@Marshmallow-of-War Thank you Sir.
Neutral Blocks
-
The revisions don’t bother me at all, if someone is willing to continue to improve a game after I’ve bought it then that’s great, it’s adding value to a game I enjoy. As for definitive rules, let’s be clear, they’re making it up. Larry Harris is making this stuff up with an eye to historical accuracy and fun gameplay. If the idea that the game that you bought isn’t perfect OOB then don’t look at the forums and you won’t know about it (except for Japan, you don’t need to read a forum to know that was imbalanced). Yea, people complaining about how their favorite power is too weak now is annoying, but so is people constantly complaining about the revisions.
Also, I know that most of the rules that I think should be added/changed won’t be. Big deal. If I think they’re good I go to my group and suggest them so that I can play the game I want to play, with the people I’m playing it with. House rules are one of the best parts about A&A IMO since it gives you the freedom to craft your own game.
Lastly, I read Larry’s response to your post Sgt. Blitz and while it did seem overly harsh to me I think it was more because of your signature then your suggestion on neutral blocks. I guess when you spend a bunch of time building something you tend to be protective of it. For what it’s worth I think your signature is hilarious.
-
Yeah, I guess it’s okay that they’re “improving” the game (at least in trying to make it somewhat balanced), but… damn. There’s just SO much more you could put into this game that would make it more awesome. For instance, people argued that the current scrambling rules were stupid (i.e., England is considered NOT an island, yet somehow Japan was; plus you could scramble EVERYTHING you wanted too off islands, leading to inbalances in the Pacific involving the US/Japan) in the original OOB setup. We now have revisions to where EVERYONE can scramble a moderate 3 planes now, and the game is much better for it, adding another layer of strategic interaction. So… why can’t we change the nonsensical True Neutral rules?
We have pro-Axis/Allied countries, which everybody has no problems with, even from OOB. We then have the untouchable True Neutral countries. The current True Neutrals rule doesn’t make sense, in that if the Japs invade Mongolia, the government in Argentina thinks the sky is falling in and practically BEGS the US to occupy it, conscript the entire standing army, and mobilize their entire economy to a war-time footing… I’m sorry, but that simply doesn’t make sense, for an attack on a country on the other side of the world (the US didn’t even care that much about the UK or the SU getting attacked by the fascists in the first place, for crying out loud!) to send ALL the neutral countries in the WORLD into the other side’s camp. Now IF the Japanese DID send a carrier fleet along with a couple transports over to Chile and invaded that country, Argentina asking for assistance from the US WOULD start making sense. We need True Neutral blocks for more historical realism!
Why can’t Germany honestly develop a strategy invading Spain and/or Turkey? Even IF we change the rules so that attacking these True Neutrals doesn’t turn every other True Neutral country in the world Pro-Allied, the burden of taking the True Neutrals is still on the attacker, especially for Germany/Italy, with 14 infantry to chew through between Spain and Turkey (and possibly 6 more inf in Sweden to boot, if we have a True Neutral European block)! I think the attackers cost of taking the True Neutral countries in the first place is MORE than enough deterrent to keep the game balanced in the first place.
If people are still want the old T.N. rules, why don’t we add a caveat that you can only attack True Neutrals w/o repercussions until the turn the US enters the war? The US goes to war if Germany takes England, so if Germany pursues a Sealion then they can’t (and probably don’t have the material to) attack the True Neutrals. If Germany attacks the True Neutrals at all, it makes sense that it should happen before the US and the SU enters the war; otherwise, their forces are just too spread out against the new opponents to survive. Same for Japan, attacking Mongolia before the round the US enters the war should be feasible as well (maybe have the SU be able to declare war on Japan early as a special case).
-
I agree that the true neutral rules as they are don’t make sense. This is the first thing I talked about changing before even playing my first game of Global. I really like the idea of neutral blocks and am going to suggest it for our next game. Although I’d push for blocks that relate to geography as opposed to historically accurate political alliances. That way it’s fairly simple to follow and keep track of.
South American Block: Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile
African Block: Rio de Oro, Portuguese Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, Mozambique
European Block: Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden
Asian Block: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, MongoliaYou could also add Saudi Arabia to the strategic oil reserve NO for the Axis just to make things interesting (and it almost has more oil than the other countries combined).
The Asian block would be the most interesting since if the Axis powers take Turkey and/or Saudi Arabia, Mongolia is now Pro-Allied and Russia can reap the rewards. Even without the whole neutral world turning against you, that’s still a large disincentive.
-
That’s why Argentina needed to be Pro Axis…
It’s totally viable to have a decent S.A. campaign as the Germans, if there is a reason to go there that is (IPC’s), It draws the U.S. away from the main battle fronts. in Europe and africa.
We should have a German cruiser, destroyer and sub in the South Atlantic, and a loaded transport too otherwise it is so unfair for Germany that they will hardly ever get to South America. And a few subs in the Pacific cannot hurt because it is unfair that Germany cannot participate to help Japan there.
-
@13thguardsriflediv:
That’s why Argentina needed to be Pro Axis…
It’s totally viable to have a decent S.A. campaign as the Germans, if there is a reason to go there that is (IPC’s), It draws the U.S. away from the main battle fronts. in Europe and africa.
We should have a German cruiser, destroyer and sub in the South Atlantic, and a loaded transport too otherwise it is so unfair for Germany that they will hardly ever get to South America. And a few subs in the Pacific cannot hurt because it is unfair that Germany cannot participate to help Japan there.
Shut up, troll. That’s obviously not what Garg meant by that statement. IF Argentina was a Pro-Axis country, its perfectly possible for Germany to activate it by G3 by sending its starting fleet from SZ 112 to Gibraltar during its opening moves. Maybe even Japan could spare a loaded transport to activate it from the Carolines. A contested S.A. would be more fun than the free Inf/IPCs True Neutral system we’ve got now. Sheesh.
-
@Sgt.:
I agree that the true neutral rules as they are don’t make sense. This is the first thing I talked about changing before even playing my first game of Global. I really like the idea of neutral blocks and am going to suggest it for our next game. Although I’d push for blocks that relate to geography as opposed to historically accurate political alliances. That way it’s fairly simple to follow and keep track of.
South American Block: Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile
African Block: Rio de Oro, Portuguese Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, Mozambique
European Block: Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden
Asian Block: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, MongoliaYou could also add Saudi Arabia to the strategic oil reserve NO for the Axis just to make things interesting (and it almost has more oil than the other countries combined).
The Asian block would be the most interesting since if the Axis powers take Turkey and/or Saudi Arabia, Mongolia is now Pro-Allied and Russia can reap the rewards. Even without the whole neutral world turning against you, that’s still a large disincentive.
Good idea. I would rather have an Islamic (or Middle Eastern) bloc separate from the Mongolian bloc (as Mongolia by itself is divided into tons of little territories all full of potential infantry), but it makes a lot more sense than the current rules now. If Germany invades Turkey, the UK is generally in position to get the inf from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, so it evens out there, especially if we add oil NOs.
Would you like to start a play-test game with these ideas house-ruled in? Send me a PM. Should be hella fun.
-
Shut up, troll. That’s obviously not what Garg meant by that statement. IF Argentina was a Pro-Axis country, its perfectly possible for Germany to activate it by G3 by sending its starting fleet from SZ 112 to Gibraltar during its opening moves. Maybe even Japan could spare a loaded transport to activate it from the Carolines. A contested S.A. would be more fun than the free Inf/IPCs True Neutral system we’ve got now. Sheesh.
No need to get angry :roll:
And sorry if I ‘offended’ anyone, man I do admit that I am tired of those endless ‘Germany is not strong enough’ requests to Larry and co when it just isn’t true. -
@13thguardsriflediv:
Shut up, troll. That’s obviously not what Garg meant by that statement. IF Argentina was a Pro-Axis country, its perfectly possible for Germany to activate it by G3 by sending its starting fleet from SZ 112 to Gibraltar during its opening moves. Maybe even Japan could spare a loaded transport to activate it from the Carolines. A contested S.A. would be more fun than the free Inf/IPCs True Neutral system we’ve got now. Sheesh.
No need to get angry :roll:
And sorry if I ‘offended’ anyone, man I do admit that I am tired of those endless ‘Germany is not strong enough’ requests to Larry and co when it just isn’t true.Oh Lord. This isn’t even about ‘Germany is not strong enough’… If anything, even with our suggested revisions, Germany is still taking the brunt of the damage killing 20 enemy infantry in Europe that it doesn’t have to in the first place, so it actually is WEAKENING GERMANY to pursue this idea. This is more about having the opportunity to try out different ahistorical scenarios and increasing the number of options available to the Axis in 1940. The current True Neutral rules (and dare I say, the new Alpha + .2 setup, where the Sealion option is now ludicrous) currently hamstring the game into a race for Moscow from G1 on.
-
I would rather have an Islamic (or Middle Eastern) bloc separate from the Mongolian bloc (as Mongolia by itself is divided into tons of little territories all full of potential infantry), but it makes a lot more sense than the current rules now.
So Mongolia would be by itself, and the Arab block would be Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. Sounds good, let’s test it out.
-
That Neutral Bloc idea is great much better than the original and since the original is so flawed, as I think even Krieghund would admit,
becz of his endorsement of the all the various Alpha’s and probably Beta’s in the pipeline,
this Neutral Bloc rule is as good as any other.
I too do not understand this rush to channelize or direct the game into predictable and ho-hum ways.
Why have neutrals if the effect of attacking them is so draconian?
-
I think the idea of Neutral Blocks is very good. I’ve always thought it was kind of unrealistic that if Germany attacks Sweeden or Spain, then that makes people in Mongolia and South America Pro-Allied. After all, what would Argentina care if Sweeden was overran by the Axis?
Gargantua’s idea of making Argentina Pro-Axis is also a good idea. After all, where did a lot of Nazis escape to after the war was lost?
I think I am going to start using the Neutral Blocks idea in my future games.
-
So as I understand it there are these Neutral Blocs:
Turkey bloc;
Argentina Bloc;
Spain Bloc;
Sweden/Swiss bloc;
and Mongolia alone bloc?
Is that right?
And the former obo Neutral rules only apply to the immediate/adjacent neutral neighbors about them?
-
Like the Alpha setup changes… if someone is going to create a new module rules for Neutral Blocks, perhaps one should consider a BEEF UP the Neutrals?
Maybe some tanks and / or planes… AB’s, NB’s, Complexes? Otherwise certain Neutrals will get hit EVERY game.
I love the concept though…
-
So as I understand it there are these Neutral Blocs:
Turkey bloc;
Argentina Bloc;
Spain Bloc;
Sweden/Swiss bloc;
and Mongolia alone bloc?
Is that right?
And the former obo Neutral rules only apply to the immediate/adjacent neutral neighbors about them?
Sounds right. We’re gonna try it out. Stay tuned.
-
Like the Alpha setup changes… if someone is going to create a new module rules for Neutral Blocks, perhaps one should consider a BEEF UP the Neutrals?
Maybe some tanks and / or planes… AB’s, NB’s, Complexes? Otherwise certain Neutrals will get hit EVERY game.
I love the concept though…
Um, 20 enemy infantry isn’t enough of a disincentive in Europe, alone? Plus you will have longer fronts and more territories that will need to be garrisoned. Going after Spain so you can put troops into Gibraltar will require a huge influx of troops from the Western Front, and all of it will be vulnerable to Allied landings on the coast. Turkey is probably better in that after you take it over, you can now send transports through the Straits into Russia, and you also have better access to the oil in the Middle East. But you’re also spreading your troops out rather thin in fighting Russia this way as well.
-
I’m sorry I ever started this thread. If you guys hate the revisions, don’t play with them, Larry is doing a heck of a lot unpaid work to be hearing any of this crap from you. If you don’t want to hear people whine about the balance then don’t read the forums. And SGT.Blitz a signature like that makes me wonder why you’re even hear. You’re all the biggest whiners I’ve found in my entire forum hunt and the fact that Krieghund saw this forum makes me ashamed. Next Moderator who sees this. Please lock or destroy or remove the thread
-
Croesus?
So you present an Idea you like, people decide they want to try it because it sounds fun, so then you slander and berate them, calling them whiners.
I don’t get it.
GOOD THREAD by the way, maybe throw it in House Rules, but certainly don’t lock or delete.
-
I’m sorry I ever started this thread. If you guys hate the revisions, don’t play with them, Larry is doing a heck of a lot unpaid work to be hearing any of this crap from you. If you don’t want to hear people whine about the balance then don’t read the forums. And SGT.Blitz a signature like that makes me wonder why you’re even hear. You’re all the biggest whiners I’ve found in my entire forum hunt and the fact that Krieghund saw this forum makes me ashamed. Next Moderator who sees this. Please lock or destroy or remove the thread
Dear God, flamed again… Apparently people either can’t take jokes or have to outwhine the whiners when it comes to attention. My IRONIC comic might have some basis in reality in that Larry can’t seem to make his mind up either on what to do with the AAE/P40 games… so why not chuck it all and focus on the better things in life? Obviously, my suggesting new revisions and constantly testing these Alpha + Global versions on the forums is completely detrimental and I should just go die of shame for ever possibly suggesting something counter to the new(er(est)) version everyone else is currently glorifying. What a bad person I must be, to disagree about boardgame rules with other people! “Gather the kindling! We have a witch trial to begin! SgtBlitz is the reason Global 1940 sucks!”
Also, I’m sorry, the last I heard was that I paid a total of $180 to purchase both Pacific and Europe Axis and Allies 1940 Editions, and expected them to come OOB with a working Global version that had been systematically playtested and was accurate and fair to both sides playing the game (“fair” can be debatable, but I like a game where the Axis have at least a prayer in hell if they focus their energies correctly). Obviously, mistakes have been made. If we’re making GAME CHANGING REVISIONS to the CORE RULES (hint hint SCRAMBLING CHANGES), I’d like to imagine that my input based on historical perspectives and viable Axis 1940 options could be valued as well. Of course, my even making SUGGESTIONS is declared heretical and I am forever subjected to namecalling and thread closings… Whatever. The True Neutrals aren’t even that big a part of the game anyway.
-
So as I understand it there are these Neutral Blocs:
Turkey bloc;
Argentina Bloc;
Spain Bloc;
Sweden/Swiss bloc;
and Mongolia alone bloc?
Is that right?
And the former obo Neutral rules only apply to the immediate/adjacent neutral neighbors about them?
In the game me and Blitz are playing right now the neutrals are:
Neutral Blocks:
South American Block: Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile
African Block: Rio de Oro, Portuguese Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, Mozambique
European Block: Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden
Middle Eastern Block: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan
Asian Block: MongoliaI think it’s going to open up some interesting strategies from both sides now that attacking neutrals is more likely. Not sure if any neutrals need more units yet. Would have to play a couple of games like this before I could say one way or the other.
I like the idea of making Argentina Pro-Axis, since why not have more action in the South Atlantic? In that vein why not add a German cruiser in SZ 84 to represent the Admiral Graf Spee? Then those convoy zones down there could see some action. :evil:
-
What the heck is your problem Croesus?
We are discussing your thread and it has quit good ideas,
but I am disappointed at the myriad of revisions officially brought to us by the makers of this game!
It just apppears to me that the makers of this game, have gone way overboard in the revisions.
They have blown up the game, absolutely ridiculous and harmful and discredits the “historiocity” of the game if there ever was one!
This neutral bloc idea is a modest “house” rule, but Alpha 2.4 or whatever it is now is just too much.
I expect Beta soon and then Gamma.
The porch is oft kilter, lets tear down the house to make it right is the attitude of these guys!
All one has to do to add the so called “balance” is to not allow the USA to go from 52 to 82 in one turn.
We had USA add 5 the 1st war turn, 10 the next and then 15. So the USA gets 82, but gradually.
And countries can not build major factories outside thier home territories.
And added the neutral bloc rules.
3 count them 3 revisions and the game is indeed now “balanced” for all those Axis whiners: "Boo Hoo we can’t win the game 50% of the time!!
Suggested Topics
