Seems pretty good. Looks like a lot more money for the Allies. Might be required since the UK is so busted up. Seems like you’d always J1 given that the US is already making 5 bucks off Japan anyways.
G40: DoW bonus for neutrality +5
Simple rule: for each Major Nation* +5 when not at War with another Major Nation.
*(e.g. normal industrial player/nations. So all nations but China, Mongolia, True Neutrals etc.) Or if desired China could be included here as well. Which increases the totals for each side up to 10 ipcs more.
This is a bonus mechanism to support the game’s neutrality concept, which works both ways. Here all nations have an equal incentive to prolong the DoW, since its worth +5 to both sides.
For Germany (vs Russia and USA) potential +10
For Russia (vs Germany, Italy, and Japan) potential +15
For Japan (vs all) potential +20 depending on how you want to handle DoW against France.
America (vs Japan, Germany and Italy) potential +15
British (vs Japan) potential +5
UK Pacific (vs Japan) potential +5
Italians (vs USA and Russia) potential +10
Anzac (vs Japan) potential +5
Axis potential +40 to 45 for neutrality
Allies potential +45 for neutrality
This bonus mechanic introduces basically an equal cash incentive for both sides to maintain a neutrality pact.
Can work with restricted DoW OOB rules, or unrestricted (anyone can declare war at any time) which might also be interesting under such conditions.
For what worth my opinion on this matter, I find this idea fair and simple.
All nations get something for being neutral.
Just to toss in a question / idea regarding this concept: would non-player neutrals (pro-Axis neutrals, pro-Allied neutrals, and strict neutrals) also gain something for being neutral? Let’s say, in increase of 1 infantry (per full game round) to their standing armies, if they have a standing army? My guess is that the possible effects of such a bonus would be:
That a player would have an incentive to wait as long as possible to take control of a pro-their-side neutral, since the longer he waits the bigger the army he gets to control
That a player would have an incentive to attack as soon as possible a pro-the-other-side neutral, since the longer he waits the stronger the neutral gets (which makes it harder for him to attack it and more attractive for the other side to take it over)
That attacking strict neutrals (which as a group all become enemies of the attacker’s side when this happens) would get more and more dangerous as time goes on, since they keep getting stronger with each round
Allow me to analyze how it would play out in most games. Which also requires the answer to a question:
Are German and Japanese Not At War NOs also in play?
So does Germany get +10 for peace with Russia?
For the first example:
If not, Germany gets +5 first turn for peace with USA. From what I gather, Japan usually wars J1, and if so it’s better for the Allies for USA to declare war on Germany immediately if only to make Germany not get this +5 IPCs. upon so I see little reason for USA to let Germany continue to get 5 IPCs.
If Japan waits for war, a frequent occurrence, maybe more so with this incentive, then you’re looking at up to 3 collect income phases for Germany before USA wars.
Germany total: between 5 and 20 extra IPCs
To Enoughsaid I had envisioned the basic +5 replacing the existing Axis NOs with a single simple not at war objective for everyone. Although I suppose there’s no reason you couldn’t add this on top of the existing NOs, if you wanted to explore how that might work.
To CWO Marc, I rather like that idea. Could make Iraq and Persia, Finland and the Balkans more interesting. There would also be a bit more pressure for Axis to spend time clearing the pro Allied territories to prevent them from stacking up. If you play on the physical board and use neutral infantry pieces (like I do with the Chinese pieces, since we usually play China under US control in my group) then this would be fairly easy. Just add 1 infantry per round. Pretty simple to implement.
That’s what I thought you meant. If it replaces the old NOs, then this is overall a marked disadvantage to the Axis (with the exception of Italy). The Axis potential +40 is really forty minus 15-that-you-would-already-have. Making the difference +25 Axis, +45 Allies.
On the other hand, if you don’t do that, then Germany gets +15 for no war with Russia and USA. While UK Atlantic is getting…. +5. Wait, +5 for peace with Japan? Why the heck is UK getting that bonus twice?
Whatever. Anyway, Italy is almost doubling their economy with +10.
So if Axis delay the war, you’re looking at +25 Axis vs +5 or +0 Allies for actionable units until Turn 4. The Allies are still getting their share of units, but they aren’t being used yet.
Then what does it that mean?
Hello to more frequent Sealions. If UK holds out, it probably isn’t in Africa.
Japan also probably takes advantage of the excess money to annihilate China and India… faster.
I’m sorry for not painting a rosier picture. I like the idea. This is just how I see it working out in the present 2 iterations.
Well the idea was to take all the “at war” related NOs and just streamline them into a single simple to remember rule with a straight forward easy to remember bonus. G40 is poorly balanced to begin with. I wouldn’t suggest this as the sole corrective for game balance, since clearly, if you want a game balanced by side, you’re going to have to tweak the board in more ways than this. I just find it annoying how for example, Russia has no incentive not to declare on Japan immediately, or how there is no mechanism to support neutrality in so many instances with various powers. Even if the decision to declare is still fairly obvious, at least this gives you something to consider, and something that holds for both sides along a neutrality pact, instead of so many 1 sided DoW bonuses. There are a bunch of silly NOs that seem to exist for no other reason than to give certain nations +5 here and there. I’d just as soon ditch all of them in favor of a single rule that handles neutrality across the board.
I think it might be novel if this included a nod to the pro - side neutrals too. But again, I don’t see this as necessarily a balance driver, more something I prefer for rules consistency with all powers.
When you get down to it, I just don’t think the DoW bonuses +5, belong in the National Objectives list. They cannot be contested the way other NOs can, and the way they are worded OOB, these objectives don’t seem to drive the gameplay in a very meaningful way. I would seperate them off from the other NOs and provide a universal rule that can be handled in a line or two, applying to everyone equally. Then replace the existing Neutrality/DoW NOs currently in G40 OOB, with some NOs that are more interesting as gameplay drivers.
My usual approach for Axis and Allies, going back to AA50 and now with G40, is to replace specific National Objectives, with universal or general Objectives that accomplish similar gameplay effects whenever possible, since I believe the latter are better for the game flow and easier to remember. Basically if you can replace half a dozen Nation Objectives, with a single General Objective (that applies the same way for all nations) that is ideal.
Thus far I have used this neutrality bonus idea, in conjunction with a VC bonus idea, and a few others to more less strip G40 of “national” objectives altogether. Then if you wanted to bring NOs back into play, to do something more streamlined, with just 1 or 2 high value NO per nation, on areas of the board where the gameplay/strategic interest would benefit from their inclusion.
Along these lines, for consistency and to provide additional income for Germany and Italy, it might make sense to include China in the neutrality rules. I gripe on China constantly, but in this case you’d have a potential +10 for both sides if G/I opt not to declare on it. Axis would have to decide if they want the extra in Europe, but only at the risk of a stronger China vs Japan. Which might have an interesting effect on balance. I’ll edit to the lead post to reflect this option.