Neutrals as Economic Factors In SC [renamed]

[JerseyJohn]

This topic occurred to me while reading Shaka's economic suggestions. I originally posted it there but decided it would clutter the topic with material that touches similar issues but is really a seperate subject.

I'd like to add a related consideration regarding neutral production and economies.

The Scandanavian ore/economic issue is thorny; Sweden and Switzerland, though neutral, were heavily tied in to the Axis -- it's hard to see how they could have avoided it.

Germany imported numerous war supplies, like spare truck parts, through neutral Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

Spain pretended not to notice numerous Axis activitites such as Italian frogmen working against Gibraltar from a scuttled merchantman in a nearby Spanish harbor.

Switzerland converted captured gold for Germany as is well known by this time.

Both, Switzerland and Sweden helped manufacture or provide items like ballbearings when strategic bombing devastated German facilities. Additionally, when German powerplants were hit Switzerland diverted electricity to the affected areas!

I mention the above because it might be advisable to have two types of neutrals: those that are biased to one of the beligerants, and those who are truely impartial in their politics.

Sweeden, Switzerland and Spain, though neutral, would economically benefit Germany.

Iraq would serve the same role for Britain.

Historically the U. K. didn't need to invade the country, it sent a small number of troops to subdue what ammounted to a palace revolt. Germany attempted to aid the rebels but the airtransports were delayed enroute and turned home after the revolt had been suppressed. Iraq's oil would have been earmarked for the U. K. unless it had been physically conquered by the Axis.

If not a beligerent, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland should also be Axis boosters.

Clash of Steel addressed this issue by having a neutral that was more than 50% biased to either side give that side it's economic benefits. A simplification, but a step in the proper direction. Also, as neither Sweden, Switzerland (no production in any case) nor Spain almost never rose to that support percentage, Germany was deprived of their extremely important economic support. Which was most certainly not the historical situation.

If not a beligerant, the U. S. should be a UK booster for obvious reasons. United States aid to Britain should be dependant upon the convoys, as Shaka suggests in his entry, but it should also flow even if the U. S. is neutral.

If not a beligerent, the U. S. S. R. should help boost the German economy. this amount should decrease as the Soviet war option increases and should be zero if USSR is set to neutral .

The US aid peaks with the Prepares for War message, then drops to when the U. S. enters and drops back to it's minimum with the U. S. entry.

U. S. S. R. aid to Germany would work in the opposite way, being at it's peak (15%) in Sept '39, then decreasing as Soviet/German relations deteriorate. It is at it's 05% when the USSR prepares for war message appears.

I'd recommend Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Portugal, Denmark, the Baltic States, the Low Countries and Ireland as true neutrals.

The Fog of War should also be altered by biased neutrals. Units within two hexes of a biased neutral should be ssen by the enemy. The Axis knew exactly what ships passed through Gibraltar and Britain received information from the U. S. on a regular basis, which included a coast guard vessel sighting the Bismarck enrout to France!

Biased Neutral List

Allies: The United States and Iraq.

Axis U. S. S. R., Italy, Finland, Sweden, (Switzerland), Spain, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

True Neutrals Portugal, Low Countries, Baltic States, Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Greece and Yugoslavia.

Closing Thought

In this system the contribution of the biased neutral should not be excessive, especially as most of them are alligned with the Axis. It should be on a percentage basis and I'd suggest the following ballpark figures. I want to stress these percentages are not based on historical figures, only a quick consideration.

AXIS

Hungary 40%

Romania 40%

Sweden 30%

Spain 30%

Italy 20%

Finland 20%

Bulagaria 20%

USSR 15% Prepares Drops to 5%

ALLIED

United States 20% Prepares 40% max

Iraq 50%

This system would have the side benefit of making it less important for Germany to launch invasions where she wouldn't have historically. For example, it makes sense for her to invade both Norway and Denmark , but not Sweden or Spain as they are already contributing to her economy.

[ March 02, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Interesting.

So if I understand this correctly, you are saying that certain neutrals that have been "finlandized" should give some of thier MPP's to the appropriate major.

What MPP percentage?

And how would the finlandized nation get to free itself from their "big brother"?

Eliminating some of the "fog of war" is a good idea also. I read something somewhere that stated that the Germans had a huge number of agents in Switzerland, and everytime the Swiss found one of those agents, the Germans would send in five (5) more.

[Hubert Cater]

Just wanted to say that I've found both Shaka's economic discussion and this thread are very interesting

Hubert

[JerseyJohn]

Hubert

Thanks for the Good Word. Extremely pleased you like the ideas!

Shaka

Thanks for the input. You posted while I was editing the post to include percentages.

As I mention, they are only based on providing a rough parity between the Axis and Allies. The Axis MPPs input would be greatest while France is still independant and lowest after some of her invasions, when the USSR is casting a jealous eye!

The increase of US aid to Britain would coincide with the decline of Soviet aid to Germany. The more countries Germany conquers the higher U. S. aid to Britain becomes.

None of the biased countries would have gotten that way by being affected in any way by a major power, it's their permanent orientation.

[ February 03, 2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[kurt88]

Maybe this 'dividing of mpp' could be connected to a kind off diplomatic system that i proposed in a previous thread.

Let's say Swedens mpp income could go to Axis for x percentage depending on how diplomacy is handled towards Sweden.

Making it historically correct could then depend on the player's choice.

[JerseyJohn]

Kurt88

Nice tie in. I'd definitely go for it, but as a percentage of the contributors MPPs.

Say the biased neutrals start off a little lower than what I have them listed at and as they are nudged further into either the Axis or Allied camp diplomatically, their contributed MPPs would rise or fall with the Diplomatic Level and related events.

Spain should be connected by land to Germany for Germany to receive it's MPP bonus. This delay would also help offset the initially large Soviet MPP bonus to Germany. Also, as was mentioned either by yourself or Bill Macon, her contributed MPPs should be split by both the UK and Germany. Naturally, if she joins one side or the other that country gets the full benefit of her entire economy.

[ February 03, 2003, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

-- [Entry to Hubert moved to earlier posting] --

[ February 03, 2003, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Thats what happened! I thought for a moment, that I had somehow bypassed a large part of your post. Good thing it was actually edited... not me just getting old.

And I appreciate the fact that people (including Hubert) find some of my ideas interesting.

And as Kurt88 mentioned, this ties in nicely to a diplomacy system, as you would be using political influence, before having to resort to military means.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Exactly, it's as though all these ideas are meshing along the same concept.

I wrote that last full posting in response to the Kurt , entered it, then backtracked and saw Hubert's posting. Without thinking I added a thank you message, entered that as well, figured it would be better to move it to where Hubert's posting was and did it right away. There was something I'd intended to put in the suddenly empty box, but by the time it was open again it had slipped my mind! Guess there was nothing new to say so I figured may as well enter an explanation.

As usual, I suceeded in confusing myself!

[Gaylord Focker]

What about Vichy France, they were'nt true exactly neutral were they?

[JerseyJohn]

Gaylord

A very good point. I thought of mentioning Vichy except it isn't really a nation in the sense we were discussing. But yes, I'd have to agree that it's economy would be biased towards Germany; that's the only way it could have gone!

Regarding Vichy . . .

We had a very extensive forum not too long ago that was pretty much obsessed with Vichy France!

It's usually belittled as having been an Axis puppet. Which is bull. France was defeated, the choices were very simple: either refuse to acknowledge defeat and be reduced to a conquered province, or attempt to salvage whatever remained. Vichy attempted the latter, which seems pretty sensible considering the alternative.

As for being an Axis puppet. Aside from invading it's colony of Syria , sinking it's inactive, anchored fleet at Mirs el Kabir , landing at and attempting to seize Dakar, the British did nothing that would have moved Vichy to declare war on them and actually join the Axis. But they didn't! Any other country would have done it three times over!

So how are they anything but neutral? Yes, some Vichy officials worked hand in glove with the Nazis, but it has to be taken as a whole and considered in the overall context. In many cases Vichy beaurocrats were inept dregs who would never have occupied their posts in normal times. Considering the circumstances they didn't do too badly; the French Empire, through what might be called non-opposition to the Germans and Japanese, was put on hold for the duration of the war.

Germany didn't even return French 1940 POWs. Hitler offered to do so if Vichy formally joined the Axis, and they still didn't. I think Vichy deserves some credit. Not much to be sure, but considerably more than the blatant contempt it still receives in history texts.

[ February 03, 2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[CalifVol]

Inflamatory remarks deleted.

Let's just say that IMHO Vichy France has nothing good I would say about it.

[ February 03, 2003, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: CalifVol ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Well done Jersey John, you have really hit a homerun with your annalistic review about the economics of the minor countries around Germany.

Since SC is an economic game, your points are very strong for giving support from the neutrals, especially the US.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

Thanks for the Good Word. I think the recent groupings of forums on economics and diplomacy will definitely lead to something positive.

CaliVol

There is nothing good or bad to say about Vichy France, it was an attempt to salvage something from total ruin. The Germans went along with it because it kept the French Colonial Empire reasonably intact and, if not under direct Axis control then at least assured it wouldn't work against them. The French went along with it because it was preferable to total conquest. That's all, nothing either positive or negative, just a crippled nation trying to survive.

It should also be noted that, even after the Allies landed Operation Torch on her North African shores, the Vichy French scuttled their own safe warships when German troops crossed it's borders. How pro-Axis was that?

[ February 04, 2003, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[CalifVol]

History has already spoken on Vichy France. There is no need to perfume a skunk. When other nations had governments in exile France did not. The whole concept of keeping the Germans out of Vichy was based on pleasing Hitler. He wound up occuping the place anyway. So at the price of their soul to keep the devil away, that devil came anyway, but that soul was still lost. That is the legacy and lesson of Vichy. It is proof that peace at any price is too high a price to pay.

[ February 04, 2003, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: CalifVol ]

[JerseyJohn]

CaliVol

No Cal, the whole idea of Vichy France was to minimize the harshness of German occupation. The French did not choose to be heroic. So what? It was their choice. The vast majority of the population didn't want the war and didn't approve of the way their governments were handling things, which is why there was such a merrygoround of French cabinets throughout the thirties.

The Third Republic entered the war with a committment to help Poland, which they knew would fall in a month or less, and had plans to fight a defensive war for at least two years! Who the hell could be inspired by a bunch of imbeciles like that?

And just who was supposed to form this French Government in exile? As soon as the Germans broke the French lines and rushed on Paris, the Third Republic ceased to exist. After helping for ten years to create a catastrophe, it's last act was to dissolve when it was most needed!

After the Armistace was signed the Free French themselves failed to choose a leader. Nor were they a single entitiy. De Gaulle was supported by the British, selected by them in effect, and from there it was mostly bargaining and politics to get the movement off the ground. Before any of this took place, back in France, the Germans were running unimpeded through the countryside.

It might just be possible that the really brave thing was to stay with the people who had lost everything in this national folly and try to salvage something for them.

It's easy to talk heroism. When your country is crushed and the lives of everyone you know are in the hands of an invader, then perhaps there's reason enough to stop fighting and start rebuilding.

Which is the only knock against them, that they didn't choose to be heroes. Sounds like a private decision, doesn't it?

I admire the Free French and the Governments in exile. But I'm not very big on condemning people for trying to survive. Nor do I believe in knocking someone else because he or she is not the Hollywood hero type. Some are, most aren't.

In any case, if you feel this strongly about the issue please open a seperate forum about it . Last time it drew tons of responses and no doubt will do the same again.

Even though our opinions on this are obviously completely opposite, I'd find it interesting to read everyone's views and to continue perfuming that skunk, except it would be in it's own little den instead of this one.

As for the verdict of history, there is nothing more meaningless. Historical verdicts on everything change over and over again.

Regarding the economic aspects of Vichy France in relation to it's MPP bias, which is what this particular Forum is concerned with, it's already been stated that it would have tied in with Germany's war production. If you have something to add to this or want to contradict it, we'd love to hear your views.

[ February 04, 2003, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Ancient One]

I agree with JJ about Vichy. The only alternative to such a peace agreement was total occupation, the war was unwinnable at that point.

Anyway, add Vichy and Turkey to the countries that supplied the Germans with resources.

[kurt88]

Maybe a good solution to this 'Vichy-problem' is to make it a problem!(for the players that is.France falls to the Axis,Vichy is installed,how can Axis/Allied make sure it comes under their influence or even control? (remember 'the what if' possibilities of SC were great,they should be in SC2 aswell.)I think the key to the solution of all these issues that are being addressed here (and with reason),is an installement of a decent diplomatic system to which an economic model (like JerseyJohns) and a techtree could be connected.

And please keep TYPING,the maker(s) of SC2 should be stimulated by our chatter!

[JerseyJohn]

Ancient One

Thanks for the good word.

I originally listed Turkey with the pure neutrals and left Vichy off altogether, which was wrong. My reasoning was that Germany had too many contributors already while England had too few. The answer is to add them but lower all the percentages a little so Germany isn't swamped with neutral MPPs; the exact figures would need to be worked out.

It's possible that for economic purposes there wouldn't be any pure neutrals. Every country's trade would be linked to one side or the other, or possibly both.

I'll have to work on a new list and post it as soon as it makes sense to me. Switzerland would probably work best with a special rule involving it's role as Germany's Banker.

[JerseyJohn]

Kurt

Interesting thoughts. Vichy as an economic entity is turning into an interesting topic.

I've found the Historical Variant aspect you mentioned can be solved in the scenario editor as was originally suggested, I believe, by Bill Macon . First you make your basic scenario, then you vary it with additional scenarios!

For example, if we really want to examine what role Vichy played in things, we can start with a situation right after the fall of France with Vichy neutral and name it, let's say, 1940 Vichy N. Then if we want to see if it would have affected things as part of the Axis, chose a date, such as the seizure of Syria , go on the assumption that Vichy declares war on the U. K., make Syria and Iraq British (they both happened about the same time, though I think the taking of Syria came first) while Vichy itself, the remaining two parts, are Axis. Give this one a different title, say, 1940 Vichy Axis . The same can be done if you chose to change the time to say the attack on Mirs el Kabir or Dakar.

But what you're saying is, in SC II it would be part of the game itself. Part of a system where countries could be bartered and talked into alligning themselves one way or another and to varying degrees. That would be very good. I'd like to see it and hopefully Hubert will feel the same way.

Before becoming Prime Minister, Churchill corresponded feverishly with the still neutral Mussolini making offers and promises, all economic, in a futile attempt to keep Italy neutral. He told him, prophetically, that Britain could assure the Italians of trade beyond anything Germany could offer and she'd prosper and survive the war greater than she already was. But if she joined the Axis Britain wouldn't be satisfied till her Fascist government were driven utterly from power and destroyed. For a while it was working, then Germany broke through the Ardennes and cut the Brits and French main force off in the Low Countries, at which point Mussolini assumed the war would end soon and threw in with Germany.

Agreed we need to keep expanding on these topics and hopefully we'll strike on something we like that can be incorporated into the revised game.

It happened in the most recent patch when everyone kept saying there should be a round Africa route to Egypt and Hubert created one. In fact, I like his method better than the loop in Clash of Steel because the unit initiates the trip off the coast of West Africa instead of in England. That means transports still need to either be protected through potentially dangerous seas (as they alwasy were) or have their survival left to chance!

An interesting footnote is during the Bismarck chase BB Rodney was originally attached to a large and vital 'round Africa troop convoy that was thought to be a possible reason for Bismarck's sudden appearance. Rodney was detatched when the convoy was sufficiently far south, leaving it with lighter ships, and chugged it's way North at it's blistering 20 knot pace to rejoin the Home Fleet and BB K.G. V in time to help sink the crippled German warship.

[ February 04, 2003, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by JerseyJohn:

It happened in the most recent patch when everyone kept saying there should be a round Africa route to Egypt and Hubert created one.

JJ: Actually, if you go back and check the postings from last Spring, you will find that Hubert had mentioned that he was actively considering this idea long before anyone else wondered if it was even feasible.

As occasionally happens -- extended game-play, and/or dedicated collected-interest will cause a reconsideration of an original concept. I believe that is the case in this particular instance, though I am sure that some ideas are truly new to the forum.

For instance, your idea for having partial access to resources is a good one. Other board-games such as A3R have used this concept, in that you would have varying degrees of committment by the Minor nations, depending on diplomatic pressure, self interest, or plain old strong-arm coercion.

This would work wonderfully for SC2, and a superior example would be Sweden. If Germany receives some of that precious Ore by finagle or fiat, then perhaps they would be far less inclined to invade the country and simply take it, yes?

If we do get a more complex (... and event-driven model!... I have long campaigned for MORE special events) for SC2, then the amount of Machiavellian scheming and subterfuge (... in order to dominate world markets or simply re-define the existing political landscape) could be amazing. Amazing I say! :cool:

In any event, kudos to you for introducing another aspect of game-play, which would ultimately lead to deeper and more exciting game-play.

As for Vichy: very few living persons, especially Americans, have the remotest idea of how they might react to a sudden catastrophe, such as the total collapse of a government and its military defense force.

Historians may try for subjective analysis, but in general, most comments will more truly reflect the hopes & fears & prejudices of the individual who is expressing an opinion.

Very normal to PROJECT one's own angst and apprehension onto a present or previous incident. Gathering myths, and illusions on a Cave wall serve a distinct purpose, but they are not "history." My own feeling is that much of the criticism of France has more to do with CURRENT Realpolitik than anything else.

France occasionally suffers through re-evaluations and recriminations concerning Vichy, in much that same way that the USA does in terms of the (... apparently) never-resolved, never-ending Civil War, etc.

[JerseyJohn]

REVISED NEUTRAL STATUS LIST:

This idea assumes that, for economic purposes, no country is entirely neutral, and is reset accordingly. Specific percentages have not been offered as they should be worked out by those whose understanding of economics is greater than my own.

United States -- UK only.

Iraq UK only.

Ireland UK only

Denmark Both, edge to UK.

Norway Both, edge to UK.

Low Countries Both, edge to UK.

Portugal Both equally.

Yugoslavia Both equally.

Greece Both equally.

Spain Both, edge to Germany.*

USSR -- Germany only.**

Finland Germany only.

Baltic States Germany only.

Turkey Germany only.

Bulgaria Germany only.

Romania Germany only.

Hungary Germany only.

Italy Germany only.

Sweden Germany only.

Switzerland Both equally/Germany only***

*Spain's MPPs to Germany only if connected by land route.

**Soviet MPPs to Germany decline as her war readiness increases.

***Switzerland Germany only after France falls.

As part of this system, there should be heavy diplomatic penalties for invading countries that are deeply tied to the invading nation. For example, Germany should suffer diplomatically by invading either Spain or Switzerland.

The Economic allignment altered by the extent the neutral goes in that direction, ought to also form the diplomatic basis for that countries leanings.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Just a couple of points regarding these neutral nation economies...

Lets not forget that during this era a nation will trade with other nations to provide itself with the raw materials (including food) it needs to fuel its own economy.

If neutrals give a percentage of thier MPP, it is still cost effective (within game system), to take the nation over. Forget the plunder effect for the moment, the 80% economy of the conquered nation is more than the MPP the neutral was giving you. Maybe we should consider the negative effect of occupying the country, which is that you have to garrison it. I've got the numbers somewhere for the number of men it takes to control a subjected population. When I find them, I will edit this post.

This is where the abstraction of the economy into a single economic unit has problems. You lose the ability to reflect that taking over a nation, even though it gives you control of the production, does not necessarily allow you to fully exploit what you have, and may end up costing you more that it is worth.

So even if the neutrals give the major(s) a % of its MPP, some players will still invade them, because they can gain more MPP's... and the plunder. But taking away the plunder or not allowing the neutrals to be invaded is not the answer either. Thats why I believe we have to include the oil and mineral resource points.

[JerseyJohn]

Immer

Thanks for the good word.

Interesting about Hubert's statement last Spring; I've read through much of those postings on a spare time basis but either missed it or haven't reached that thread. In any event, I'm very glad he added that function.

Your elaboration expanded the subject even further and I have to agree, these new aspects with the ideas of Shaka and Kurt on economics and diplomacy are beginning to settle into a very interesting concept. Agreed entirely with your view. When it all gets incorporated the results should be -- as Casey Stengle once said, "Amazing-Amazing-Amazing!"

Great insight into the Vichy views and it makes a lot of sense. When I was twenty I had contempt for the Vichy French. Now, in my fifties, I tend to think more of the poor bastards left footing the bill when it all falls apart! Very glad you added your views.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Absolutely and the possibilities should remain open ended.

Germany, for example, could still benefit by actually invading Sweden (1) by plunder (2) by getting the whole pie instead of only a slice, and (3) by raising the combined productivity of the combined Norway/Sweden region!

In unique cases, such as Switzerland, invading means trading plunder for a steady income.

The fine points incorporating your economic ideas and Kurt's diplomatic ideas still need to be worked out. But I feel extremely confident that collectively this forms a single good concept and I hope the entire membership contributes it's ideas on the subject.

Possibly a new Forum should go up discussing the three ideas in combination. I'm not sure how to go about forming it all into a single three faceted concept. Hopefully either Kurt or yourself will do so as I believe either of you will make a better job of it than myself.