Sc2 - Stopping the Axis Conquer Every Nation Strategy

[Edwin P.]

In many games the Axis player will attempt to conquer every nation except for Turkey. Here's a way to make him think twice about that option;

IF Axis Attacks Spain or Switzerland or Portugal there is a 10% cumulative chance that Turkey will join the Allies during a random turn after Germany DOW Russia. 10% if one is attacked, 20% if two are attacked and 30% if all three are attacked.

If Turkey does decide to join the Allies there is a 4% chance per turn (1 in 25 turns) it will occur (but only after Germany DOW Russia) increasing to 10% per Turn (1 in 10 turns) if a US Unit occupies an Axis controlled City. Thus the chance of Turkey entering the war greatly increases after the US lands troops in Europe. Turkey will not join if Russia has surrendered.

In addition if the Axis takes Cairo after attacking Spain or Portugual there is a 25% that Turkey will annex a neutral Iraq, thus depriving the Axis war machine of plunder and oil. Imagine the face of the Axis war machine to learn that upon taking Cairo the Turks have foiled their plans to conquer Iraq and attack Russia from the south.

Naturally these events will not happen all the time, but their occurance should be enough to prevent an over-reliance on the cookie-cutter conquer the world strategy that many Axis players follow. In so doing it will make for a more balanced and interesting game for both the allied and axis players.

[ April 02, 2004, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Skanvak]

Well, the Axis, did attack nearly every country except Trukey. I think Axis could have attack Spain if they wished.

Some of the down fall of SC is the weakness of the neutral : you cannot re-build neutrals units (re-building neutrals will reinforece the the neutrals and spaon could hold a longer this way). Generally supply is bad in minor (even Canada has only City at 5 that will not work well for US or UK units). The HQ of a major does not support minor (that would make UK or US intervention more efficient).

On consequences of attacking Spaain, I think the consequences should fall on traditional Axis Allies and not on Turkey. Attacking Spain should deter Finland, Hungary, Bulgary, and Rumania of Joining the Axis. It could even trigger them joining the allies.

I strongly beleives (imo) that Turkey would have stayed neutral whatever happened.

One point that does not happen, but it is strongly possible that there would have been partisan activity in Spain should Germany invaded it.

[Edwin P.]

In SC attacking Spain does prevent the Axis minors; Hungard, Bulgaria and Romania from joining the Axis.

I like your idea that their should be Spanish partisans if Germany attacks Spain.

I also agree that Turkey tried very hard to remain neutral during WWII and in most cases under my proposal Turkey will remain neutral even if the Axis attacks Spain; however, in some games an Axis conquest of Spain may cause them join the Allies thinking that they are next on the Axis hit list.

I believe that this element will prevent the game from becoming one where the players can expect the same results from every action they take and adds a bit of diplomacy to the game.

The more pure neutrals (Spain, Portugal, Switzerland) that Germany attacks the more likely that the Government of Turkey will become worried about being next on the Axis hit list. Attack only one of these and Turkey will likely (90%) remain neutral, attack all three and Turkey may (30%), but will probably not (70%), decide to join the Allies at some later point in the game.

In war and politics nothing is predicatable. Here in the US Howard Dean a front runner for the Democratic nomination ended the race with barely a delegate. When the US asked Turkey to support its effort in the war with Iraq it gained the support of Turkey's president but lost the vote in the Turkey's parliment, by a nose. If just a few votes had gone the other way Turkey would have allowed US forces to Attack Northern Iraq. Similarly, this game should reflect the historically possible alternatives/ what ifs.

Who knows that the leadership of Turkey would have done if it saw Germany attack Spain, Portugal, Switzerland and Sweden. They might have clung to a hope of remaining neutral or they might have decided to support the allies or they might have joined the Axis ( I left out the last option as it would unbalance the game).

What would you do if you saw a nation attacking every neutral nation in sight, even nations that it had provided military aid to in the recent past (ie Spanish Civil War). Would you hope to remain neutral or would you secretly plan for war or adopt the maxim that the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

[ April 02, 2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

I believe the answer is in both of your posts. Spain (along with Sweden), was a pro-Axis neutral. If Spain (or Sweden) was attacked by the Axis, Turkey would have went Allied with almost no hesitation. For playability purposes, having the entry date vary is fine, but the end result of Turkey being in the Allied camp should be a given. Any belief that Turkey would stay neutral, after watching Germany backstab Spain (or Sweden), is mistaken. Everything points the other way. And for that same reason, it should make the Axis Minors hestitate about if or when they joined. Included in that definition would be Finland.

While true that Spain would have had partisans, its also true that France had partisans. The real question is if those partisans would have had a major effect, large enough to be represented like the Russian and Yugo partisans are.

And lets not forget Vichy France.

Even more important though, would be a rework of the economic system. It needs to be changed, to better reflect the realities of occupying other nations and the type of economic system the Germans had. Do that right, and occupying certain nations is outweighed by the realities of what you gained.

[Edwin P.]

A modification to include Sweden:

"If Axis Attacks Spain or Sweden or Switzerland or Portugal there is a 10% cumulative chance when each is attacked that Turkey will join the Allies during a random turn after Germany DOW Russia. 10% if one is attacked, 20% if two are attacked, 30% if three are attacked and 40% if all four are attacked."

Thus one check is made when the first country is attacked (at 10%) and when the 2nd country is attacked another check is made (at 20%)...

-------------------------------------------

As for partisans in Spain I see them as doing two things

1. Forcing the Axis to station Corps in Spain to maintain control and

2. Providing the allies with intelligence on the strength of the Axis forces in Iberia.

I also see the partisans in Spain being more active due to the rugged terrain in Northern Spain which would be more conductive to partisan operations and Spains long histroy of guerrilla warfare dating back to the time of Rome.

---------------------------------------------

The random nature of Turkey's entry into the war means that the Axis can't plan operations with certain knowledge of what Turkey will do. Has Turkey decided to join the allies? Will they do so early in the war or late in the war when Axis forces are deep into Russia? Do I need to guard the border with Turkey or not?

---------------------------------------------

[ April 02, 2004, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

The Germans got little resistance in the minor countries in WW-2, because the majority of the population endorsed Adolf Hitler & the Nazis. Who really fought them? When I mean fought, I mean watch percentage of the people & politicians? All the puppet regiemes were Pro-Nazi. A small force met the initial invasion, but the other 80% of the armed forces were anti-Semetic Facists themselves: Denmark, Greece, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, majority of France, Czechclosavica, 1/2 of Urkraine, Finland, Sweden....They were Nazis themselves.

Don't expect resistance, were there wasn't. Swiss neutral? Are you kidding me? They were Nazis too. They hide treasures, entertained German leaders. Swiss fly whatever flag is to be flown.

[Brian (the semi-wise)]

No offense, but the idea of Turkey entering the war because Germany, at the height of their power, either in the game or in reality history, invades Sweden, is, well, in my opinion, ludicrous. Aint gonna happen.

Now if Germany, or Italy, invades Irag, then I can understand that the Turks might get itchy.

[Skanvak]

Among the trash said by Rambo, one point is interesting :

Swiss and Sweden were not attack because they actually provided support to the Axis that made their invasion not really worthwhile.

Example, if Sweden as a better set-up (and may be a bit stronger) and give germany their iron ressources then German might not be interested to lose the income.

The real issue is the plunder. It is realistic that there is a plunder when a major country surrender (some 60 or so brand-new tank-hunter were taken from france), but the minor plunder is perhaps too important.

For Spain, I think their was a great chance that they will have active partisan : they just finish a civil war, that mean that a lot of people oppose the nazi their, and they would have been joined by the nationalist in case of invasion. The terrain and tradition, as Edwin said, in Spain give a strong chance of partisan action. They were ready, and will robably prepare a guerilla warfare from start. The French were shock by the defeat, they didn't expect to fight a guerilla warfare.

[hellraiser]

rambo quit expressing oppinions which u got from war movies

i know americans do not give a rat's a22 on euros and their history but from not caring to puting a false blame on ppl is a long way ...

Let's take for example Romania, probably the most important ally of Germany in WW2 as economic potential (oil, grains, 20M populace) and perhaps even military strength.

Romania had close ties with western countries (especially France), its army was built on french principles (i know they sucked ), the cultural bond was a strong one. Nevertheless, the rise of fascist and nationalist regimes in Italy and Germany had impact in Romanian domestic policy, the nazis constanly interfering in Romanian own business, supporting far right movements like the Iron Guard (the legion of archangel michael - a fascist-nationalist-mystic far right movement).

In an Europe dominated clearly by Germany, Romania had to make compromises (even after some Iron Guard commanders and members were arrested and killed). Romania was a large country but not powerful enough to face the germans alone, especially when it had neighbours like Russia and Hungary ready to jump and claim territories if the chance was there.

Germany put severe pressure on Romania to make it renounce western frienships and affiliations and make it an Axis satellite - this happened indeed and in September 1940, Romania was proclaimed 'national-legionnaire state' co-ruled by the Iron Guard and Marschall Ion Antonescu (Germans did not allow Iron Guard to rule alone because they feared the romanian army reaction, the vast majority of high ranking army officers strongly opposing nazism at that time).

In the beggining of 1941, the Germans, (after realizing that the Iron Guard extremist domestic policy and killings they were doing at that time in fact is driving the army and people's already weak support for Axis more and more away) allowed Marschall Antonescu to order the army to get rid of the Iron Guard. After heavy fighting in major romanian cities, the army prevailed (btw the nazis saved a lot of Iron Guard guys to use them should Antonescu not behave later) and Romania was ruled by a military government headed by Marschall Antonescu who swore allegiance to Axis. He had several reasons to join Axis: in 1940 Romania lost territories to Russia and Hungary (Hitler made it clear to Antonescu and Hungary's ruler Horthy that the country which gives the most to Axis will receive Transylvania for good once the war is over) and Antonescu wanted them back; if romanians tried to resist to the germans, the nazis would have occupied Romania.

Antonescu was a patriot in his own way and a competent military leader but a poor politician.

Romania kept its independence (a sort of) and it meant good for a lot of people: take for example the Jews- if Germany occupied Romania, there wouldn't have been any Jews left - Antonescu, though a bit antisemitic himself, ,did not send Jews to Auschwitz or any other extermination camp.

He considered them as low level citizens but did not kill them (there were excesses and killings of jews done by romanians and germans in Moldavia and Russia when the army moved against the russians but there was no direct order to murder jews issued by the romanian government - Antonescu declined several times german requests to hand the jews over to them in order to be exterminated).

Does it sound like romanians were nazis? I guess not. They were trying to play their game, to get a place in the new world order dominated by Germany. The strong cultural ties with western countries remained even after Romania went to war along with the germans. The government of Antonescu was not loved by the citizens or by the vast majority of the army but was considered to be the only choice Romania had in order to stay independent and try to play a game that would fit the national interest.

There are examples perhaps for more euro countries in this respect and I think that a lot of them had good reasons to act like they did.

Remember Rambo, we had the Germans here, we did not enjoy the comfort of several thousands miles you americans had. We had to survive - and martyrdom doesn't help one to survive, so maybe you wont bear such a grudge on euros because they had to give up a lot of what they believed in, in order to survive.

[hellraiser]

ref: euros didn't put up a fight ...

Maybe we can talk about Romania switching sides in august '44. The importance of this operation is so huge that i can write a thousand pages about it. It had so disastruous implications for Germany, it almost equals the importance of the Overlord.

In august 1944, the Russian army prepared to attack the Iashi-Kishinew front line held by General Friessner's Army Group and Romanian units defending the national territory. The purpose of this defence line was to slow the russians as much as possible and then fall back to one of the most powerful defensive position in Europe: the Focsani-Namoloasa-Galatzi heavily fortified line, protecting the Romanian capital city and all the Balkans in fact. Russian military documents of WW2 assessed that any attack aimed at breaking this line would take at least 2 months of heavy fighting and the commitment of superior forces than the Russians had for that part of the front. The losses estimated for this operation were absolutely heinous. With the left flank protected by the impervious Carpathians mountains and the right one by the sea, the only possibility was to force a breakthrough in the centre, where the fortifications were impressive.

The romanian defection in august 1944, ordered by the king Michael, opened the largest flank known in military history to russian advance, the germans being denied the possibility to use that excellent defensive position i mentioned above. The Balkans were opened to russian advance, the romanian oilfields were out of germany's grasp, the Carpathian passes secured immediately by the romanian units and a 365,000 men romanian army was thrown immediately into the fray.

History experts assess that this defection shortened the war with approx. 6 months - can you possibly imagine what could have happened if Hitler had 6 moths more left? Germany was researching the A bomb as well and God knows what terrible deeds they could have done with it.

After losing the romanian oil, Albert Speer, the Reichsminister for war production, advised all his industry high profile friends to make preparations to flee Germany, as the war had been clearly lost. After he loss of romanian oil Germany could only supply 20% of the normal fuel consumption for its army. Do you see a connection maybe with the failed Ardennes offensive? In the Ardennes, the lack of oil was the major factor in stopping the german panzers from reaching Meuse, not the fantastic efforts of the american units (kudos to them for having guts to fight while clearly overwhelmed) - the Ardennes line was too thinly held to really matter after all. After losing the oil, Germany could mount only small scale counterstrikes agains russians and allies.

Historians rank 4th Romania's contribution to allied war efforts. Yes, fourth place was Romania's , it wasn't France's

Please do no say things that euros didn't fight or were all nazis and crap like that. We did not have freedom of movement with the panzers and SS all over us - in fact we chose to fight on our terms and not germans' terms which proved beneficial to the allied war effort.

A 1941 romanian armed resistance would have meant the complete destruction of it's army and total possession of Romania for Germany. No 365k troops to push as far as Cehoslowakia and Austria, no oil problems for Germany, heavily defended balkan flank for Germany, etc.

No sane euro would ever argue about the importance of US help in the war and I think all euros are grateful to americans for this huge helping hand in winning the war. But OTOH, the US must not deny euros commitment to the cause and their importance in WW2 as euros suffered the most and provided huge support in winning the war as well.

Btw...even today some germans consider romanians as traitor because of the 1944 coup. From their point of view they maybe right. From the romanian national interest point of view it was not. Alliances are forged and treacheries are made because of the national interest - there is no such thing as pride and 'fight to the bitter end' when you have to survive. Germans could not possibly hope for a romanian true commitment to Axis cause after being one of the powers who contributed to Romania's loss of North-western Transylvania to the hungarians and earlier the loss of Bassarabia to the russians. Old debts had to be paid sometime

[ October 19, 2004, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: cosmin ]

[Avatar]

Rumania's leaders gave in to USSR in hopes their country wouldn't be occupied. They wanted, to the end, to be on the 'winning side'. Germans were winning, Rumanians were Axis. Germans had lost, Rumanians switched sides. It's call 'Opportunism'.

[jon_j_rambo]

@cosmin --- What a compelling speach, well done. The actions of the Romanians (or is it Rumainians?) was very key in WW-2. Your statements about the Romanians not handing over Jews & others for the gas chambers is very, very, true. My Uncle J. & several relatives escaped the hands of the Fritz after being held in Romanian conducting business.

Speaking of more modern affairs, I enjoy the Lottery Romanian had for getting rid of Chechescku. Didn't they drive (hide) him in a tank for a week, found his old lady, & then conducting the Lottery to see who was lucky enough to plug the guy?

Rambo is pro-Romainia, thank God my relatives got out years ago! There is a Romainian Church done in Portland I went to once with some friends.

[hellraiser]

Avatar >>> you may call it that way if u like; I preffer to call it survival. If ppl call us opportunists, that's fine...the main point is we managed to make it alive, or at least the vast majority of romanians and we managed to keep the country afloat although in the communist sphere of influence.

Rambo >>> thanks for you support

Romanians do love the US these days (opportunism , Avatar? ) and the US seem to care about us by strenghtening economic and, especially, military ties with Romania.

btw rambo,

Our grandpas waited for you yanks for 50 f*cking years to help us get rid of the communist plague!!! They were searching the skies every day to see US paratroopers finally arriving and freeing us from communism...but u guys never came You, along with that british bulldog Chuchill, sold us (and some other countries around as well) out

LL Stalin, right?

no offence frd, but history sometimes blows ass...

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by cosmin:

btw rambo,

Our grandpas waited for you yanks for 50 f*cking years to help us get rid of the communist plague!!! They were searching the skies every day to see US paratroopers finally arriving and freeing us from communism...but u guys never came You, along with that british bulldog Chuchill, sold us (and some other countries around as well) out

LL Stalin, right?

no offence frd, but history sometimes blows ass...

As your profile says Bucharest I can only wonder who gave your grandparents the word that the Americans and British would ever arrive to help them?

I sympathize with what you're saying and think it was a crime that any people, anywhere, including the Russians themselves, had to suffer under Stalin, but there were never any plans for either the British or Americans to enter the Balkans! It would no doubt have been impossible for them to get there before the Soviets unless they followed one of Churchill's many ideas and landed in Greece instead of France after Italy.

That particular plan called for an Anglo/American thrust through Greece, Rumania and Hungary to Warsaw and Berlin, leaving the Red Army confined to it's prewar area. It looked fine on paper if you had a map that didn't include mountains and rivers. Churchill always favored southern approaches, Iberia, Italy and the Balkans, unfortunately his ideas never considered the terrain -- in the Iberian case it didn't even consider that the countries involved were both neutral! Portugal and Spain.

When the lines were drawn the main concern of the Allied commanders was that they'd be able to reach the Rhine before the Soviets finished conquering Germany! The plans were made in 1943, after Kursk, when many in the west thought Germany's eastern front would crumble outright.

After the Ardennes Offensive and finally crossing the Rhine itself, the Americans, British and resurrected French were able to move quickly through Germany and eventually reach Central Europe, in the end haveing to pull back in order to only occupy territory that had been agreed upon. At the time the U. S., Britain and the USSR were allies, not enemies. It was even hoped that things would be made better after the war; the only major leader who said for sure that wouldn't happen was Churchill, and he was promptly voted out of office!

cosmin, there are many things all the countries involved can be blamed for, but the non-arrival of western troops in areas overrun by the Red Army isn't one of them.

Again, I'm sorry it turned out that way, but there was no betrayal -- unless you're talking about the people who drew those lines at Casablanca and Yalta. And even then you should consider the realities rather than the idealism that the western leaders were forced to abandon.

[SeaMonkey]

cosmin, my condolences to your ancestors, that they had to bare the inhumanity of the Stalinistic communism ideals is a monumental attribute of personal fortitude. My admiration for them is indescribable and I wish that my ancestors would have been able to rescue them. That said, there always remains the intangibles of such an operation such as wide spread death and destruction of your country. Let us be glad that it wasn't so.

[hellraiser]

"Again, I'm sorry it turned out that way, but there was no betrayal -- unless you're talking about the people who drew those lines at Casablanca and Yalta. And even then you should consider the realities rather than the idealism that the western leaders were forced to abandon."

Of course i am talking about them

No one ever gave their word to come and free Romania from communism...but romanians hoped for that to happen...and hoped...and hoped

Sometimes hope is enough to motivate your survival under any harsh circumstances, ain't it right?

If i leave any feelings aside, the allied leaders drew the right conclusion at that time - they couldn't afford an open conflict with Soviet Russia in 1945, the russians were way too powerful for the western allies after the fall of Germany. Maybe if they would have employed and refitted what was left of german ost front crack troops (which had good knowledge about how to fight the russians), but this is a quite far fetched assessment ... maybe they were right to refrain from upseting the russians but we hoped nevertheless

[JerseyJohn]

cosmin

I have to add something else as a Westerner (living on the Atlantic the term seems odd as in the U. S. I'm strictly an Easterner! ) and that is I've never heard anyone in the United States express a view on this. We should have, but never did.

In 1956 Americans were very supportive of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters and in 1968 we were very supportive of the Czechs. In the early 80s we loved what was happening in Poland, but few Americans ever thought about what life would be like for the people in an Iron Curtain country who had to live one generation to the next under a Soviet backed regime.

There was little thought given to the Russians themselves and only superficial sympathy for the Chinese who, after WWII, were supposed to be Asia's great democracy. In typical American fashion we sought to achieve that by backing a dictator!

There was a totally different scenario that could have come about in which much of Europe might have been spared Soviet domination. Probably the only one, in which the United States and Britain actually negotiated with Germany and didn't insist on unconditional surrender.

1943 would have been the earliest time for that and early 1944 the most likely year. Some sort of peace that would have returned France and the Low Countries to independence and nations like Denmark, Norway and Poland would have needed to be restored as well, or worked out in negotiations. Hitler, of course, would never have gone along with such a treaty. But if we'd laid the possibility open it's likely his own inner circle would have conspired to remove him.

So, we have a postwar world where Germany wasn't defeated, the Axis nations return to prewar status, Russia is asked to be satisfied with the return of whatever territory was still occupied by Axis troops, and at some point the Holocaust and other Axis attrocities begine seeing the light of day with the Nuremburg Trials having never taken place and either Goering or Himmler, both with hands dripping blood, would be the likely head of Germany, hailed in 1944 as the man who ousted Hitler and brought peace back to Europe.

Returning to your original point, though, it goes across into the postwar period and the quick hardening of east-west relations. To be honest I don't see any way the United States could have done anything at all to help Poland, East Germany, Czhechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania or Bulgaria. Yugoslavia and Albania were able to choose slightly different paths in the Communist world. I think the western powers considered it a major victory to have salvaged Greece, Austria and Italy.

I'm glad you brought this subject to light, it's one that's rarely considered or discussed. My thanks for doing so.

[SeaMonkey]

Since we are reflecting upon the past....a question for the forum Historian(JJ)...IIRC both the National Socialists and the Bolsheviks were at one time thought of being a too radical, errant idealistic philosophy to ever come to lead/power a nation of people? Or was that just the thought that the so called rational reasoning people in power at that time had? There was never any threat? Hmmmm..... sound familiar.

[JerseyJohn]

Sure does, SeaMonkey! :eek:

The Weimar people thought they were using the nazis and Hitler to keep things under control. Also, the nazis, though too weak to take over through elections, were strong enough to bring the Weimar Parliament to a standstill.

It seemed to make sense to swing them to the conservatives so they could both work against the communists. Shortly afterwards the communists were being arrested, Goering and the gang were in charge of the police, Hindenberg died of old age and Hitler decided to combine the offices of president and chancellor and cancel all future elections because there were too many crisis going on -- of his own creation.

In Russia the Bosheviks were thought to be lunatics and more liberal communists, such as the Menscheviks initially ran the country after toppling the Czar. Kerensky and that bunch made the mistake of remaining in the war and we all know the rest.

Seems no group is too radical if the population is desperate and without hope, usually brought to that point by grossly inept leadership.

[SeaMonkey]

Does History repeat itself?

Are those that forget the past ....doomed to repeat it?

What would have happened if the French, after leaving the Rhineland in force two weeks before(1936), insisted the lone reinforced German battalion that had entered, leave.