Morale Boost for attacking neutrals

[mcaryf1]

I noted in the AAR above that the Allied player had the UK attack Ireland and the Chinese attack French Indo-China in order to get morale/readiness boosts.

Clearly that is within the rules and as such a legitimate tactic but it seems to me to be very gamey and I would like to see some method of switching this feature off for the Allied side excluding USSR. In the real world either event would be more likely to have resulted in a significant morale decrease at least in the USA particularly with respect to the UK attacking Ireland.

On the subject of morale it would be a nice enhancement if there were a feature in the editor to adjust the starting morale in some situations. One example would be the large number of Chinese warlord armies who fought for the Japanese but were equally likely to switch sides if given the opportunity. I guess switching sides might be tricky but low morale would be a good way to represent these types of unit.

Regards

Mike

[xwormwood]

Both attacks would probably had caused an outcry from the USA.

My suggestion would be to penalize these attacks with a lowered US war readiness.

And while the USA is already at war, neutral countries should shift away from the Allies (Ireland: Sweden / Switzerland / Vichy, French Indo-China: Tibet, Mongolia).

[Bill101]

I'm not sure that an Allied attack on somewhere like Ireland is worth it, partly because morale/readiness boosts are very temporary, and also because it would move the USA 15-25% towards the Axis.

Switzerland, Sweden and Spain would also move 10-15% towards the Axis. The latter could be quite important if the Axis are making a play for Spain using diplomacy.

It's the player's choice I guess!

[numdydar]

Temporary boost or not, There is no way England would have attacked Irland in RL during WWII. The political repercussions for all would have been huge. In the ETO, Norway is the ONLY netural the Allies should be allowed to attack. Even that should force all the Nordics to join the Axis. But it would not have as major as an impact on the US as Irland.

So I REALLY hope there is some fix (or even removal) of this. In the AAR China attacking Indochina is beyond any real world possibility. If they did thet they should be at war with all the Allies AND Japan.

I realize that any game has design decisions and tradeoffs, but allowing players to run amok attacking anyone and everyone without any regard to the political realities of the period, will put this game into a science fiction category versus a historical simulation.

Unless I am totally missing something which is completely possible too

[Bill101]

I understand numdydar, and the hefty penalty in US mobilization would certainly prevent me from doing this action.

Other penalties could be introduced if desired, if there is a strong consensus that they are needed.

[Duke of York]

Also a Soviet attack on Finland should be sanctioned. At least with the cancelling Allied relief supplies.

[PowerGmbH]

Well the issues posted here would guide the game into NO-GO Areas, killing a lot of What if's.

On the other side: would it really be soo far that the Allied side "protects" Ireland from Axis Invasion? It's mostly a an Issue of "who has the best Propaganda" at least.

i.e. Axis Invaded DK, NL and BE definiteley with a "defense against Allied Agression" propaganda (which obviously didn't work). Allied Side was far better describing any actions as "humanitary" or on behalf of "Freedom".

In a possible SC3 one could think of a "Technology" Called "Propaganda Eficiencity" which would reduce the effects of Political decisions and for shure US would receive Tech level 4, while Germany would have to start researching on level 0....

But as for the toppic: I think the reactions are quite strong, and i am 100% shure the UK would (in a What if Case ) have done it's best to declare the Occupation as a "protection" or liberation against Axis or Irish Rebels dangers...

May be not the same for China, but they may have declared this as an "liberation campaign" for "Free Indochina", which sterangely gets an Gouvernment that is China Friendly.

btw the things didn't change up to our 21 century...

[SeaMonkey]

Everyone has put forth valid considerations, but in the interest of simulating the unintended consequences which the participants of WW2 faced, I would stand with a randomized(unpredictable to a degree) effect for each action taken, especially the diplomatic persuasions.

[mcaryf1]

I do not object to the Allied player being able to invade wherever they want but I think the suggestion that there is a reward for doing it is the issue and what makes it "gamey". The Allies certainly colluded in the invasion and occupation of Persia but I am not sure that would have resulted in a morale boost for Allied or Soviet troops.

Interestingly despite the implementation in AOC Bulgaria never actually declared war on USSR and did not send troops to fight her but that did not prevent USSR from occupying her so I am not sure how the morale boost should work there.

There were of course arguments both ways as to whether the Allies had violated Norway's neutrality prior to the German invasion but there is a degree of difference to mining territorial waters and sending troops to occupy a capital city so I think that was effectively a declaration of war.

On the whole I would prefer the Allies not to get any morale boost from declaring war on a neutral and occupying them. Although of course there is a good case for a morale boost for the UK when Axis forces attacked both USSR and USA.

Regards

Mike