Diplomacy

[Bierwagen]

@Imperious:

Ok sorry i was looking at an old draft… you cannot purchase additional rolls… my bad.

so i modify as follows:

Each player cannot perform more than one free diplomacy roll for each neutral. Additionally, a neutral cannot be targeted for diplomacy by each side more than once per turn.

From some past discussions we were allowing someone like Germany, with 2 dice, to throw both against the same country.  However, they could only move it one block even if both dice scored hits…

Even with all these rolls we’ve been abusing (e.g., allowing Japan to help Germany influence Spain or Turkey) – we have only once turn a county, and it was very late in the game.  I think Germany got Turkey once.  ONLY after they had Trans-Jordan & Persia for a +2 modifier.

So, I haven’t found Diplomacy to be that much of a player really.  Though it does add some excitement.

I’m a little nervous about this Gibraltar issue though.  We hadn’t been playing with that one.

I do like the fact that certain countries only influence certain regions.  That one needs to be spelled out.  Something akin to the Convey Raid Chart by country and what territories they influence.

I also think that if the US invades Western Europe that they should be allowed to roll on Spain.  And likewise if Japan makes it to Persia (which in our games they usually do) they should be allowed to roll on Turkey.

Thanks for the great discussions.  The more we play this here in San Antonio – the more we keep uncovering.

So, the game stays very dynamic.

Enjoy the day!

• Bierwagen

[Bierwagen]

@Imperious:

This fixes it. If Spain is rolled by axis only one axis player can try it ( only either Germany or Italy) and only one roll, unless you buy more rolls then that same nation can pile up a few more rolls on the same neutral.

It’s always an interesting exercise talking to you IL… you have so many games in your head that I never know if I’m talking the right rule set.

So, you always bring up a lot of good ideas and options that keep me on my toes.

Italy has no Diplomacy Rolls in AARHE 4.0 Draft (24 Jul 08) ;-)

• Bierwagen

[Imperious Leader]

It’s always an interesting exercise talking to you IL… you have so many games in your head that I never know if I’m talking the right rule set.

yes i hear that quite often it seems… 50 different games using similar systems, plus millions of drafts with ideas that no longer apply half the time…

yes italy has no rolls…just 3 axis and 4 allies total

[Bierwagen]

If you invade a Neutral and defeat whatever converted forces are there do you then begin to control the income?

Or is the income solely dependent on the “Level of Cooperation” chart.

Say Germany converts Spain to -5 or even -3.  Can UK/US invade and control the income?  Or does the income still go to Germany?

All of sudden I’m filled with dialect tension… I hate this feeling of uncertainty.

The question:
What happens to the income value of a neutral country that is invaded?

• Bierwagen

[Imperious Leader]

If you invade a Neutral and defeat whatever converted forces are there do you then begin to control the income?

yes

Say Germany converts Spain to -5 or even -3.  Can UK/US invade and control the income?  Or does the income still go to Germany?

The income goes to Germany until Spain is controlled by enemies of Germany. If UK invaded Spain its immediately a -5 ally to Germany and Germany gets the money.

The question:

What happens to the income value of a neutral country that is invaded?

If you invade a neutral its immediately turned into a +5 or -5 full ally of the opposing player, the neutral now gives you the income and they control its forces as its new ally.

[Bierwagen]

O.k. I’m still confused, so let me make the following statement:

Once a country is converted (+/- 3) it gives the income to the “full ally” regardless of whether it is controlled or occupied by the enemy.

Is that true or false?

[Imperious Leader]

Once a country is converted (+/- 3) it gives the income to the “full ally” regardless of whether it is controlled or occupied by the enemy.

Is that true or false?

once you got it in +3/-3 status the OTHER side cannot try to sway it back to a more neutral status… the nation is said to be in your camp or the enemies camp… its not a full ally until you got it to ±5… the only thing is the enemy cannot move it back to -+2 or anything.

So the nations that are 2 either way should be immediate targets to get them in your camp.

[Bierwagen]

@Imperious:

Once a country is converted (+/- 3) it gives the income to the “full ally” regardless of whether it is controlled or occupied by the enemy.

Is that true or false?

once you got it in +3/-3 status the OTHER side cannot try to sway it back to a more neutral status… the nation is said to be in your camp or the enemies camp… its not a full ally until you got it to ±5… the only thing is the enemy cannot move it back to -+2 or anything.

So the nations that are 2 either way should be immediate targets to get them in your camp.

Understood.  There is no way to sway it once it reaches +/-3.

That is not the question.

The question is what options do the other team have?

I want to know what happens once a neutral becomes “sympathetic” to the opposing team .  Is there any option to deny the extra income to the enemy other than to SBR, Rocket Attack, or A-Bomb it?

[Imperious Leader]

-3 Pro-Axis, income goes to axis
-4 Pro-Axis, Axis units can enter
-5 Fully committed to Axis

so lets say you got Spain and your germany… Spain is at -3 and with a few more rolls you will be able to enter with German units , and at -5 you can send her units and fight in foreign lands for Germany.

The allies have all the standard options:

Invasion and capture: spainish units outside spain are converted to German units and USA can get the income by conquest and even begin building new spainish units according to all the other rules.

SBR/ A- Bomb: USA can blow the hell out of spain and take its income from Germany by SBR or reduce it permanently with A-bomb.

other than that for income will always flow to Germany and Italy. This is important rule. The income can go to either European player on these allies… they can be assigned as German or Italian. Their is no other way to deny income from a  converted ally neutral.

[Bierwagen]

@Imperious:

Invasion and capture: spainish units outside spain are converted to German units and USA can get the income by conquest and even begin building new spainish units according to

“USA can get the income by conquest” is the problem I was looking for.

Can UK then invade Saudi Arabia and “get the income by conquest” with no resistance.

If this true I don’t see the point of it being neutral.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes they have no army, so you can just invade it and its yours with its 2 IPC, but i think that would be fought over by UK because its close to her own oil centers.

[oldsalty]

“USA can get the income by conquest” is the problem I was looking for.

Can UK then invade Saudi Arabia and “get the income by conquest” with no resistance.

If this true I don’t see the point of it being neutral.

Under AARHE rules, UK/US can not be aggressive and invade neutral countries.  But a -3 to -5 country is NO LONGER neutral.  They are friendly to the enemy.

The way I finely understood all of this was to think of it this way:  I can take over a country by military force or diplomatically.  If I’m right in my assessment, then maybe we need to add a country marker to all neutrals at a +/- 3 to avoid confusion.

let me also add one more senerio:  If the US/UK took a -3 neutral from Germany and it was then liberated by either italy or Japan, would it go back to Germany or stay with the latest country to conquer it?

[oldsalty]

@Imperious:

Yes they have no army, so you can just invade it and its yours with its 2 IPC, but i think that would be fought over by UK because its close to her own oil centers.

IL:

Yes they have no army, so you can just invade it and its yours with its 2 IPC

is correct.

but i think that would be fought over by UK because its close to her own oil centers.[/[/quote]

Only in the 1939 version.  The 1942 version does not have oil centers. BTW, why were the oil centers not added to 1942.  They add a extra level oof strategy to the game.

[Imperious Leader]

yes my comments were under the context of 1939, because i prefer that version and map.  but of course your right

[Bierwagen]

Man – I’ve got to get this 1939 thing rolling here!  The resistance however is quite strong.

I’ll build a map once I get back from vacation and try to introduce it during our Sep meeting.

OldSalty:  I’ve never seen anything about US/UK not being aggressive vs. Neutrals.  Can you point that one out for me?

I do like the idea of not being allowed to attack until it is -/+ 3.  You should also have to occupy the territory in order to keep it from sending money or reverting back.  Once they are sympathizers, you can’t convert them back, you can only oppress/dominate them.

I could have sworn that I read something a while back that said the US should always open by invading S. America for the income.

Thanks.

[oldsalty]

Bierwagan:

Thats something that’s heavily stuck in my mind, but don’t know where it came from  :oops:

I looked through the long edition of AARHE 4.0 2008-02-09 but it wasn’t there either.  I swear I saw it because I was basing the whole concept of the game and diplomacy on it???  And it makes sense as the US or UK were not aggressors in WWII.  They would not have sent troops into S. America and forceably taken them over.  (That is allowed in other versions of AA).  I thought that was part of the reason diplomacy was added.

That’s got to be a question for IL or tekkyy.  Who knows, I’ve been ready so many posts, it could have come from another version.

[Bierwagen]

Gah!  I’m going MAD!

If the US converts Peru to +3 (e.g., like colony status) and claims the income of Peru does this country now count as:

“Control of each territory
not originally controlled &
adjacent to neutral
increase hit value by +1”

Or do Neutrals not count that way? 
What if it were at +5?

I question my sanity…

[Bierwagen]

BTW:

I bounced some of the chars off one of our ring leaders at work today, and he thought the graphing might be confusing for some people.

He was the one that originally asked me to develop some checklists for the gang here and was hoping for more of a generic outline by Turn Sequence.

Perhaps we should revert to something more simple – like a checklist and see if it highlights any more issues or is enough.  I think I went overboard with the flowcharting concept.

Thoughts?

• Bierwagen

[Imperious Leader]

If the US converts Peru to +3 (e.g., like colony status) and claims the income of Peru does this country now count as:

“Control of each territory
not originally controlled &
adjacent to neutral
increase hit value by +1”

NO! it needs to be a FULL +5 ally for you to get the bonus. Its not a full ally, so you cant claim it to influence other neutrals… The idea is like Monolithic communism, where one nation goes commie, and influences its neighbor eventually to do the same like a domino.

Or do Neutrals not count that way?
What if it were at +5?

yes +or -5

Perhaps we should revert to something more simple – like a checklist and see if it highlights any more issues or is enough. 
I think I went overboard with the flowcharting concept.

If they thinks its confusing, then make it in outline mode with all the various exceptions for each step of the turn sequence, so you will have a page for each turn sequence.

The other idea is to provide a sample turn explaining how things work. Take one step at a time and don’t try to finish this in a weekend. It will take time. And stop worrying about neutrals… your looking at things way too complicated… its really simple ideas and their are no loopholes to discover. Perhaps at worse a bit more clarifications are in order.

[oldsalty]

IL:

BW brought up a good Q a couple of posts back.  In AARHE can the US or UK attack neutrals that are not under enemy control?  I’m thinking that I read somewhere that they could not (as they were not the aggressors in WWII) but I can’t find the reference.

For example, can the US attack S American countries just to get more IPCs?