Neutral powers

  • As most if not everyone agrees CPs need some help in this game. Though I believe the game is a lot closer then some obviously think and therefore only a small change might balance this game.

    I was thinking of the true neutral states, why not decrease their army by half and make a rule that only CPs are allowed to attack them (perhaps with the exception of Persia)? As it is now they are complete waste of resourses. But with the change they accuelly would make a nice income boost for CPs.

    If the above dont balance the game, On might do the same with all aligned powers, eg when Romania is attacked it only gets 2 inf and 1 art.

    Might work?

  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    Nice idea. Keep it clean cut: Allies are the Goodies and the CPs the Baddies.
    Only the Baddies attack nations.
    I am happy keeping armies at double the troop strength.

    This means there will be less income in Africa for the Allies to take too.

  • Customizer

    True neutrals are defined as being those who didn’t get involved in the war. To some extent this keeps the game “historical”, as there is a powerful incentive not to invade them.
    However some are overrated, such as Norway at 4, while Switzerland is criminally underpowered at 1; the latter presumably as playtesting suggested it needed to be “active” to avoid a congested western front.

    As to Good and Bad, the French certainly had plans to go through “neutral” Belgium had the Germans not done so, and the Allied occupation of Greece is a notable, if problematic exception.

  • Well I think its okey to sidestep “historically correct” a bit in order to balance the game.
    My point was to make neutrals more interesting for CPs to attack. As it is now, you lose 1 inf/IPC gained, meaning you need hold it for 3 turns in order to just break even. And that doesent take into account that you have to use the gained IPC in your capital whereas your loses came from the front…

    I do agree that Switzerland should be raized to 6 IPC or something with this new rule.

  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    I just think something needs to be done to tip the economic disparity between the two sides, which only gets bigger as the game goes on, much of it from conquering Neutral Africa.
    This rule would mean the US could not take Greece, so facilitating a Turkey Crush.

  • Well this change would make a huge diffrence, since the british cant crush the turks  that easy, nor support russia via India ->Persia

  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    Thank you for pointing out about Persia. (I do not have the map in front of me and forgot.)
    Did Flashman say Persia was UK friendly in reality?
    Would the UK(India) have to go by sea then, closer to Egyot?

  • it wasent, Persia fought with the Germans and Turks after it got invaded by UK and Russia.
    However cant pay that close attention to stuff like that since then there would be a Armenien revolution at some point as well 😃

    Well if the UK wasent allowed to invade Persia it would have to attack the turks via Arabia and TJ.

  • Customizer

    Persia provides a bit of a conundrum

    It could be considered anything from a joint UK/Russian colony to a pro-Turkish neutral.

Log in to reply

Suggested Topics

  • 11
  • 4
  • 9
  • 25
  • 6
  • 37
  • 3
  • 61
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys