Should we make better rules for invadable neutrals? (1940)

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Go to https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/

Click on the latest version (the top post).

Under “Assets” there should be a set of links. Click on the one that fits your computer (if you use Mac, click on the link with the macos, Windows, the one with windows in it, etc.).

Click on the file in Downloads. It should open up a TripleA downloader similar to the one you used when you first downloaded TripleA. It should open (if there’s an error, it’s probably on your end).

It’s a vast improvement over 2.5 but is very easily navigable.

@Panther

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

@oztea I feel like there should be more dutch units.

@AlphaKappa:

 Which Neutral Powers would have the economic equivalent of a “Minor Industrial Complex”?

I think Spain, Turkey and Sweden are the obvious neutral powers that have a large enough industrial base to build their own tanks, planes and ships. Depending on how the sculpts are going to look, I think the Italian burnt orange will fit Spain, and maybe the french dark blue will fit Sweden. Turkey already got their units.

Maybe use the medium green for Brazil, and lime green to supply China.

Maybe even Canada can have own nation specific units ?

The Russian maroon will fit Mongolia I guess

It would only be Pro-Axis on German and Italian turns, to prevent the US from covering it with green army men.

I guess the rule would be reflecting that IF the European axis was gaining a lot of traction, Franco would be a little more accommodating to the Axis. But just because the Axis is doing well wouldn’t make Spain a target for the allies unless it was annexed.

I guess perhaps some other nations could become Pro-Allies under certain NO conditions for them……its just a little more difficult.

The big neutral players are Spain, Turkey, Sweden and Mongolia. The first three may have been convinced to join the axis. The last one was already a communist enclave.

I’m not too keen on changing the troop values for the various countries.  I think having their ipcs go to the controlling nation is enough.

You bring up a good point about the allies attacking neutrals, but these rules are really about bringing more options to both sides rather than taking them away.  I have no problem making Historical Sacrifices provided it results in improved  game play and fun.  I’m just looking for simple, perhaps a short paragraph, to give the rules for various Neutrals.

Back to Sweden.  I maintain the greatest fear the Swede’s had was Communism.  When Stalin attacked Finland they sent support to them.  They allowed transit rights to the Germans so they could fight the Russians.  I am sure they were entertaining thoughts about joining the allies in order to keep the Russians out of invading Scandinavia.  Even if these things are not true, I am leaning towards rules that follow the ‘evil communism’ spirit.

Perhaps giving Germany the option to activate Sweden when the time comes is best?  Germany can then look at the on board situation and decide if Sweden being activated is wise, or if it is just giving that territory to Russia.  I am thinking this would not be a round after round decision though, Germany gets 1 shot at Sweden.

Britain can start with more factories only if nations are not allowed to use captured factories.

Germany+Italy should outproduce UK+Russia while Japan should be two times weaker than USA in a 1942 scenario.

@Imperious:

heres some manageable rules to use:

I most like the part about destroyer and crusier negate submarine’s preemptive fire on a 1-to-1 basis (rather than unlimited in AAR).

Simple enough to implement for even first time players. Yet quite effective in improving gameplay dynamics.