Not a bad idea. I don’t play much Anniversary Edition but this makes me want to bust it out.
New diplomacy rules (Finished!)
-
Hello everyone! I’m new here and this is the first post from me.
In my opinion the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated. It’s not possible to decide who do you want to allie with. For example why do you have to attack Poland as Germany in many 1939 scenarios? Wouldn’t it be better to try to gain it as allie?Now you might think that is completely unhistorical and poor little democratic Poland could have never joined evil nazi Germany. But in reality, Poland was authoritarian dictatorship which government wasn’t that different from many Axis nations in real life. So it is very plausible that it would have joined the Tripartite pact against communist threat from east.
But now back to the topic. First we have to remember that there were three factions in WWII, Axis, Allies and communists. Nobody could have assumed in 1939 that USSR could be part of Allies in 1941. Then we have to remember that Axis powers and USSR were aggressive war-mongerers that threatened their neighbours with invasions. Democratic Allies didn’t have this kind of power. Threat has two kinds of effects, either it makes the minor nation closer to major power that uses it because it does not want to get invaded (Baltic countries - USSR) or it makes them to gain security by allying with its enemies ( Poland - Germany).
Another factor we have to remember is there were basicly three kinds of government types: democracies, right-wing dictatorships and communist ones. This affects joining one side. For example I doubt democratic Belgium would join facist Germany. Yugoslavia, in the other hand, was a dictatorship. Dictatorships had no problem joining either Allies ( Brazil, Portugal…) or Axis (Romania, Hungary…) Communist states could only join USSR unless it would have attacked that particular nation. Then it would join Allies. I don’t see communist states joining Axis as it was very anti-communist faction.
Last thing to remember is that states forget the differences between their systems when they are both at war with the same power (see UK and USSR). So democratic Finland (my home country :)) attacked by USSR can join Axis when it also is at war with the Soviets.
The hardest part is thinking how to create a new system using this statements. I have been working on this last days and haven’t really came up with anything so I would like to hear if you have any thoughts. I would really appreciate them.
-
For starters, I dont see any official A&A games with a 1939 start, so that must be either some variants or the HBG game. In case you talk about the HBG game, I agree that rules are not very brilliant. Anyway, I figure there could be a mainstream rule that would be in effect no matter when the game start. People and national leaders did not act very different in 1942 from what they would have done in 1939. The general pattern seems to be, that the leaders of Great Powers will do what benefits them the most, like Chamberlain had some kind of collusion with the nazi leaders, while Churchill was in fact an allied with the commies. Both Chamberlain and Churchill were capitalists, but had no problems cooperating with other ideologies if they could benefit from it. To the minor neutral nations, the pattern seems to be, they would stay out of the war as long as possible, but if they had to choose, they would obey the strongest power, not a weak and losing one.
Another pattern is, that when a major power attacked and occupied part of a minor neutral nation, then that minor nation was likely to join the other side. Like when Russia captured Viborg, then Finland would become anti-Russian and join the first major power that was going to do something against Russia. Finlands first choice of allies would be Sweden or UK and France, but since that was impossible, it had to be Germany. When Germany lost, then Finland had to switch side and obey the strongest. Same with Romania, they had a pact with France, UK, Poland, Greece and Turkey in 1938, but when Russia captured Bessarabia, and UK and France could not protect them, then Romania had to join Germany. Later, when Germany was losing, then Romania had to join Russia. The OOB A&A rule for true neutrals are of course insane. There are no way that true neutral Sweden would have declared war on Germany if true neutral Angola or Bolivia had been attacked by Italy in the real world. As we know today, neutral Sweden did not go to war against Russia or Germany even when Finland, Norway and Denmark were attacked, so why should they go to war if some African or South American country was attacked ? That lame rule is designed to make the game scripted, and a bit for game balance too.
Then you talk about Yugoslavia. That is tricky. The ruler of Yugoslavia did sign the Berlin Pact in spring 1941, but then there was a coup, a new leader would grab the power, and suddenly Germany had to attack and occupy Yugoslavia. How do you model that in a simple game like A&A ? I know Eagle Games had a game named ATTACK !! some years ago, with diplomatic options like you could assasinate the leader of other nations, or make coups, and turn democratic countries into commies or fascists, and I think that serious hex and counter games has that too, like World in Flames, but it will complicate the game and it is impossible to find any casual player that want to play that game. If you want to play face to face with other people, you will have to play a simple game, like A&A 1942, or Risk, or Chess, or the Finnish game Star of Africa, which btw is one of my favorites when I was a kid.
-
I agree what you stated (also about the Star of Africa game, its awesome. There is also South America version out there.).
If you know a game called Unconditial Surrender, there is a quite interesting diplomacy system which kinda makes sense (search for rules pdf with google). Germany can place pro-axis marker to any country adjacent to country it just fully invaded. If there is already pro-Axis marker, that state will join Axis. Or if there is pro-Allies or pro-Soviet marker, that is taken away. In that game that rule only applies to Axis but couldn’t it also to Soviets since they are also aggressive power? If it applies to Allies it would force them to invade neutrals which is not that historical (yes, I remember the case of Iraq and Persia but invading them didn’t make Turkey or Saudi-Arabia leaning more to Allies.) This system would encourage Axis and USSR to attack neutral states and not just using diplomacy all the time.
In that game players take chits from a cup but to Axis and Allies it could be modified to using dice.
-
But then, I feel that saying that some nations are pro-Axis or pro-Allied just doesn’t sound right. Wouldn’t pro-Axis nation just join Axis? In the other hand, maybe pro-Allies or pro-Axis means the same as non-belligerent. For example the U.S. was pro-Allied non-belligerent in the years 1939-1941 and helped Allied war effort.
Let’s take a real life example using those rules. In 1940, Germany invaded Norway. As a result, Germany can put a pro-Axis marker to one of Norway’s neighbours. Germany decides to put it in Sweden and Sweden becomes Axis non-belligerent. Sweden lets Germany move its troops through Sweden and cuts down trade with Germany’s enemies. This kinda happened in real life too.
What if Germany puts that marker in Finland? Well, I think Finland would join straight to Axis since it wants protection against USSR. When Winter War started, Finland would join the enemy of the Soviets so it becomes pro-Allied/Axis. But neither of these could help my fatherland. And then when Germany finally puts that marker on Finland, it automatically joins Axis, since it was already both pro-Axis/Allied.
I think this sounds right, but what do you guys think?
-
Make all Pro and Strict Neutrals have there own armies based on History in 39 if at all possible. You want that territory attack it. You lose battle then you have to re attack it.
Also if you want to, add a political rule where both sides ( make a chart based on history were certain countries can only influence certain neutrals ) and can make 1 attempt per turn to influence a neutral to your side by rolling 1 die ( d6,8,10,12,16,or a 20 ) and roll a certain number you get neutral with a decent cost to your country. You could include even after you attacked a neutral and lost you still can try to influence it.
Example.
Germany wants to influence Norway. I have also in my game were some neutrals have resources worth extra money. Sweden iron ore, Finland copper. Roll 1 D12 or what ever you want to use. If you roll a 2 or less for D12 ( what ever you want to make it easy for to get ) you get that Neutral and have to pay like 10-15 icps can adjust this amount lower if need be for that territory and to collect icps. But the neutrals armies and navy are removed and you dont get them. So either way you need to attack or pay but dont receive a free army. -
Here are final rules for diplomacy:
Player plays a number of IPCs (varies about the game that is played) and rolls a d6 die. The amount of ICPs should not be too low since then players just use their money to diplomacy. This reflects that winning powers get new allies easier than losing which have no extra IPCs to spend
If the rolled number is one or two, the player can put a pro-faction (non-belligerent*) marker, take away pro-faction marker of enemy or activate a country (which already has own pro-faction marker) that is adjacent to the territory of the major power. The state which the player wants to sway to his faction must have appropriate political system compared to the faction (Axis = dictatorships, Western Allies = democracies and dictatorships, Communists = communist system)
*a state which is leaning to a faction but still stays neutral. It has stopped trading with states that are at war with the faction it is leaning to. Troops of the faction can pass the territory of the minor state.
If the rolled number is three, it means a state wants to join the player’s faction without it actually trying to sway it in. The state which is voluntarily joining must have appropriate political system compared to the faction. The state is determined by a dice roll.
If the rolled number is 4 or more, nothing happens
When a minor state is attacked by a major power, the situation at the game must be analyzed. If there isn’t a war going on between the major power that attacked and some other major power, the minor country becomes pro-enemy faction of the attacker/other enemy faction of the attacker. These two markers stay on the minor country until one of them declares war on the attacker. If a major power that is already at war with other major power attacks a neutral minor country, that minor country joins the other side. Political systems does not matter.
Example 1: In 1939, Germany (Axis) attacks Poland, and Allies declare war on Germany. Poland becomes automatically part of Allies since they are both at war with major power (Germany).
Example 2: In 1939, Germany (Axis) attacks Poland and Allies do not declare war on Germany. Poland becomes pro-Allied/Soviet. Allied and Soviet players conduct Poland’s moves (one unit by Allied, next by Soviet, next by Allied, etc) and purchases together. Poland joins a faction only if a major power declares war on Germany. For example Soviets cannot sway Poland into its faction unless it declares war on Germany. Later Poland becomes only pro-Allies since Soviets attack Poland too. If Poland still has survived to a moment, when Allies declare war on Axis and/or Soviets, Poland joins Allies.
Aggressive powers Axis and Soviets have a threat effect which encourages them to invade neutrals. Every time one of them has invaded a minor completely, it can put a pro-faction (non-belligerent) marker, take away pro-faction marker of enemy or activate a country (which already has own pro-faction marker) that is adjacent to the country that was just invaded. Political system does not matter.
This rules are mix between rules of Unconditional Surrender, HGB’s Global War 1936 and my own thinking.
In case you do not know which minor states had which system:
Mongolia, Tannu Tuva and Communist China were communist states
Democracies were all Nordic countries, Benelux countries, Czechoslovakia and Switzerland (which is not possible to sway into any faction).
All the rest were dictatorships.
-
Coup rules:
A player plays as many IPCs as he wants but cannot pay more than 50 % of the highest number on a die/dice (for example: d12 = 6, 3 d6 = 9) that is/are selected. Then the national popularity for the ideology of the faction that tries the coup has to be checked with a die/dice roll. If the number is less the amount of IPCs paid, coup has succeeded. If it is more than 50 % of the highest number of the die/dice, a civil war starts. If the number is for example 60 %, 40 % of the armed forces of the country fight for the side of the coup.
Normal diplomacy rules apply.
-
I’m a bit late coming to this discussion thread, and my comments will just relate to one point from your original post, in which you were commenting that “the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated.” I quite agree that the game’s division of non-player countries into three types of neutrals (pro-Allied, pro-Axis and strict) and its two types of rules for neutrals (one for the pro-type neutrals and one for the strict neutrals) is problematic in several ways, particularly the rule which says that every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y. A point that should be kept in mind, however, is the reason why those rules exist. The reason for the existance of the rules makes a certain amount of historic sense, even though the actual mechanism of the rules is arguable
I don’t think the rules actually state the rationale explicitly, but it seems clear – based on an examination of which countries have which type of neutral status – that the neutrals rules are meant to strongly encourage (one notch below “force”) the players to replicate some of the historical events of WWII which occured after the game’s 1940 start date. These situations include certain countries fighting alongside the Axis powers as co-belligerents (examples: Finland and Iraq) and certain countries being pitched into the Allied side either because they were invaded by the Axis (examples: Yugoslavia and Greece) or because they were preemptively invaded by the Allies over concerns that their current government was too sympathetic to the Axis (example: Persia / Iran). As for the very unrealistic “every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y” rule, it’s basically a blunt instrument aimed at keeping all the player powers out of the states that managed to stay neutral in WWII. And to reinforce the message, the neutral states are given different-sized “keep out” signs (the size of their standing armies) to underline which ones the players are particularly discouraged from invading. Turkey, with its standing army of 8, comes at the top of the list – nor surprisingly, because Turkey offers a potential link-up between the war in North Africa and the war in Southern Europe and the USSR.
Suggested Topics
