Jump to content

Kurt88's Forum on Unified Economic and Diplomatic Functions


JerseyJohn

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The whole Swiss role in WW II is bizarre and very interesting. Mussolini kept posturing throughout his tenure about how Southern France, Switzerland, the Tyrol, Yugoslavia, Albania and Greece should all properly be part of Italy. Along with, needless to say, Malta and Tunesia.

After the Allies reached Northern Italy Hitler leaked word that Germany intended to invade Switzerland, insuring that the Swiss would stay on their toes in case the Americans and British went that route.

Switzerland definitely figured early on in Germany's plans as their banker. And that's exactly how the Swiss were treated.

As mentioned earlier, they periodically diverted electric power to stricken German areas and when it became too blatant Allied bombers would lose their way and drop some odd bombs on Swiss territory. Which usually stopped the power diversion and other excessive Axis assistance for a time.

The Germans protested several times that while their own aircraft flying over Swiss air space were always forced down and interned, Allied planes were allowed to overfly without being challenged! The Swiss claim was they never caught Allied planes in time to force them down.

In other ways Swiss behavior was either strange, inconsistent, or just plain varied depending upon how one chooses to view it. They turned innumerable Jewish refugees away at their border, sending them back either to Vichy or German occupied areas, yet took in hundreds of Jewish children through other channels and treated them very kindly, protecting them till the end of the war.

Naturally, the behavior of their bankers was dispicable on several counts, and their government did cooperate with the Third Reich in various ways, giving in on the one hand to greed and on the other to coercion. But beyond that there were offsetting acts of humanity. It's difficult for me to form a consistent opinion on the role they played. Go-between -- Hitler's Banker -- sentry to hopeless refugees -- savior of innocent children (but how many children did they also turn away! . . .

As for their cooperation, one thing is certain, the moment Hitler no longer needed them they were a prime candidate for conquest.

The country also served as a common ground where Nazi and Allied officials met from time to time. One such group met daily throughout the war, along with a Japanese representitive, to set the price of gold!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole Swiss role in WW II is bizarre and very interesting. Mussolini kept posturing throughout his tenure about how Southern France, Switzerland, the Tyrol, Yugoslavia, Albania and Greece should all properly be part of Italy. Along with, needless to say, Malta and Tunesia.

After the Allies reached Northern Italy Hitler leaked word that Germany intended to invade Switzerland, insuring that the Swiss would stay on their toes in case the Americans and British went that route.

Switzerland definitely figured early on in Germany's plans as their banker. And that's exactly how the Swiss were treated.

As mentioned earlier, they periodically diverted electric power to stricken German areas and when it became too blatant Allied bombers would lose their way and drop some odd bombs on Swiss territory. Which usually stopped the power diversion and other excessive Axis assistance for a time.

The Germans protested several times that while their own aircraft flying over Swiss air space were always forced down and interned, Allied planes were allowed to overfly without being challenged! The Swiss claim was they never caught Allied planes in time to force them down.

In other ways Swiss behavior was either strange, inconsistent, or just plain varied depending upon how one chooses to view it. They turned innumerable Jewish refugees away at their border, sending them back either to Vichy or German occupied areas, yet took in hundreds of Jewish children through other channels and treated them very kindly, protecting them till the end of the war.

Naturally, the behavior of their bankers was dispicable on several counts, and their government did cooperate with the Third Reich in various ways, giving in on the one hand to greed and on the other to coercion. But beyond that there were offsetting acts of humanity. It's difficult for me to form a consistent opinion on the role they played. Go-between -- Hitler's Banker -- sentry to hopeless refugees -- savior of innocent children (but how many children did they also turn away! . . .

As for their cooperation, one thing is certain, the moment Hitler no longer needed them they were a prime candidate for conquest.

The country also served as a common ground where Nazi and Allied officials met from time to time. One such group met daily throughout the war, along with a Japanese representitive, to set the price of gold!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,I like your idea mentioned above.

I think we all agree that handling diplomacy each turn would become a drag.

Diplomacy should be vital in the beginning of the game to determine the starting positions and MPP-flow.As the game progresses slight alterations could be made to determine the events.

Maybe also towards the end of the game peace-resolutions can be a possibility according to certain rules.

The DP's spend in the first few opening terms would set the course for the game,triggering a certain 'rythem' in the events.

I think we're on the right track here.

Now we need to begin to focus on the numbers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,I like your idea mentioned above.

I think we all agree that handling diplomacy each turn would become a drag.

Diplomacy should be vital in the beginning of the game to determine the starting positions and MPP-flow.As the game progresses slight alterations could be made to determine the events.

Maybe also towards the end of the game peace-resolutions can be a possibility according to certain rules.

The DP's spend in the first few opening terms would set the course for the game,triggering a certain 'rythem' in the events.

I think we're on the right track here.

Now we need to begin to focus on the numbers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're talking! Kurt, you are just bursting with outstanding ideas. smile.gif

With regard to the earlier discussion of having to conduct diplomacy every turn. It was and is my understanding the mechanics would be exactly the same as the research procedure. DPs would be set on a target neutral and would automatically remain in effect till changed. The change also would be like research, DPs would be cashed in at half value, etc..

I don't see how anyone could have confused this topic with turn by turn micromanagement.

Instead of being judged on their own merits, these ideas are being condemned out of hand due to the failings of functions in other wargames, such as Axis and Allies, and games that are not particularly similar to this one. Why do new ideas have to start out with two strikes against them and someone adding "That didn't work in [name of game] so it won't work here!" providing the third strike. A little openmindedness would go a long way.

[ February 08, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're talking! Kurt, you are just bursting with outstanding ideas. smile.gif

With regard to the earlier discussion of having to conduct diplomacy every turn. It was and is my understanding the mechanics would be exactly the same as the research procedure. DPs would be set on a target neutral and would automatically remain in effect till changed. The change also would be like research, DPs would be cashed in at half value, etc..

I don't see how anyone could have confused this topic with turn by turn micromanagement.

Instead of being judged on their own merits, these ideas are being condemned out of hand due to the failings of functions in other wargames, such as Axis and Allies, and games that are not particularly similar to this one. Why do new ideas have to start out with two strikes against them and someone adding "That didn't work in [name of game] so it won't work here!" providing the third strike. A little openmindedness would go a long way.

[ February 08, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JerseyJohn ,I think you just found the key:DP's handled in the same manner as MPP's.They could be allocated and re-allocated (give me back half my diplomat!) at any moment during the game.

It would keep the system simple and open up a lot of options for the players to toy with:going for Sweden's ore first or trying to win over Turkey to get that extra port in the Med. sea at the cost of losing other possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JerseyJohn ,I think you just found the key:DP's handled in the same manner as MPP's.They could be allocated and re-allocated (give me back half my diplomat!) at any moment during the game.

It would keep the system simple and open up a lot of options for the players to toy with:going for Sweden's ore first or trying to win over Turkey to get that extra port in the Med. sea at the cost of losing other possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka,I think they would cancel each other out (a Russian lvl 1 tank is as good as a German lvl 1 tank).Ofcourse this could be a dead end street.So maybe it would be good to activate some kinda event for that country when this occurs two or three times.Only trouble is what would determine the outcome of this event,what would be the deciding elements.In the case of the tanks its experience and Hq's that make the difference.Maybe we should think along these lines.But other suggestions would be most welcome cos again your remarks are very relevant.

In my case,a girfriend patch would be very handy to be close to her after being close to SC ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka,I think they would cancel each other out (a Russian lvl 1 tank is as good as a German lvl 1 tank).Ofcourse this could be a dead end street.So maybe it would be good to activate some kinda event for that country when this occurs two or three times.Only trouble is what would determine the outcome of this event,what would be the deciding elements.In the case of the tanks its experience and Hq's that make the difference.Maybe we should think along these lines.But other suggestions would be most welcome cos again your remarks are very relevant.

In my case,a girfriend patch would be very handy to be close to her after being close to SC ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka, Kurt . . .

This is my evaluation of each neutral's situation.

If a country were totally unbiased and equal DPs from each side were invested in it, my guess is they would cancel each other out.

In the case of Hungary, Romania, Finland and Italy Allied DPs from either side would be wasted as those countries will support the Axis and enter when given conditions emerge. The Axis might conceivably invest in them to accelerate the process but I'm not even sure that ought to affect things; probably they should just be constants.

Iraq should be the opposite, heavily supporting the Allies at the start and should automatically join the allies with the Fall of France. This would assume a palace revolt put down with the aid of a small number of British troops. Britain didn't have to invade the country so why require it here?

Bulgaria ought to be heavily weighted toward the Axis, should give some support and perhaps a large number of Allied DPs might keep it from actually joining. Though an equal number of Axis DPs here would outweigh the Allied DPs. Plus, when Hungary and Yugoslavia join the Axis it should boost even further the Axis influence in the country.

The Lowlands, Norway and to a lesser degree, Portugal and Ireland ought to be the opposite of Bulgaria, heavily supporting the Allies and prone to join the UK. Axis DPPs invested in these countries should have little chance of achieving positive results and would be outweighed by an equal number of Allied DPPs.

Denmark should be heavily tied economically to the UK without an option to join either side.

Sweden should be the opposite of Denmark; heavily tied economically to Germany but with no option of joining the Axis.

Spain should be equally drawn, economically, to both the UK and Germany. She should be capable of joining either side but heavily affected by other events. For example, if the Axis captures either London or Alexadria or MOSCOW she should shift toward Germany. If the Allies don't lose any of those cities and take both Tobruk and Tripoli it should greatly reduce it's faith in the Axis with the loss of Sicily and other parts of Italy reducing it to the lowest without putting her into the Allied camp.

The United States and USSR should probably be exempt from DPP influences; their conditions are already built into the game. However, USSR MPP contributtions to Germany decrease as she moves nearer to preventive war while the US MPP contribution to the UK [subject to U-boat attack] increases with it's own War readiness.

Yugoslavia and Greece should be treated as a pair. If one is invaded by the Axis the other should either join it or coup drastically in it's favor (the historical situation). If neither is attacked, they should move slowly toward Axis allignment after Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria join the Axis. Like Spain, their Axis leanings should be reduced considerably if the Allies capture Sicily or any other part of Italy, including Albania. To add an element of unpredicatlity, there might be a random chance that Italy will declare war on one or the other if they aren't already in the Axis.

Turkey should be slightly pro-Axis untill the entire Caucasus and Crimea falls to Germany , at which point her Axis leanings rise drastically.

The Baltic States should be thoroughly neutral but a very poor DPP investment in light of Soviet intentions.

Switzerland should be heavily weighted economically to the Axis but with no chance of joining either side and a dead end for DPP investment.

Related to the Iraq situation, there should be a one time chance of the UK taking Syria from Vichy France without an invasion or Vichy entering the war. If it fails, Syria remains Vichy as in the game and the UK's next attempt, through an actual game invasion, results immediately in Vichy joining the Axis.

[ February 09, 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka, Kurt . . .

This is my evaluation of each neutral's situation.

If a country were totally unbiased and equal DPs from each side were invested in it, my guess is they would cancel each other out.

In the case of Hungary, Romania, Finland and Italy Allied DPs from either side would be wasted as those countries will support the Axis and enter when given conditions emerge. The Axis might conceivably invest in them to accelerate the process but I'm not even sure that ought to affect things; probably they should just be constants.

Iraq should be the opposite, heavily supporting the Allies at the start and should automatically join the allies with the Fall of France. This would assume a palace revolt put down with the aid of a small number of British troops. Britain didn't have to invade the country so why require it here?

Bulgaria ought to be heavily weighted toward the Axis, should give some support and perhaps a large number of Allied DPs might keep it from actually joining. Though an equal number of Axis DPs here would outweigh the Allied DPs. Plus, when Hungary and Yugoslavia join the Axis it should boost even further the Axis influence in the country.

The Lowlands, Norway and to a lesser degree, Portugal and Ireland ought to be the opposite of Bulgaria, heavily supporting the Allies and prone to join the UK. Axis DPPs invested in these countries should have little chance of achieving positive results and would be outweighed by an equal number of Allied DPPs.

Denmark should be heavily tied economically to the UK without an option to join either side.

Sweden should be the opposite of Denmark; heavily tied economically to Germany but with no option of joining the Axis.

Spain should be equally drawn, economically, to both the UK and Germany. She should be capable of joining either side but heavily affected by other events. For example, if the Axis captures either London or Alexadria or MOSCOW she should shift toward Germany. If the Allies don't lose any of those cities and take both Tobruk and Tripoli it should greatly reduce it's faith in the Axis with the loss of Sicily and other parts of Italy reducing it to the lowest without putting her into the Allied camp.

The United States and USSR should probably be exempt from DPP influences; their conditions are already built into the game. However, USSR MPP contributtions to Germany decrease as she moves nearer to preventive war while the US MPP contribution to the UK [subject to U-boat attack] increases with it's own War readiness.

Yugoslavia and Greece should be treated as a pair. If one is invaded by the Axis the other should either join it or coup drastically in it's favor (the historical situation). If neither is attacked, they should move slowly toward Axis allignment after Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria join the Axis. Like Spain, their Axis leanings should be reduced considerably if the Allies capture Sicily or any other part of Italy, including Albania. To add an element of unpredicatlity, there might be a random chance that Italy will declare war on one or the other if they aren't already in the Axis.

Turkey should be slightly pro-Axis untill the entire Caucasus and Crimea falls to Germany , at which point her Axis leanings rise drastically.

The Baltic States should be thoroughly neutral but a very poor DPP investment in light of Soviet intentions.

Switzerland should be heavily weighted economically to the Axis but with no chance of joining either side and a dead end for DPP investment.

Related to the Iraq situation, there should be a one time chance of the UK taking Syria from Vichy France without an invasion or Vichy entering the war. If it fails, Syria remains Vichy as in the game and the UK's next attempt, through an actual game invasion, results immediately in Vichy joining the Axis.

[ February 09, 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post JerseyJohn.

One little remark:Allied DP's spent on Axis-oriented nations like Romania etc. shouldn't go to waste IMO.I think they should be able to slow down war entry for these countries.In gameplay terms this could lead to a 'frustrated ai'(does such a thing exists?) invading them and undergoing a penalty.

Otherwise I totally agree smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post JerseyJohn.

One little remark:Allied DP's spent on Axis-oriented nations like Romania etc. shouldn't go to waste IMO.I think they should be able to slow down war entry for these countries.In gameplay terms this could lead to a 'frustrated ai'(does such a thing exists?) invading them and undergoing a penalty.

Otherwise I totally agree smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurt

Thanks for the good word.

An interesting finese I hadn't considered. Yes, by all means that possibility should exist. A human Axis player, unless extremely impatient, should be willing to wait the extra few turns.

No doubt the same principle applies elsewhere. Great point and glad you caught it. smile.gif

[ February 09, 2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...