and if none of the major powers deals with any neutrals this extra player is doing nothing except watching. How fun is that?
@Imperious:
and if none of the major powers deals with any neutrals this extra player is doing nothing except watching. How fun is that?
I was not saying that it would be fun. I was saying that this would be the ideal situation. Since the ideal situation probably won’t happen, then the best way to do this is probably something like what you did in AARHE. I printed out the AARHE and played with your diplomacy rules for the neutrals, and it worked okay.
and instead of showing us how witty you are, cause were all sure your very smart
…thank you…
so how do you propose that these countries that half join the war show up in the game, obviosly all there income and units should not become under the control of a certain player
and instead of showing us how witty you are, cause were all sure your very smart
why dont you grow up and explain what your talking about
hey, i was just answering your question.
we’ve used these rules for adding several of the countries into our AA50 games with positive results: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13966.0
However, after discussion here and within our local group, I personally like the aforementioned variation on the tech rules to be utilized for the encompassing number of neutrals.
I am thinking that instead of the block of countries to take each neutral, save the himalayas, the sahara, mongolia, and probably afghanistan, (just leave impassible) which leaves 11 by my count, and allow players to pick one per turn to purchase diplomat chips at 5 ipc each (with a min investment of 2 each time), then roll for a 6. if they get it, the country falls under their control. There was much variation from country to country as to their leanings in the war and would rather leave each independent of the rest.
While the combat variation is nice, ie, i like it, fun to shoot and all that jazz, utilizing the dice roll with cost can take place of enough of the cost of fighting to abstract it as well and not clutter the board further. Additionally, there is the aspect that while certainly debatable, the ‘neutral’ countries really didn’t have the military muscle to generate the kind of conflict that should take the time in the game.
Territories, as some represent more than one then need some IPC value assigned to each and once connected with a player’s nation, fall under the normal rules of such. Thus could afford potentially a fairly simple and hopefully effective way of adding these into play.
Anyhow, that’s the direction I’m leaning, and we’ll be trying it out in the next week or so
I printed out the AARHE and played with your diplomacy rules for the neutrals, and it worked okay.
Just okay??? Its supposed to work perfectly. What would you have it differently?
just wondering.
@Imperious:
I printed out the AARHE and played with your diplomacy rules for the neutrals, and it worked okay.
Just okay??? Its supposed to work perfectly. What would you have it differently?
just wondering.
My group played with the AARHE map/including Italy (but without most of the rule changes, because most of the group wanted simplicity). The concensus was that adding Italy was cool and putting the neutral armies out on the board added to the fun factor, but after a few (4-6, I don’t remember exactly.) games, and America always getting Spain and puting an IC there, several of the players got tired of losing as the Axis, and just stopped playing until AA50 came out. Since AA50 came out, we haven’t played a single game of AARHE.
I was happy with the AARHE diplomacy rules. My statement was a reflection of my group’s concensus, and should not be construed as criticism at all.
If I were to change anything at all, I guess I would try to make it slightly easier for the Axis-leaning nations to become Axis and the Allied-leaning nations to become Allies, or at least, forbid the Axis-leaning nations to ever join the Allies unless attacked by the Axis and vice a versa. We had too many games where all of the Allied diplomacy rolls went to sway Spain, and Spain usually joined the Allies by or before rounds 5-6.
Yah it should just be immposibel for nations that lean torwards one side to join the other
What political conditions in the real world would hae lead to spain joining the allies or even allowing them to build up troops and invade europe from there.
and America always getting Spain and puting an IC there,
what about if ‘neutrals’ were not allowed as IC build locations. Then the Allies would have to think more about backing up a diplomatic success with troops, lest the Axis swoop in and snag it away?
what about if ‘neutrals’ were not allowed as IC build locations. Then the Allies would have to think more about backing up a diplomatic success with troops, lest the Axis swoop in and snag it away?
do you think it should cost something to declare war on a neutral?
otherwise the Axis can swoop in and snag Spain whether it is with the allies or not.
I dont really like this converting neutrals that are pro-axis to the allies. I dont see what it has to do with World War 2, especially when the game starts in 1941.
I say neutrals can build a factory with its own income, but it can only produce its own units as long as its your ally, unless you conquer it.
@Imperious:
I say neutrals can build a factory with its own income, but it can only produce its own units as long as its your ally, unless you conquer it.
How would that work? Spain has to save 4 IPCs per turn until it can build?
Spain has to save 4 IPCs per turn until it can build?
neutrals should be able to place infantry like china except (one free per turn) in home nation
If they build a factory, they should be able to build non-infantry
or just give spain and turkey a factory and yes they save to buy tanks and items costing more than 3-4, but i prefer something like option 1
if neutrals are building infantry and such, then we go back to who gets to decide that? if they are neutral they we can’t say the other side, because both sides are the other side. if we give neutrals a standing army, and a military growth chart that sets how they grow each round or so, but deciding what Spain or Saudi Arabia could build is gonna be a big argument in game by the two sides and really isn’t going to be worth playing with, unless we made all the neutrals a standing 7th player and let them work together the whole game, but that’s so far from history…
–if we give neutrals a standing army, then to declare war I would think shouldn’t need to cost anything, as they have to fight enemy troops and there is a cost to that.
–if we don’t give them a standing army, then yes, there should be a cost to declaring war, whether in dice, or that they have to move the number of units equal to the value of the territory in, or that the other side gets to roll equal number of dice to the value of the territory, then divide in half, round up to take the economic toll. in some way should be a cost, beyond the classic 3IPC cost.
–if it is just diplomatic, then the cost of the dice work for that.
