Idea for "strict neutrals" rule change



  • It’s simple, yet a bit more sensical than what we have now: In any turn you wish to attack strict neutrals, you have the option of “buying off” any remaining ones so that they stay neutral.

    Case in point: Germany wishes to attack Sweden, but obviously doesn’t want to turn Spain or Turkey against them. To keep them as strict neutrals, Germany must pay 2 + 2 (the IPC values of each territory).

    If it wants to include Afg. and Saudi Arabia, then 2 + 2 + 2 + (say a min of 1 IPC, for those territories with no IPC values).

    These territories would also stay strictly neutral in the event of an Allied attack (although perhaps that can be debatable). Also, the IPC costs themselves: perhaps double the tt value would be better, but those are, of course, details.

    Thoughts?



  • What I was thinking is that there are “spheres” of strict neutrals. If Germany were to attack Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal might turn Pro-Allied (or even Allied territories…) but Mongolia doesn’t give a damn.

    That is another good idea, but the cost would need to be tweaked.



  • Ever since I started playing global, i used the “spheres” you mentioned. It makes more sense to group rather than say Mongolia becomes pro-whatever if Spain or some neutral country in Africa is attacked.


  • '12

    @techroll42:

    What I was thinking is that there are “spheres” of strict neutrals. If Germany were to attack Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal might turn Pro-Allied (or even Allied territories…) but Mongolia doesn’t give a damn.

    That is another good idea, but the cost would need to be tweaked.

    That is a really good idea! While I think that there needs to be some penalty for attacking a strict neutral, I have always felt that having all of the neutrals in the game turn against you was a little bit over the top.  I like the “spheres” idea.


  • '12

    I agree the standard penalty is too stiff - what I do is start everyone in the game off with a “World Trade Bonus” of 3 IPCs every turn (except China - to represent trade with neutral countries everywhere - all minor nations obviously).

    If a power invades any neutral country, they lose forever this bonus (to represent the decision on the part of other neutral countries to discontinue trade with an aggressor).

    Seems to work pretty well.  But I also like Jercules’ buyoff idea - makes logical sense they might have that option/ability.


  • Customizer

    A while back, Mamyot had an idea for strict neutrals using diplomacy to sway them over to Pro-Axis or Pro-Allied.
    For Major Powers earning 25 IPCs or more, you pay 10 IPCs and roll one die. On a 3 or less, you sway them to Pro-your side.
    For Middle Powers earning 15-24 IPCs, you pay 6 IPCs and roll one die. On a 2 or less, you sway them to Pro-your side.
    For Minor Powers earning 14 IPCs or less, you pay 4 IPCs and roll one die. On a roll of 1, you sway them to Pro-your side.
    You do this at the beginning of your turn. First you declare which neutral you are interested in, pay the IPCs and roll your die. If you are successful, on your NCM, you can move into that territory and get it’s IPC value and infantry to add to your army without affecting other strict neutrals.

    Another idea would be to have a set price for a “diplomacy” die.
    On a roll of 1-2, you are successful and the strict neutral becomes pro-your side.
    On a roll of 3-4, your mission failed and they remain strict neutral.
    On a roll of 5-6, you have insulted that country’s honor and they become pro-the other side.
    Not sure about what the price would be for a “diplomacy” die, but I figure it shouldn’t be too expensive, perhaps 10 IPCs or less. Also, perhaps any country should be limited to 1 or 2 diplomacy missions per turn. After all, it could almost be a game-winner if Germany managed to woo Spain, Sweeden and Turkey all at the same time. Of course, it could also be disasterous for the Axis if all three diplomatic missions failed and all three of those countries were suddenly Pro-Allied.



  • I think that “diplomacy dice” benefit the Allies too much as the US can use them to make, say, Afghanistan Pro-Allied and then let USSR take it.

    Perhaps it would be cheaper for the Axis because they can “threaten to attack” if the neutral doesn’t align towards them.

    And remember, if the Axis get Spain, it’s a short-term bonus only useful for defense of France, while the Allies will eventually walk in.

    Another thought is that
    1. Certain “strong” neutrals, i.e. Turkey, Sweden, Spain, start with not just infantry. For example, Spain would have 2 inf. 1 art. 1 DD., NB, Minor IC. (Note: neutrals without IC’s would be like China–they can build inf. only)
    2. There would be a predetermined Spanish (or whatever neutral) building order. They might build inf. inf. art. inf. DD or something like that. Obviously it would add complexity but I think it would be awesome!
    3. Neutrals could be combined into “Defense Pacts” so, for example, Spain and Portugal would be counted as 1 “minor neutral power” and would combine their income with Spain as the capital–like a mini-country that happens to be really neutral. If Spain was captured, it would transfer IPC’s to the conquerer like any other power.
    4. These defense pacts could be combined into alliances. And these alliances could be even between a strict neutral and a pro-allied or pro-axis. For example, Spain/Portugal Defense Pact could be Allied with Brazil. Brazil could be part of the South American Defense Pact, so if Spain were attacked by the Axis, everyone connected to Spain via alliances would move 1 “step” towards the Allies–Pro-Axis to Strict, Strict to Pro-Allies, Pro-Allies to Allied territory. Defense Pact powers would automatically become controlled by the Allies if the Axis attacked. But this might be too powerful and almost like the OOB rules, so we might make it a roll to see if the Defense Pact would declare war (on a 4 or less they would, for example), and a lesser roll (say 3 or less) to see if the Allies would “step up.”



  • IDK, maybe you treat all true neutrals as independent nations (no blocks, or alliances w/other powers or neutrals). Mongolian tt aren’t included, they remain part of the NAP.

    Pay 5 IPCs to roll a diplo dice. You can buy as many as you want (or maybe limit it to 1-2 per turn), but each one is dedicated to only one true neutral tt per turn, and you must be able to invade. State what true neutral nation you are trying to sway/invade (must have units dedicated to the invasion, and can’t make changes after dice is rolled). Once you start the process there is no turning back, you must follow through that turn.

    Roll your diplo dice.

    Roll 1 tt becomes pro your side (don’t have to fight), and the standing army joins you (immediately becomes your color) because you negotiated them to join your cause (you get to include any tt IPCs in your income).

    Roll 2 tt becomes pro your side (don’t have to fight), but the standing army doesn’t join you (it is dissolved) because you negotiated a peaceful occupation, and they laid down their arms (you get to include any tt IPCs in your income).

    Roll 3-4 tt becomes pro your enemy. You have to fight the standing army at least one round of battle and if you retreat any surviving units immediately become the color of your enemy (enemies choice of controlling power). Whom ever controls the tt will get the IPC value in their collect income phase.

    Roll 5 and the standing army is doubled, you must again fight at least one round of battle, but then can retreat. You under estimated the resolve of the country and their will to fight. Any survivors from the standing army would immediately become the color of your enemy (enemies choice).

    Roll 6 failed attempt. You lost your investment, and it was deemed not in the best interest to continue negotiations or attempt an invasion. This was a diplomatic process, so nothing changes, and the standing army stays intact.

    As note #1 I also think that any neutral tt w/o standing army, or IPC value should be awarded 1 inf (maybe 2) so the US can’t just waltz down through say Columbia w/o resistance to get to the more valuable S American nations.  All the above would apply.

    *As note#2 you could beef up the 3 major true neutrals to include better units in the standing army.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 30
  • 23
  • 11
  • 19
  • 4
  • 1
  • 12
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

52
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts