Neutral Blocks



  • I know it is discussed a lot here but is the south america block/middle eastern block/african block/European Block idea making any headway with Larry?


  • '10

    Interesting idea!  Is this to make Neutrals a greater part of the game?

    Walking into a Strict Neutral in one “Block” only causes others in that Block to change political shift?  Without effecting the others?


  • Official Q&A

    @Croesus:

    I know it is discussed a lot here but is the south america block/middle eastern block/african block/European Block idea making any headway with Larry?

    No, it isn’t.



  • It’s not my Idea. Also, my thoughts would be to have a Portugeuse Block (Portugeuse Guinea, Angola, Mozambique, Portugal) a European Block (Spain, Rio De Oro, Sierra Leone, Sweden, Switzerland) a South American block (The nine countries) and an Asian Block (Mongolia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan). The creation of a Portugeuse allows African powers a little more protection. Rio De Oro is in European block because it was a Spanish Colony, Sierra Leone was British and why it isn’t on the board mystifies me. The South American block is a troublesome one, because the US can devour it before any other powers are even on the coast. The Asian Block forces cooperation between the Powers, because it is difficult to take all of those powers efficiently, and thus not give up free infantry.
    Krieghund: Is there an explanation for why this isn’t? (making headway with Larry)


  • Official Q&A

    Too much complication for too little benefit.



  • @Croesus:

    It’s not my Idea. Also, my thoughts would be to have a Portugeuse Block (Portugeuse Guinea, Angola, Mozambique, Portugal) a European Block (Spain, Rio De Oro, Sierra Leone, Sweden, Switzerland) a South American block (The nine countries) and an Asian Block (Mongolia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan). The creation of a Portugeuse allows African powers a little more protection. Rio De Oro is in European block because it was a Spanish Colony, Sierra Leone was British and why it isn’t on the board mystifies me. The South American block is a troublesome one, because the US can devour it before any other powers are even on the coast. The Asian Block forces cooperation between the Powers, because it is difficult to take all of those powers efficiently, and thus not give up free infantry.
    Krieghund: Is there an explanation for why this isn’t? (making headway with Larry)

    It won’t happen, because it adds complexity to an already long game.  But, if any diplomatic rules were made to change neutrals into regional blocks, I’d hope that the UK and USA are completely and utterly prohibted from EVER attacking a true neutral. Russia, Japan, and Germany could still attack true neutrals and that would flip the allegiances of other neutrals in the blocks (whereupon the US and Britain COULD then occupy as a noncombat).  I’d also prefer that Russia could NEVER peacefully take a pro-allied territory.  Russia wasn’t exactly a neighborly occupier nation.

    One, it more accurately represents the fight against the axis powers, and not a land grab (in the case of Britain and the USA).

    Two, because the south american block would likely never see German or Italian aggression, the US can’t just snag the whole of south america to boost its income.

    Three, it becomes up to the Axis (mostly) whether they want to trigger blocks of units and spread themselves thinner, and it historically it should be up to the Axis (the aggressors), not the Allies.  I doubt they will, because Spain will always be vulnerable, but it would be nice to see some of the neutrals get into play.   And, I personally think that Turkey should remain linked to Spain, regardless of historic accuracy.  Taking Turkey gives Germany/Italy far more advantage than Russia until late in the game, so spain should be opened to expose Germany’s underbelly.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    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.



  • “Too much complication….”

    After all these myriad revisions?

    You’ve got to be kidding me.  😞

    These revisions unfortunately show in the 1st place that the rules are arbitrary. As is the setup.

    I mean the attitude is that since the original game was hard for the Axis to win, WOW wonder how that ever creeped into a WW2 game,

    we’ve got to arbitrarily revision the rules and setup until the Axis powers can  win.

    Wait till Axis and Allies Stalingrad comes out and the Germans keep losing the game.

    What if AA Midway  results in the Japanese losing the battle too often.

    I can see the Japanese players whining: Give me an extra carrier or two.

    When will this whining end?  :?

    I now hear there are Beta revisions coming soon and wait till you see Gamma!

    It will insure the Axis wins 50% of the time.

    Does this have an ending?

    No, I am afraid becz the cat is out of the bag and now every revision is as arbitrary and as good as the next.

    The attitude now seems to be that there no definitive rules and for me that is slowly taking away my desire to play the game.

    Let’s take away the challenges in this game.

    It is like this new attitude in American schools: lets get rid of competitive play becz it is too damaging for the self esteem

    of our kids. No trophies for the winners or better yet trophies for all.

    Yes. that’s it lets devise Omicron every nation emerges a winner!!  :lol:

    or

    Revision Omega: Italy never wins, OK Italy goes 1st with it’s 4 BB’s in the Med……

    This is really sad IMHO.



  • @Shakespeare:

    I mean the attitude is that since the original game was hard for the Axis to win, WOW wonder how that ever creeped into a WW2 game,

    we’ve got to arbitrarily revision the rules and setup until the Axis powers can  win.

    Some people apparently get satisfaction from easy victories, which is why so many intensely lobbied Larry making him believe the game was more unbalanced than it was in reality.

    Wait till Axis and Allies Stalingrad comes out and the Germans keep losing the game.

    What if AA Midway  results in the Japanese losing the battle too often.

    I can see the Japanese players whining: Give me an extra carrier or two.

    When will this whining end?   :?

    Not until the allies start with no units, I’m afraid.

    Let’s take away the challenges in this game. It is like this new attitude in American schools: lets get rid of competitive play becz it is too damaging for the self esteem
    of our kids. No trophies for the winners or better yet trophies for all.

    _Could not agree more. And this self esteem nonsense bugs me too, I mean, many psychopats likely think very highly of themselves.

    This kind of game, it should ALWAYS be hard (but not impossible) for the axis to win. Why? Because they didn’t win in real life and thankfully so. This kind of game should NOT be a 50-50 thing, the flip of a coin kind. A dedicated axis player should be able to win, but not without serious effort and no real room for grave errors, and also axis should be forced to make decisions, and not be able to do EVERYTHING at practically the same time._



  • Well, the OOB rules made it near to impossible for the axis to win.  I don’t see any problem with giving the Axis a better chance.

    Yeah, the Axis didn’t win in real life.  But ultimately for me the game is more fun if both sides have a good chance to win.  Then it comes down to strategy more.  If the Allies can afford to make a lot of mistakes and still win, it’s not fair to the Axis player.

    Some people don’t play this game to recreate WWII.  You can do that, but I think most people play this game to have fun, and that’s easier when both sides have an approximately equal chance of winning.



  • @Shakespeare:

    “Too much complication….”

    After all these myriad revisions?

    You’ve got to be kidding me.   😞

    These revisions unfortunately show in the 1st place that the rules are arbitrary. As is the setup.

    I mean the attitude is that since the original game was hard for the Axis to win, WOW wonder how that ever creeped into a WW2 game,

    we’ve got to arbitrarily revision the rules and setup until the Axis powers can  win.

    Wait till Axis and Allies Stalingrad comes out and the Germans keep losing the game.

    What if AA Midway  results in the Japanese losing the battle too often.

    I can see the Japanese players whining: Give me an extra carrier or two.

    When will this whining end?   :?

    I now hear there are Beta revisions coming soon and wait till you see Gamma!

    It will insure the Axis wins 50% of the time.

    Does this have an ending?

    No, I am afraid becz the cat is out of the bag and now every revision is as arbitrary and as good as the next.

    The attitude now seems to be that there no definitive rules and for me that is slowly taking away my desire to play the game.

    Let’s take away the challenges in this game.

    It is like this new attitude in American schools: lets get rid of competitive play becz it is too damaging for the self esteem

    of our kids. No trophies for the winners or better yet trophies for all.

    Yes. that’s it lets devise Omicron every nation emerges a winner!!  :lol:

    or

    Revision Omega: Italy never wins, OK Italy goes 1st with it’s 4 BB’s in the Med……

    This is really sad IMHO.

    Shakespear, I know what you mean.  I put up a few comments on Larry’s forums about tweaking the True Neutral rules a bit, and he stomped all over me.  How DARE I propose to change HIS rules???  His comments to my response are in RED…

    Yo, Larry, here’s a tweak to consider for the True Neutrals: Yo…? Do we know each other?

    Can we change the True Neutral rules a bit? How about “Attacking any True Neutral causes other True Neutral Countries IN THE SAME CONTINENT (or REGION) to become Pro-other side”? Ridiculous that the Axis (which would gain the most benefit from it) have the option to attack them in this game but its infeasible to actually go through with it… (mostly because S. America with a BIG chunk of neutral income is going to go to the US anyway, if its either Pro-Allied OR Pro-Axis). I guess you summed it… it’s just ridiculous

    Would Germany declaring war on Spain, Turkey, and Sweden really make Argentina BEG for Allied assistance to keep them from falling to the heathen Japs (not to mention letting the Allies recruit for FREE their entire standing army)? Maybe we can make attacking Turkey lets both Saudi Arabia and Afganistan become Pro-other-side as a special case (WWII Islamic country bloc?), maybe attacking Spain causes only Sweden and Switzerland to become Pro-other-side. Its even worse, True Neutrals, in Global… Would the Mongolians really join the Soviets if Germany attacked Sweden? Very much doubt they would (even care).

    We already have a lot of countries that are Pro-Axis/Pro-Allied to begin with; if the overall Global situation isn’t changing with them being captured and/or mobilized, why should there suddenly be a major shift on the board for attacking a True Neutral? (Meaning most of all Franco’s Nationalist SPAIN, which pretty much owed its existence to Hitler and Mussolini’s help during its Civil War.) Plus, Germany STARTS THE GAME with several countries that were definitely TRUE NEUTRAL WITH GERMANY BEFORE THEY WERE CONQUERED (Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Denmark (…etc., etc.), with treaties and everything), shouldn’t the rest of the board already be Pro-Allies then in 1940? If Germany’s already run roughshod over those pacts, why should it (and the world) suddenly care about it running over a few more? Hard to argue against such towering logic.

    Just some points to bring up… Annoys the hell out of me that the US/UK uses Gibraltar to the point of exasperation EVERY single game but Germany attacking Gibraltar through Spain essentially gives the Allies +10 IPCs that ISN’T going to be realistically contended over during the course of a game (not to mention LOTS of free infantry). If I were you I’d toss your A&A game(s) into a dumpster and finally be rid of this ridiculous pretense of a game. 😉

    Really dislike how they’re willing to even discard historical accuracy and even ADD NEW GAME RULES (i.e., tweaks to scrambling!) in the name of GAME BALANCE (waaaah Taranto Raid is historical yet overpowered…. waaaah I am a bad Italy Axis player… waaaah)…  yet somehow True Neutral rules are right off the table.  I even put in another post on his forums later on that suggested that maybe the Axis could invade True Neutrals without penalty (cause they were doing it anyway before the game even starts in 1940) until the time the US enters the war on Turn 3, and world opinion shifts against them.  But NO.  Idea shot down.

    It’s a hard enough game for the Axis anyway, but I’d rather see changes to the rules that can INCREASE their potential options available to them in 1940, as it was historically, rather than superficial artificial changes that just plop a lot more units down on the map at game start in the name of “balance”.  We KNOW that Germany attacking Russia before they finished off Britain was a bad idea today, can we emulate that in the game?  Invading Spain to get at Gibraltar was a strategy proposed by some of the German High Command to block the Brits from the Med, why can’t we do that instead of running our tanks willy nilly back from France to be in position for Barbarossa by G3?  Russia is able in this game to pull back troops from the border territories without any problems during NCM, in reality Stalin forbid any withdrawals or retreats for any reason, AND the majority of their initial forces WAS on the border with Germany occupying E Poland.  If Russia can withdraw troops without historical penalty, why can’t Germany invade Spain without historical penalty?  I guarantee that the Allies at the time wouldn’t of cared a fig about Spain, as it was mostly Pro-Axis with Franco in charge to begin with.

    Anyway, Sealion is pretty much out of the question in Alpha +2 version too, so now it looks (and plays) just like all the other versions of A and A.  So much for all the new rules and special thought going into the N.O.s in the equation; we’re just going to play the game like it’s always been played…

    Man, Larry really can’t make up his mind about this…  The scale between the number of units on both sides of the board was BAD to start with, and adding units to the Europe side ain’t helping any.  The Pacific and Europe games were probably never meant to josh together in the first place.  He first slants it towards the European Axis by adding the Italian airbases and the new scrambling rules for the Med, then the Allied pro-UK players all start complaining that it’s so unfair now the Axis can stop Taranto, so then he beefs up the UK to the point of insanity AGAIN in the Med AGAIN to compensate for it yet AGAIN… Meanwhile we’ve got the same territory values so that a 30 IPC Germany is supporting a 10 plane starting armada, and the UK has over 300 IPCs worth of units at game start with a 28 IPC economy supporting it (out of which 90% of the extra Axis/Allied units will be sunk on Round 1 if Germany attacks SZ 110 and SZ 111, and the UK pursues a Taranto raid (of course they will!)).  And France is still just worth 19 IPCs in the Global game.  Kiss Sealion GOOD BYE…

    Right now I’m looking at SEVEN planes sitting in the UK for a Round 3 Sealion attempt by Germany if the UK goes entirely on the defensive… retarded.  5 UK FIGs, 1 French FIG, and the TAC from the carrier in SZ 98.  He even gave them an airbase in Scotland and a few more infantry, so that the UK is even MORE protected from naval strafes on the first round.  The Germans get to shoot through a surviving fleet ALSO in SZ 110 now when they invade on G3.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen a clearer picture from a game developer about what NOT to do with the European Axis with the “new and improved” Alpha +.2 setup.  You might as well just plan Barbarossa G1 or G2!

    I loved my “straight odds up the middle” G1-2 attacks to force an outcome against the UK, but it looks like Larry has killed Sealion outright with his latest incarnation.  Thanks for narrowing the options and making the game the SAME as it ever was!  1940 IS THE SAME AS 1942!!!  DOWN WITH THE SEALION OPTION AND THE SOLE REASON I BOUGHT AAE/P40 OR WAS EVEN INTERESTED IN A 1940 RULESET!  LET’S THROW A BUNCH OF SPECIALLY DESIGNED NEUTRALITY RULES AND PEACE N.O.S RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW BY NERFING THE SEALION OPTION TO “HELL IN A HANDBASKET” CHANCES OF SUCCESS!  YEAH!!!  WHATCHA DOING PIDDLING AROUND WITH ENGLAND NOW???  GET ON TRUCKING TO MOSCOW ALREADY!!!  THE RUSSIANS ARE DYING TO GET THE WAR STARTED EARLY OVER THERE!!!



  • 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, Mongolia

    You 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.



  • @Gargantua:

    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:

    @Gargantua:

    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, Mongolia

    You 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.



  • @SgtBlitz:

    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:

    @SgtBlitz:

    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.



  • @SgtBlitz:

    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?


  • Customizer

    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?


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    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…



  • @Shakespeare:

    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.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 16
  • 9
  • 42
  • 10
  • 19
  • 2
  • 12
  • 39
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

50
Online

14.7k
Users

35.4k
Topics

1.4m
Posts