis simply don’t want to make the other neutrals Pro-Allied and give the Allies extra IPCs and infantry. The Allies don’t want to give the Axis any extra IPCs or infantry either, but also we tend to think of the Allies as the “good guys” and violating neutrality is something the “good guys” just wouldn’t do. Perhaps you play the same way so you didn’t think of adding in the true neutrals. However, since there does seem to be a number of strategies for attacking the true neutrals from both sides, that might be something to consider.

I understand where you are coming from and I wasn’t intending to throw a monkey wrench into your idea.
It just occurred to me that this could be a kind of sneaky way to win, as long as they had the other requirements.
Then I remembered that these requirements have to be met at the end of a full round and it occurred just as quickly that it would be a stupid move on the Axis’s part because then the Allies could pick up even more IPCs and maybe be in a better position to win on your terms.

If I were you, I think your first idea of simply making the strict neutrals off limits for this type of game would be the best idea. Trying to add the strict neutrals would mess up the totals too much, particularly if you got to playing and suddenly no one decides to attack the strict neutrals after all. Also, like you mentioned, a lot of them would really be out of the Axis’s range anyway. Practically, the only strict neutrals that are worth IPCs and are within the Axis sphere of influence are Sweden, Spain, Portugal and Turkey. Maybe Saudi Arabia if they go strong after the Middle East. So including the strict neutrals would probably be greater impact to the Allies, maybe too much so.
Another idea would be to make all the strict neutrals pro- one side or the other. This way perhaps the Axis might have a little better chance and even if there are some that are out of reach for the Axis, like Argentina being Pro-Axis for example, the Allies would have to fight to take it.
Making strict neutrals off limits is probably the best and easiest idea.

Hey man, sorry I didn’t read this topic sooner (I usually don’t check the houserule section).

I am afraid that with this houserule the allies will never win the game. I have yet to experience a game where the axis will not have ~200IPCs KGF or ~150IPCs JF. In both cases (much) more than the allies and thus an automatic axis victory.

Right now I am thinking about imposing an arbitrary turn-limit on the axis for time pressure on them. As a replacement for the complete absence of the historical (and natural) time pressure: the complete and untouchable (!) economic supremacy of the allies. The allied powers easily had double the economy of that of the axis and nothing the axis could ever do against that (not with the USA on the allied team). So it is not too hard to see an arbitrary time limit as an economic victory condition…

I am thinking to give the axis 15 turns to win the game else it’s an automatic allied victory. That is still more than what can be played in a single day but at least it makes it easier to extrapolate a winner from unfinished games. And for those with time to play 15 turns it is still a lot of time played ;-).

@Young:

Thanks for the reply KNP, while I was reading your post I got the idea that the combined 18 IPCs for strict neutrals can be taken for strategic purposes, and for collecting income, however, IPCs from strict neutral territories will not be added to your sides total when calculating for an economic victory. Thanks for the brain food.

Interesting idea YG. Only problem I would see was having to keep track of 2 incomes, one without the strict neutral income and one with.