Diplomacy, Money & Spain & Turkey in a Balanced Game

[Edwin P.]

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. ]

[pzgndr]

Proposed: A Simplified Diplomacy System for SC2

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Interesting ideas.

As usual I've got to object to the Iraq part as it wasn't going back to Turkey under any circumstances and the Allies weren't in a position to offer it. True, they controled it's government, an overblown palace coup affair, but the Persian peole would not have put up with the return of Turkish sovereignty.

Offering Syria and possibly Cyprus would have been the Allied limit. But even that seems far fetched because normally British and French policy was to offer their enemy's holdings to potential allies, not their own!

I think the Allies passed supplies along to the USSR units in the Balkans late in the war when it was obvious to all the Third Reich was soon to be only a memory. Earlier in the war there was the Iran route, along with Alaska and the infamous Murmansk run. There would have been something to be gained by passing them through Turkey after Germany was driven west from the Don region (otherwise it would have been risky), I don't know if Turkey was approached till very late in all of this, but it's an interesting variant all the same.

Overall I like this type of speculation and potential options, but as pzgndr says, it's exactly the sort of complications Hubert shies away from. In any event, things like this would be good if adapted; at least we'd like them.

[ March 19, 2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[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.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

I have no problem with any of that, but in the case of Iraq we aren't talking about superior firepower -- etc., in reality they had an army and it wasn't involved in that palace affair. A change at the top didn't bother any of them; the British sent a very small force to Baghdad and the regular Iraqi army remained uninvolved.

However ...

Britain did not own Iraq, nor did they own Egypt, these were protectorates; Iraq under much looser control than Egypt.

If Turkey had attempted to enter and had Britain attempted to give them away all stops would have been pulled!

It really isn't avaliable for bartering and that's what I object to -- it would have been like the United States giving the Phillipines to Japan in 1940. Not possible -- the protector can leave but in the process it can't behave as though it owns the protected state, it doesn't. This was as true then as it is now.

Syria was in an entirely different situation, it was an outright possession.

[Edwin P.]

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]

There are all sorts of ways to make it appear rational and feasable, but the truth is the Turks were not very good rulers anywhere outside of Turkey, and even there they had a lot of minorities hating them.

One of the reasons the Bolsheviks found it so easy to dislodge them from the southern Caucasus after WWI was that the locals hated them! They killed half the Armenians and when they were bored any village was a potential shooting gallery. Meanwhile their central government acted as though War Lord rule in the territories was a great idea. It doesn't work.

Whether the UK or US gave it's blessing or not the only way Turkish troops would have set foot in Bhagdad was by conquering the country. If such an agreement is reached the only way it would be realistic is if Iraq raises an Army for the field and a corps for Baghdad and becomes an Axis satalite. What we're seeing there now is absolutely nothing compared to the reaction against Turkish rule.

And in the middle of the whole thing the oil production would probably have been sabotaged, which would have been the one thing the UK would have cared about.

That's about the only way I can express this. The real rulers of the country would have laughed at any UK instructions for them to welcome the Turks. And then they'd have begun shooting.

[Edwin P.]

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

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.

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

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Interesting stuff but primarily the shuffling of politicians, not the sudden bringing back of Turkish rule. When they say the Iraqi Army surrendered they're talking about it's officers; the country itself was full of men holding weapons. The British themselves had turned the Iraqis against the Turks -- less than twenty years later, and after two decades of being Iraq's protector they can't suddenly deed them to Turkey as though it's a Monopoly game.

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.

In 1919 the UK and France stuck a knife in Turkey's back and cheered when they thought Greece would occupy the Dardenelles while they divied up the rest of the country. Meanwhile they gleefully shafted their former allies Russia and Italy. To put it mildly the Turks didn't trust them as far as they could spit -- and really, after they sold out the Czechs there weren't many people who did.

Aside from which, I don't recall a single instance, ever, when either of them gave away or even negotiated parcells of their own territory, desperate or not. They always promised the territory of their enemies.

Regarding France and Syria, after the wall they tried to hold every inch of territory they had in 1940 -- they granted independance only when driven out with bullets!

I really can't say any more on the idea -- to me deeding friendly owned territories is blatantly anti-historical. Even today Turkey would like to control Northern Iraq -- I don't see anyone particularly hot on the idea, least of all the Northern Iraqis!

[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).

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

Yes, this last post sums the situation best.

France indeed fought not only in Vietnam but also in Syria and Algeria and probably other places after the war and was literally thrown out of her former colonies.

After having invaded French Syria, having attacked it's fleet at Mirs and it's Equatorial African base at Dakar, having in every way been completely beligerant to it's former Ally, it makes sense that the UK would be more than willing to deal away the lands of it's former Ally, no problem.

That they'd also be capable of striking a deal with Turkey where the UK pulled out of a country and did nothing to defend it is also perfectly feasible.

They did something very similar in Palestine, not wanting the Jewish State of Israel they did everything possible to establish it, but in the process tried to insure it would collapse in it's infancy!

How something is done in SC in computer terms is beyond my knowledge so I don't attempt to go there. Your idea of having Turkey annex just the northern portion of Iraq is fine; they'd have been taking back two parts of their old Empire, Syria and the lands east of it. In all likelihood it would just mean a war with Iraq, so why not just put Iraq into the Axis? As it is they've only got one corps. I think two corps, one in Baghdad and one guarding the oil, would be more accurate.

Meanwhile, the UK would have wanted to retain it's hold on the southern area, which I believe later became Kuwait.

The fact Britain kept pushing puppet governments on it's so called protectorates has some significicance but the problem is if they pushed things too far those puppets had a way of being toppled and replaced by real representitives of the people, as happened after WWII when King Faruk was ousted by Nasser.

The India part of this is particularly disgraceful as there had never been any talk of dividing it into Hindu and Muslim. It was a parting gesture of divide and conquer but basically senseless and creating grave problems that linger even to this day.

[Edwin P.]

And don't forget Rhodesia.

[JerseyJohn]

Hmmmmm

A fine point.

If we swing into Mainland Africa we're really talking about a complicated mess -- and extending the problem beyond England and France to countries such as Portugal, Belgium and Italy -- with earlier German influence.

During the mid-19th Century there was a general agreement in Europe that all of Africa, every inch, should be ruled by Europeans. The idea being to keep the native people from having any hope of self-rule.

American supported Liberia was considered a problem that would eventually need to be dealt with.

[jon_j_rambo]

Jersey --- The British division of Pakastan/India was a classic strategy for them. That is, get the two side to fight each other, thus Brits, don't have to do the dirty work. UK did the same thing hear in the colonies of US, pay Indians to fight French/colonists.

[Bill101]

And the French did exactly the same thing Rambo!

As to India/Pakistan, the decision to partition the sub continent was more a response to the ongoing violence and hostility between Muslims and Hindus. The British tried to stop this violence, but once they realised that they could no longer hold on to India, they just wanted to get out as quickly as possible.

I've found a (admittedly rather simple) link to it here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/india/partitionrev2.shtml

[ March 20, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[Slapaho]

First I will start by saying I enjoy SC very much and am looking forward to SC2. I am still learning the nuances of SC but have, after playing several people and the AI, got some points. Also having read many of the discussions around the game/historical relevance of certain parts of the game I thought I would add some more ideas.

The information I used comes from the following references for those who like reading this stuff;

Achtung – Panzer : Major-General Heinz Guderian (English version translated by Christopher Duffy)

Truppen auf Kraftwagen und Fliegerabwehr : Major-General Heinz Guderian

SIEGFRIED – The Nazis’ Last Stand : Charles Whiting

The British Army 1939 : http://home.adelphia.net/~dryan67/orders/ukhome.html

British Official History : The Ministry of Defence (British National Library)

Nice site: http://www.shef.ac.uk/mr-home/hobbies/ger2.html

SC is a very simplified (but not simple) representation of many key attributes of world war 2 and therefore I accept that this leads to an amount of ‘unrealistic’ occurrences within the game. With the playability being balanced with the realism (and nicely done) in SC, I am just hoping that a larger degree of realism in SC2 is introduced, without sacrificing playability. Without churning over ground that has been discussed at length by much more qualified people than myself, I have just some questions and observations.

Firstly I think the MPP production for 1939 onwards is disproportionate to the actual ability of the major aggressors of the war to achieve, based upon the current game mechanics and in particular to Germany pre-Barbarossa. Also, the actual sizes of the formations changed through the war due to limitations of weapons and/or greater command and control efficiency and also the role of a formation, especially after Kursk where the German army had to take a defensive posture and the tactics/formations/weaponry matched this. The only way I can see of simulating this is by assigning MPPs to specific manufacturing, with sub sets: (these figures are examples)

ARMOUR.....COST (MPP) per 100

LIGHT.........10

MEDIUM........20

HEAVY.........30

SP Guns.......20

AIRFORCE.....COST (MPP) per 100

FIGHTER...........10

GROUND ATTACK.....15

LIGHT BOMBER......20

MEDIUM BOMBER.....30

HEAVY BOMBER......40

TRAINING.....COST (MPP)

SUPPORT.......1 per 1000

INFANTRY......2 per 1000

TANK MEN......3 per 1000

PILOTS.......10 per 100

Based on SC figures;

Army = approx. 80,000 men

Corps = approx. 40,000 men

Tank Group = A mechanised Corps with extra armoured divisions.

Thus, manufacturing choices can be made with a requirement that, for example a panzer formation can only be created once the required amount of armour has been produced AND there are enough trained men (tank men and infantry). Also, when sending out bombing missions, specific targets can be aimed for (for example an aircraft factory) which will mean an introduction of a more realistic strategic bombing campaign. The weighting for certain nations in certain areas (for example Britains increased manufacture of spitfires and training of pilots) could be offset by their relatively low armour production. It will also prevent an ‘over-balance’ of the more complex units, require a long term strategic thinking and simulate the resource situation more adequately. The following table represents a post war analysis of the strategic bombing results, carried out by the British in an attempt to justify the levelling of German cities in 1944 and 1945. The figures clearly show that production and techniques of production in Germany was able to withstand and actually increase even though the amount of bombing increased exponentially. The only area truly affected was Germanys synthetic oil production, BUT this was absolutely critical and of a greater impact on Germany than the slower production of, for example, tanks. Three things are required for a nation to be able to sustain a war, advanced weapon systems (tanks, planes, artillery, etc), trained men and fuel. Remove one and the other two become useless. German troops in late 1944 through to 1945 became largely impotent due to a lack of not weapons or men, but fuel. Essentially the army ground to a halt which allowed mobile allied forces to carve them up at will. The allies themselves suffered in critical battles due to lack of fuel where it mattered and thus the war took longer than maybe it would of to finish due to the extended supply lines.

DATE.....1....2......3.....4

1940...(10)..(10)...(2)..(4.4)

1941...(20)..(10)...(4)..(5.8)

1942...(40)..(12)...(6)..(6.1)

1943..(220)..(23)..(12)..(7.6)

1944..(900)..(39)..(19)..(5.2)

Column

1 = Approximate Bombs Dropped by allied bombers over Germany (x 1000 tons)

2 = German Aircraft production (x 1000)

3 = German Tank Production (x 1000)

4 = Oil Production (x million metric tons)

In terms of unit representation, although relatively accurate, the figures do not add up in terms of combat troops when considering 2 million Germans and 1 million axis allies lined up for Barbarossa and the only thing that I can see explaining the difference (from Barbarossa mission) is that of combat troops shown with support troops (the Wehrmacht had approximately a 1:5 ratio) being assumed and not shown. The size of the forces involved on the current map size should allow for ‘stacking’ units. Also retreat should be implemented as, even with orders to stand and die, whole corps would flee in the face of overwhelming forces (example being the Americans during the Ardennes offensive). Also, the intent of fighting an offensive battle was to take the terrain occupied by the defending forces, thus if the defender is destroyed or forced to retreat then the attacker 'should' occupy the vacated area. Units surrounded and cut off from supply/command that are forced to retreat should 'surrender'.

The arrangement of the Divisions within a Corps could be of a framework type, ie to create an Infantry Corps, the required number of men and equipment is fixed and on having suitable numbers of these, a Corps can be raised. It would be possible to create weakened Corps, Panzer Corps (or Tank Groups) and armies. Also, by using SP Guns as opposed to Medium and Heavy tanks, a more defensive unit would be formed, but with a much reduced offensive capability. To reduce complexity, this would have to be chosen with the assumption that support and specialist troops (engineers, anti aircraft battalions, etc) were included automatically.

Going back to MPP production, I feel that the current SC model used breaks down due to the unrealistic amount the Axis forces can attain pre-Barbarossa. There has been many solutions offered in these forums, from diplomatic type (penalising Germany/Allies for invading certain countries) to MPP penalties (the Axis/Allies gain no plunder or MPP for taking certain countries). IMHO the answer is to address both. For example, the French factories used to further the Axis war machine were often a target of sabotage by the French resistance (mostly passive in that they directed critical parts to the wrong end of France and back). The addition of Norway, Poland, Hungary, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Ukraine, (and Spain) etc., had little real input on the ability of German war output to the point that is currently shown in SC. A truer representation is to simply have a fixed MPP production rate per country that increases per turn at a static rate, with a small % growth for conquered nations (with different rates for different countries, depending on their size). Also, where countries like Britain and Russia went very quickly to a ‘Total War’ footing, Germany was much slower, which can be reflected in the beginning of the game by starting the UK at a lower MPP and having it rise more quickly and it also makes an early Barbarossa more beneficial for the Germans, with a much tougher job if Axis don’t invade prior Autumn 1941. The same penalty would be evident if Germany didn’t invade France in time as France would also have a ‘rising’ MPP that reflected its mobilisation and national war footing.

Sorry for the long rambling post, if you read it all thanks.

As a footnote, I served in the British army from 1987 and served in the Royal Artillery (40th Field Regiment, 7th RHA Parachute Regiment and 50th Missile). Although obviously modernernised, a lot of the command and control, structure and tactics remain relatively unchanged in the modern army that were formulated and honed in World War 2, for what we term a conventional war.

[JerseyJohn]

General Rambo

-- Completely agreed, if I can say this without offending Bill101 and other Brits, they have long been masters of Divide and Conquer, both in terms of direct domination and for commerce -- again, this isn't meant in a hateful manner, but it helps explain how a small island nation (to paraphrase Winston Churchill!) was able to control events across the world so completely and for such a very long span of time.

Bill101

Both Rambo and myself have always spoken with admiration of the British Empire and it's deeds. Like all nations it's had it's blemishes -- such as murderous actions not only in Africa and Asia, but als across the straights in Ireland! -- but on the whole it was always a cut above other empires.

The United States has used many of the same strategies and yes, France is also a culprit.

As Mark Twain once said before a British audience:

"... it is un-British.

It is un-American.

The damn thing is French!"

[JerseyJohn]

Slapaho

Enjoyed it, great stuff.

Your fifteenth post, it should really catapult you past the remaining fifteen and make you a regular member on the spot.

Looking forward to many, many more.

[Desert Dave]

Looking forward to many, many more.

Me too.

Really good stuff.

Now, I'll have to consult my old dog-ear'd copy of... Statistics Is, Gee Whiz, the Cat's Pajama's and see what's WW2 what.

Although... a good war-game that captures the larger audience probably must also appeal to those who mostly, like footloose teens in the dream-machine... "just want to have fun."

Tough business, deciding between and among mechanical accuracy and excitement-creating sleight of hand.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Slapaho

It should come as no surprise that I agree with the main points your post makes.

Couple of things came to mind when I read it.

Western Allies did have fuel problems, though not because they didn't produce enough, but rather there was a limit due to shipping, in how much they could transport to Europe.

German support troops (those people who exist in the military to support the larger combat formations (ie Armies and Army Groups)), I show as being around 20% or so. But alot depends on how someone defines the definition of "support troops", vs "combat support troops", etc.

Some of those details you were breaking things down into, SC already represents in the Tech Advances. Of course, it begs a debate on the specifics, like rather or not an Assault Gun should effect the Soft or Anti-Tank factor of a unit.