Edwin P.

If you want to add an Artillery Bonus (ie a +1 Soft Defense Bonus from Ground Laying Radar (I would require Tech Level 2 for this +1 SD bonus) as suggested by Shaka) then Have it benefit only Army Units that are controlled by a HQ Unit. Corps and Armor would not benefit from it nor would Army units that are not controlled by a HQ unit. [ March 29, 2004, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I think that all countries with the right resources should be able to research atomic but that realistically speaking only the US and Germany will be able to afford it, the US more so. What are the right resources - access to heavy water. I would assume that the US automatically has it and that the only source in Europe is the mine resource hex in Norway. So, any European power that wants to start researching atomic weapons must occupy this hex and control Oslo. No Heavy Water = No Atomic Research. This will effectively limited Atomic research in Europe to Germany, but still allow the UK or USSR or even Italy to pursue it if they control Norway, a most unlikely occurance. It also gives the Allies a way to stop Germany's research program. I also agree with Shaka's comment that Building an Atomic bomb should be linked to development's in Long Range. No Long Range Tech Lvl X (4 or 5) = Can't Build the Bomb, even though you have researched it. [ March 28, 2004, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Recognizing that everyone is looking at WWII in hindsight with perfect 20/20 vision I also hope that SC2 will incorporate a chance for several historically possible scenarios at Expert Level AI that could derail the prefectly laid plans of those who think that they know exactly what how nations will respond to their acts of agression; For example - At Expert Level AI: 1. If Axis attacks Spain then 5% that Turkish government decides to join the Allies (this 1 in 20 games event makes it most unexpected and most interesting) 2. If France surrenders then 5% (1 in 20 games) that Neutral Turkey conquers (ie Annexes) Vichy Syria and Iraq. (effectively derailing any Axis or Allied plans to conquer seize Iraq) 3. If UK attacks Ireland before 1941 then 5% Sweden joins Axis. (now there is a cost to attacking Ireland) 4. If UK attacks Low Countries and Ireland before 1941 then 20% (1 in 5 games) that Sweden joins the Axis. 5. If Axis attacks Switzerland or Sweden 25% (1 in 4 games) that neutral Spain and neutral Turkey sign a mutual defense treaty - announced via a pop-up windows. An attack on any one of them is an attack on both of them. (Strong disincentive for any Axis or Allied attack on Switzerland or Sweden). 5a. 50% If Event 5 Occurs and Axis controls Algeria then Spain demands French Algeria else it will join the Allies. Axis can accept or reject Spanish demands. IF Axis accepts then Neutral Spain annexes Algeria. If Axis rejects then 50% Spain joins the Allies. 5b. 50% If Event 5 Occurs and Axis controls Egypt then Turkey demands Syria and Iraq else it will join the Allies. Axis can accept or reject Turkish demands. If Axis agrees then 25% that Turkey makes another demand (they perceive the Axis as weak and ask for more) for control of Egypt which the Axis can accept or reject. If the Axis rejects then 50% Turkey join the Allies. While events 5a and 5b can make any Axis attack on Switzerland very costly they also add a simple yet highly effective diplomatic aspect to the game as the Axis player is forced to make a choice between meeting or refusing the demands of these neutral countries. 6. If Axis Attacks Hungary (ie if they attack Spain too early and seek to conquer Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania) then 10% that Neutral Bulgaria joins Turkey. This unexpected event makes the game interesting without unbalancing it. 6a. If Event 6 occurs then 50% that Turkey will also annex an ungarrisoned Vichy Syria. (10% x 50% = 5%) 6b. If Event 6 occurs then 50% that Turkey will conquer a neutral Iraq. (10% x 50% = 5%) 6c. If Event 6 Occurs then Turkey demands return of Albania from Italy. It Italy accepts then Turkish borders expands to include Albania (a fellow Muslim country). If Italy rejects this demand there is a 25% that Turkey joins the allies some time after Germany DOWs Russia. (ie 5% per turn after German DOW Russia until Axis takes Moscow or Stalingrad or Rostov). Thus, if the Axis rejects the Turkish demand they can not be sure of the Turkish reaction until they have conquered one of these key Russian cities. [ March 28, 2004, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Example - Defense of France 1. Standard Strategy 2. Disband the Navy and Build Lots of Corps 3. Disband the Navy and Air and Build Lots of Corps 4. Move the French Navy to the Baltic to Sink the German Navy 5. Operate Troops to Brest and Sail them to Manchester. 6. Full Press French Defence - Disband French Navy and & Air, Move UK Canadian Troops to France. Build UK Troops and Send to France, etc

As for the AI I am hoping to see SC2 AI incorporate some of the classic human strategies; Example: Axis DOW Denmark on Turn 1 and attacks with its 2 surface ships. I don't see any reason for the Axis AI not to attack Denmark on Turn 1. Every player does so and the Allies can't respond to it. The attack gives Axis ships valuable experience and paves the way for plunder and income. Moreover, any plunder gaineed would be most helpful in the campaign against France. Example: AI moves French Corps in Beruit to Egypt after Italy enters the war. This simple move prevents the loss of a corps due to a Frence Surrender and makes taking Cairo more difficult for the Axis. If anyone can tell me why the Allied AI should not do this I would appreciate it as I do not see any downside to it.

There are three Axis AI improvements I am looking for in SC2 1. Better Strategic War for the Axis - ie Axis will take the Nordic Countries, Axis will invade the UK if it is left undefended and UK Navy is elsewhere, Axis will fight for the Med - ie Take Greece, Take Vichy, Take Egypt and then Iraq if the UK leaves this area weakly defended, Italian Units will better Defend Italy 2. Axis will concentrate AirFleets on one front and use HQs better (ie no longer will I be able to isolate 4 or 5 HQs in South Eastern Europe) 3. Axis will not waste MPPS on needless operation of units back and forth with the increased resources from the Nordic countries will sometimes finance a more vigorous research program. Oh yes, and the Axis and Allies will reclaim Tech chits to booster their defense in the End Game. [ March 26, 2004, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

As for attacking Turkey as Axis - Take the Straits -by defeating the 3 defending units then you can sell transports through it to the beaches of Southern Russia. How long will it take you to take the straits against the AI - 3 Turns if you have Greece and use 1 corps top block the eastern side of the straits.

Good idea, a light tank unit and a heavy tank unit. Note that a good heavy tank - ie German Tiger - was almost unstoppable by a light tank as the light tank's shells would literally bounce off of its armor whereas the heavy tank's shell easily penetrated that of the light tank. Another great idea. -- Logistics: so HQ readiness bonus can effect more than than 5 units. -- SynFuels: to increase production of resource hexes. -- Intelligence -- CounterIntelligence (counters effect of intelligence tech) [ March 26, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Taking Greece is always easy becauase you know where the Greek armies will be placed and the Greeks never move their armies close to Athens (nor can they as they are out of supply), even if the Axis have attacked every other nation, they are always on the Frontier with Italy and Yugoslavia. It would be more interesting if the game varied the starting positions of the Greek army units from game to game, possibly based on on which nations the Axis has previously attacked. Example: If Axis attacked Vichy and Spain then 30% one army is withdrawn from the border to protect Athens or both Armies are withdrawn to Athens and the Corps sent to guard the Border with Yugoslavia and Albania. Example: If Turkey Allies with Germany then 90% All Greek Armies are withdrawn to protect Athens and Greece mobilizes an extra half strength corps. [ March 24, 2004, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I don't think it will be a race to manufacture an A-bomb. Why? First, you have to research it, this will probably require A-Bomb Tech Level 5 and Heavy bomber Tech Level 3. That's a lot of resources to be diverted from fielding conventional armies and air fleets. Second, you need a source of Heavy Water. The US has it and the only country in Europe with a source of Heavy water is Norway, so make control of the Norwegian Resource hex and a port at Oslo or Bergan a requirement for Germany or the UK or Russia building an A-Bomb. Third, the actual construction of the bomb will probably cost at least 600MPP for an A-Bomb Capable Bomber Unit. That's one turn without building new units or reinforcing any damaged units. One turn in which you can loose the war, especially if the detonation of the A-bomb does not cause the enemy to surrender or withdraw from the fighting. (Of course the chances for a major power surrendering/withdrawing from war should dramatically increase with a second A-bomb being dropped on the same nation). [ March 23, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

The blast radius of the first A-Bomb was well under 1 mile. Most of the damage was from the ensuing firestorm. As each land hex in SC is about 50 across the area of effect should be limited to 1 hex and the destruction that it causes should be the total and permanent destruction of any city or resource within that hex, perhaps along with a chance that the targeted nation surrenders or withdraws from the war. For example - if used upon London it might cause the UK to withdraw from the war (leaving only the US and the USSR to continue the fight) or to surrender, with a return to neutrality being a more likely and a better game balancing choice (as the victor would not receive the benefit of plunder or additional production). Of course, a nation that withdraws from the war would continue to accumulate MPPs as insurance against a future attack. [ March 23, 2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Back to the basics; Idea 1 - Atomic Bomb Tech - But make it very hard to achieve it - no benefit unless you reach Atomic Bomb Tech Level 5 and Bomber Tech Level 3 and Industrial Tech Level 3. Idea 2 - Long Range Tech gives Bombers 3x the range bonus, Fighters 1x the range bonus Idea 3 - Subs with Rockets - but make it require Tech Level 5 Subs and Tech Level 3 Rockets, thus it is possible but highly improbable. [ March 22, 2004, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Kelly's Heroes Interesting Idea, Perhaps you could say that the benefit to Heavy Bomber's of Long Range Tech is 3x normal, excluding the effect for spotting. This would mean that at Long Range Tech Level 5 - the attack range of Bombers would be increased by 15 hexes, while the attack range of Fighters would only increase by 5. The spotting range of Bombers would not be affected. This would be justified by the bomber's ability to carry a heavy payload, ie more fuel. It would also increase the value of bombers by giving them a wider range of targets to attack and more closely simulate the long-distance bombing raids made during WWII. [ March 22, 2004, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

An A-Bomb Tech Option in SC2? [ March 22, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn and SeaMonkey I agree with your comments on naval warfare. A ship is hit at sea and it sinks, you can't run away and hide in a foxhole. During the Falklands War Argentina lost a battleship - the Belgrano - to a single British torpedo and 368 men died. (Note: one web site says 323, another says 368) As for a "cruiser can be hammered to death by an ennemy fleet even with 2 dreadnought and a CV just adjacent" that is realistic. A ship if caught alone at sea cannot be easily reinforced, especially if the reinforcing units are 50 miles away. When you engage in a ship to ship battle you engage one part of the fleet, and it takes a period of time for the other parts of the fleet to respond. All in all, I like the Naval system in SC. [ March 21, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

NIght, Excellent Idea

And don't forget Rhodesia.

Does anyone know if the Axis AI will invade Norway and possibly Sweden in SC2? If so, will it alternate between attacking Norway first and Sweden first? Will it consider attacking Denmark on Turn 1? It seems to me that the Axis AI is always behind in MPP production (as compared to human Axis players) as it never attempts to conquer the Nordic countries, a standard human strategy. With the plunder and extra production from the Nordic countries the Axis AI would make a much more formidable opponent against a human player. Randomly determining which Nordic country the Axis invades first would prevent the human allied player from relying on a single perfect counter strategy (i.e. focusng its naval forces on guarding Oslo). [ March 20, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I agree Jersey John, But I still think that the Turks under Aratuk(?) would have considered invading Iraq if they could have been assured of no serious opposition. "If they wanted to make an agreement fine, but Turkey would have needed to conquer the place -- the only agreement would have been that the UK would permit it without intervention." IF Turkey had its own AI this is how I would handle it, but since it does not, allowing them to Annex Iraq, achieves the same thing with a lot less programming - or perhaps Turkey would only annex the Iraqi hexes Baghdad and north of it. I also agree that countries are most reluctant to give up territory or relinquish control over territory, unless they have no choice. France attempted to hold onto Vietnam after WWII and only gave it up after a serious military loss and the UK delayed for a long time giving independence to India. But as you said, Iraq and Egypy were not really territories of the UK they were independent nations (ruled by a Puppet government). As for Vichy France, what could they do. Their army was decimated and the locals in Syria were not particularly enthused about being part of France (except for the Lebanese Christians).

------------------------------------------------- http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/ottoman2.html In the last decades of Ottoman rule, changes in administrative boundaries once more split Ottoman Iraq into three parts. For most of this period, both Basra (together with the subprovince [sanjak] of Al-Hasa) and Mosul (and its dependent sanjaks of Kirkuk and As-Sulaymaniyah) were vilayets independent of the central province of Baghdad. In spite of the European commercial and consular presence in Iraq, it remained more isolated from European influences than the Arab lands adjacent to the Mediterranean. Iraq had relatively few Christians, and those few had had little exposure to foreign ideas. The prosperous Jewish community usually avoided politics but tended to be favourably disposed toward the Ottoman government. The tribal sheikhs and Shi'ite notables still couched their opposition in traditional terms, and many Turkish and Caucasian families enjoyed official status and other rewards as provincial administrators. Finally, a great majority of the population was illiterate. Thus it is hardly surprising that Arab nationalism had made little impact upon Iraq before World War I. In Syria, Arab nationalist and separatist organizations appeared after the Young Turk Revolution of 1908. In Iraq, however, there was scant nationalist opposition to Ottoman rule, although some Iraqi Arab officers in the Ottoman army joined the secret Al-'Ahd society, which is reported to have advocated independence for the sultan's Arab provinces. It was the British, whose interests in the Persian Gulf and the Tigris-Euphrates region had grown steadily since the late 18th century, who ultimately brought an end to the Ottoman presence in Iraq. In the years just before World War I, the close ties between the governments of the kaiser in Berlin and the Young Turks in Istanbul were particularly troublesome to Great Britain. When Germany was awarded a concession to extend its railway line through Anatolia to Baghdad and acquired mineral rights to the land on both sides of the proposed route, heightened fear of German competition in Iraq and the Persian Gulf evoked strong protests from London. Soon afterward, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company began production on the Iranian side of the gulf, and there were indications that oil might be found elsewhere in the area. In 1912 a group representing British, German, and Dutch interests formed the Turkish Petroleum Company which, on the eve of the war, was given a concession to explore for oil in the vilayets of Mosul and Baghdad. In view of these developments and because they feared that the Ottomans might be persuaded by the Germans to undertake military action against them, the British had already made plans to send an expedition from India to protect their interests in the Persian Gulf before the Ottoman Empire entered the war in early November 1914. After war was declared, a British expeditionary force landed at the head of the gulf and on Nov. 22, 1914, entered Basra. In a campaign aimed at taking Baghdad, the British suffered a defeat at Kut al-'Amarah in April 1916, but a reinforced British army marched into Baghdad on March 11, 1917. An administration staffed largely by British and Indian officials replaced the Ottoman provincial government in occupied Iraq, but Mosul remained in Ottoman hands until after the Armistice of Mudros (Oct. 30, 1918), which brought an end to the war in the Middle East. ----------------------------------------------- http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/ww2.html General Nuri, author of the 1930 treaty, was prime minister when World War II broke out. Believing that the Anglo-Iraqi alliance was the best guarantee for Iraqi security, he wanted to declare war on Germany, but his ministers counseled caution, as British victory was then in doubt. General Nuri accordingly declared Iraq nonbelligerent and severed diplomatic relations with Germany. When Italy entered the war, however, Nuri, then minister of foreign affairs in Rashid 'Ali al-Gaylani's Cabinet, was unable to persuade the Cabinet to break off diplomatic relations with Italy. Under the influence of Pan-Arab leaders, public opinion in Iraq changed radically after France's fall, becoming especially hostile to Britain because other Arab countries remained under foreign control. Pan-Arabs urged Iraqi leaders to free Syria and Palestine and achieve unity among Arab countries. Extremists advocated alliance with Germany as the country that would foster independence and unity among Arabs. Rashid 'Ali was at first unwilling to side with the extremists and gave lip service to the Anglo-Iraqi alliance. Dissension among the Iraqi leaders, however, forced him to side with the Pan-Arabs. Leading army officers also fell under Pan-Arab influences and encouraged Rashid 'Ali to detach Iraq from the British alliance. During 1940 and 1941, Iraqi officers were unwilling to cooperate with Britain, and the Pan-Arab leaders began secret negotiations with the Axis Powers. Britain decided to send reinforcements to Iraq. Rashid 'Ali, while allowing the landing of a small British force in 1940, was forced to resign early in 1941, but he was reinstated by the army in April and refused further British requests for reinforcements. British contingents entered Iraq from the Persian Gulf and from the Habbaniyah air base in April and May 1941; armed conflict with Iraqi forces followed. The hostilities lasted only 30 days, during which period a few Iraqi leaders, including the regent and General Nuri, fled the country. By the end of May the Iraqi army capitulated. Rashid 'Ali and his Pan-Arab supporters left the country. The return of the regent and moderate leaders through British intervention had far-reaching consequences. Britain was given what it demanded: the use of transportation and communication facilities and a declaration of war on the Axis Powers in January 1942. Rashid 'Ali's supporters were dismissed from the service, and some were interned for the duration of the war. Four officers who were responsible for the war were hanged. ----------------------------------------------

I understand, but regarding Iraq I see it as an understanding that spheres of influence are changing. The UK would withdraw their support from the local government and would not seriously object if Turkish troops moved in to restore order, especially as they had more important matters to attend to. I see it as another Hunagarian revolution where Russian troops were invited in by a puppet government created by Russia and crushed the free government of Hungary while US & Nato troops did not intervene despite public statements of support for the free government of Hungary. In 1941 Iraq UK forces withdraw, Turkey recognizes a puppet government formed in Ankara, they ask for aid from Turkey and they enter to support the "lawful" government. Think Haiti, US withdraws support of local government and a new government recognized by the US invites in peacekeepers over the objections of a substantial part of the population. [ March 19, 2004, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn Thanks for your comments. As for Iraq I understand your objections but I still think that Turkey would want to regain control of the Iraqi oil fields, if only for economic reasons and that the merchant class in Iraq wanted a return to Turkish rule - as for the poor people, in that day and age their opinion did not really count, at least in the face of superior fire power. As for offering UK and British Territories to Turkey I feel that a national government would consider that, especially if they felt they were going to be lost anyway and offered little of value. In the early 80's the government of England was prepared to give the Falklands to Argentina until Argentina made a mistake and attacked (see book by Max Hastings on this and they attacked just weeks before the UK was due to sell its only aircraft carrier to India.). I understand that HC might shy away from complications such as this; however, I see it as more like purchasing a unit and rolling a die to see what the result is. Also this concept by making the diplomatic options expensive in terms of MPP ensures that each player will only be able to select at most 1 or 2 a game without weakening their military posture. Thus the allies can try only a few options and if they do it at the wrong time, before the Axis has attacked Spain, then their results are more likely to be unfavorable. The uncertainty and high cost of diplomatic options also maintains the game's focus on the military aspect of the war. This system's concept could be modified to give the AI a slight advantage, perhaps by giving them 1 or 2 free diplomatic options each game played at Exper AI level.

Proposed: A Simplified Diplomacy System for SC2 that gives players the option to influence the actions of the major neutral nations at the cost of substantial economic and military aid. Allied Diplomatic Options & Turkey The allies have 5 options to choose from if they have not attacked Spain and only 2 options if they have attacked Spain. Each of these options will offer the Allied player new strategies without unbalancing the game. Option 4 may only be selected once. The inclination of Turkey to remain neutral is modeled by the limited chance of the Turkish Government accepting the Allied proposals. The chance of success for each diplomatic option is dramatically affected by Axis actions vs. a vs. Spain. Option 1: Influence Turkey with Economic Aid to join the Allies (Cost 125MPP - 5% Turkey accepts proposal to join the Allies, only if the Allies control Cairo and the Suez Canal and the Allies have not attacked Spain, 10% if the Axis has attacked Spain. IF Turkey accepts then during each following turn they have a 10% to join the allies. Thus, although Turkey agree's to join the allies they will not acutally do so for about 1 to 10 turns after the agreement is reached. (Note: 100% will cost about 2500MPP) Option 2: UK Requests Permission to send military Aid to Russia over Turkish Territory (Cost: 125 MPP - Russian gains 25 MPP per Turn - 100% Turkey agrees if Axis has attacked Spain, 5% if Allies have attacked Spain, otherwise 25% Turkey agrees) Option 3: Request Permission for Allied Ships to Transit the Straits (Cost: 100 MPP - 25% Turkey Agrees, 80% if Axis has attacked Spain, 0% if Allies have attacked Spain) Option 4: Allies allow Turkey to Invade Iraq and Vichy Syria (Cost 250MPP - 50% Turkey joins the Allies, if so then: 5% per turn after Axis DOW Russia that Turkey joins Allies, Turkey annexes Iraq and Syria, Turkish production can only be used for Turkish units, 50% Turkey Annexes Iraq and Syria and does not Join Allies as they are perceived as weak and instead trades Iraqi Oil with Germany - Germany gains 30MPP per Turn). The chance for Turkey to join the allies increase from 50% to 80% if the Axis has Attacked Spain - the per turn chance of this activation remains the same. Option 5: Allies Request transit rights for Allied Air Fleets (Cost 125MPP - 10% Turkish Approval, 50% if Spain has been attacked by Axis, 0% if Allies have attacked Spain - Allied air fleets can operate into and out of Turkey). Option 6: Allies ask Turkey to supply Russian Partisans if Russia Surrenders. (Cost 125MPP - 25% Turkish approval, 100% if Germany attacked Spain - Activates Post Surrender Russian Partisans) Allied Diplomatic Options and Spain Option 1: UK asks to share intelligence while Spain remains independent. (Cost 50MPP - UK sees all Axis units in Vichy - 10% Franco Agrees, 80% Franco agrees if Spain or Sweden or Switzerland or Vichy France has been attacked) Option 2: Send Military Aid to Neutral Spain (Cost 75MPP Neutral Spain Gains 1 Corps, 125MPP Neutral Spain gains 1 Army). Option 3: Allies seek Alliance with Portugal. (Cost 100MPP to make offer and additional 200MPP if Portugal accepts offer , Allies build port in Lisbon, Portugal Joins Allies - 20% Chance of Success, 80% if Axis has attacked Switzerland or Sweden). Option 4: Allies offer to prepare Spain for Partisan Warfare. (Cost 125MPP - Spanish Partisans Activated if Spain Surrenders) 20% Franco accepts offer, 80% if Axis has attacked Sweden or Switzerland or Vichy France. Option 5: Allies encourage Franco to Mobilize for Defense of Spain (Cost 125MPP - Neutral Spain builds 1 to 4 additional corps - 25% Franco Agrees). Axis Diplomatic Options Option 1: Invite the Neutral Baltic States to Join the Axis. (Cost 125MPP - 20% Batltic States Agree, Russian Readiness increases) Option 2: Germany Acquires Technology from Italy (Cost 500MPP - 90% Germany gains 1 tech level in a randomly selected area where Italy is ahead of Germany technologically). Option 3: Germany Demands that Turkey act as a True Neutral - Cost 250MPP - 25% Turkey Agrees and Returns to Neutral Status, breaking any existing agreements with the Allies, Chance increases to 50% if Axis units occupy all land hexes adjacent to Western border of Turkey. [ March 20, 2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn, Thanks for the background on Franco's volunteers. Most interesting. With Spain I think that the Axis should really have the option to bargain with Franco and select a response to his impossible demands, which they might agree to. Of course agreeing to his demands might upset another Axis ally; Italy, either prompting them to withdraw from the Alliance (highly unlikely) or restrict the movement of Italian troops to Italian controlled territories (more likely). Example: Diplomatic Options for Germany vs Spain Germany 1> Demand that Franco join the Axis 2> Ask Franco to join the Axis 3> Threaten Franco into joining the Axis by threatening to invade Spain. ------------------------------------------------ If (2) then General Franco demands Gibraltar, Vichy Algeria, and Italian Libya if Spain is to join the Axis and he also want arms to equip 1 Air Fleet. If Germany Agrees then: 40% No Italian Reaction 40% Italy Restricts Movement of Troops to Italian Controlled Territories - ie no Italian troops available to defend France or fight in Russia. 20% Italy Withdraws from Axis, becomes Neutral Nation. Italian troops garrision all Italian cities. If Germany agrees to Give Franco only Gibraltar and Algeria then 75% the Franco will reject the German offer and 20% Italy restricts movements of Troops to Italian controlled territories as Italy is insulted by gesture towards Spain. If Germany agrees to Give Franco only Gibraltar then 90% that Franco will reject the German Offer. ---------------------------------------------- If (3) (where Germany threatens an Invasion) 25% That Spain and Turkey announce a Defensive Alliance. An attack on one is an attack on the other. 10% Per German unit on the border of Spain that Spain agrees to Join the Axis (But, No Plunder for Germany) ----------------------------------------------- Of course if Germany decides to attack Spain instead of negotiating with Franco it may (say 30% chance) cause Turkey to join the Allies at an opportune moment, while secretly allowing aid to flow to Russia (in the form of a secret 50MPP production bonus to Russia until Turkey joins the Allies at a randomly determined later date, say 25% each turn that 4 allied units are in France) [ March 17, 2004, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn, Interesting and realistic take but for game balance, unless - 1. Spain joins Axis and Axis units can freely enter Spain 2. Axis receives only 50% to 0% (Determined Randomly) of Spanish MPP production as Franco retains the rest for Spain. 3. The movement of Spanish units is limited to Spain, Vichy France and Vichy Algeria. 4. If Axis conquers Gibraltar then they must give it to Spain or risk chance that Spain joins Allies during Allied Invasion of France or when 5+ US transports are off the coast of Spain. 5. Partisans provide allies with detailed intelligence on Axis troop movements within Spain. (Ie NO FOW for Axis units in Spain or Spanish Units) 6. Spanish Army Unit guards Madrid and may not move from this city. Axis units may not enter Madrid. 7. If Axis attacks allied Spanish units then Turkey automatically joins Allies. [ March 17, 2004, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]