Control of neutral nations?

[IainMcNeil]

We're having a debate here about how much control you shoudlhave of major neutral nations before they enter the war. One argument is to not allow control of anything but have the USSR and USA enter the war with pre-defined tech levels. Another argument is to let the player control their research and production pre war, so the players can decide on a strategy.

What are players thoughts on the issue and how they would like it to be handled?

[uxbridge]

I'm currently playing Strategic Command 2 where you can control the US and USSR pre-war production, and I think that works fine. As long as there no possibility to play, as an example USA, France and UK, seperately anyway, I for one can see no reason why the player can't be allowed to control the research and production to a certain degree. That is, of course, as long as the suggestion put forward on the forum earlier, of having a locked tech-development, is dropped.

On this level I think it's okay to sacrifice some realism for the sake of entertainment, and it's fun to have the option to plan ahead for the as yet non-commited countries.

[stalins_organ]

Yeah IMO SC2 does a reasonable job of this - pre-war production is usually low, since it is only a % of the total based upon how fully mobilised hte state is - ie what % score it has towards joining the war for one side or the other - eg USA initially is 25% to the allies, so only gets 25% of it's production - it can't actually do much for several turns.

[ancient]

I disagree. The player should not have any control over neutral countries before they enter the war.

[firepowerjohan]

Maybe we will put it as an option then (option to control Italy, USA, USSR production, research, deployment befroe they enter the war), to satisfy all the crowd

[uxbridge]

If this can easily be done, it's obviously the best solution.

[kyle]

I wouldn't mind either way.

My main question is: are players allowed to play as Italy, USSR, or USA during the game.

If you can't play as them then there's no need for discussion.

[fundin]

I wouldn't mind either way.

My main question is: are players allowed to play as Italy, USSR, or USA during the game.

If you can't play as them then there's no need for discussion.

Very true. I don't see why we should any influence over neutral countries really. Depends what you see this influence allowing imo

[firepowerjohan]

Some ppl would dislike if they cannot control any research or production with USA and especially USSR because they dont want to rely on Axis not having the right units/tech, they want to counter that themselves.

However. Other ppl might think that controlling USSR and USA takes away strategy because it makes Axis strategies countered too easily.

It depends on how much the game should simulate an ebb and flow also. If wanting drastic changes in 1942 then starting as USSR with minimal tech and masses of resources would be more like it than perhaps make them have a bit less resources and instead have the benefit of starting earlier with their production/research.

We are not planning allowing any unit movement for this option though. You cannot pull back your USSR frontlines near Poland.

[kyle]

playing as the USA in Axis And Allies the boardgame, and the computer version of it the USA didn't have to much control over the war, since it was so far away.

It would've taken forever to build up any kind of invasion army, let alone the needed transports to move it cross the atlantic.

[IainMcNeil]

Based on the feedback and our own opinions we've decided to try giving the player control of research and production before the war starts. This will allow the US and Soviet player to develop a strategy rather than be forced to use hsotircal research & production. We may also add in a historical option that does not allow player control, if there is enough demand for it.

[kyle]

will you be able to cross the atlantic, in a game? The game would drag on forever I would think?

[IainMcNeil]

I dont think I understand the question

Of course you can cross the Atlantic, or the US would be of limited use !

[dulak]

I'm used to and liked not being able to control better. Perhaps give the USA and Russia better tech and units depending on which date they enter in thou ...

See how it works out thou since you are going to try to put it in ...

[vveedd]

This issue depends on 2 factors:
1.How tech research will be handled? Does research will be pure luck or it will depend on some historical dates?
2.Shall neutral major powers will be enabling to trade tech with allies?

I am for Strategic Command 2 option but with one difference - you must not allow that neutral units (land, air and especially naval) can be moved. If you do, you will have lots of problems with blocking and sniffing tactics as SC2 has.

[IainMcNeil]

Tech will be semi randon. You'll research a tech area but not have direct control of how thing develop in that area.

We're not planning to let you move neutral units, so does that cover the 2nd concern?

[Redpossum]

Tech will be semi randon. You'll research a tech area but not have direct control of how thing develop in that area.

We're not planning to let you move neutral units, so does that cover the 2nd concern?

Will atomic weapons be in the game? Or will it be an abstract effect, where once one side has "The Bomb" the game ends?

[vveedd]

Tech will be semi randon. You'll research a tech area but not have direct control of how thing develop in that area.

Shall neutral major powers will be enabling to trade tech with allies?

We're not planning to let you move neutral units, so does that cover the 2nd concern?

Yes.Thx.