Neutrals as Economic Factors In SC [renamed]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by JerseyJohn:

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

This could be problematical if it is MERELY based on economic power, though - could very well be that you are not actually advocating this.

If you approached the problem as A3R did, with diplomatic points mostly accrued according to how large the economy of each participant, then the MOMENTUM that the Axis attains in the early war years would "pile up" to such an extent that they could "muscle" almost any country toward their inane nihilistic (... NON Nietzschian, BTW) viewpoint. :eek:

Perhaps better to base diplomatic power on a combination of 5 or 6 factors: 1) current economy, 2) recent historical influence (... as the "compelling Romance" of the British Empire), 3) victories and defeats in KEY AREAS, such as Egypt, Malta, Convoy-War in N Atlantic, or Ukraine, and 4) purely RANDOM events, which would reflect those hard to quantify factors such as Royal marriages and personality of whimsical diplomats, and the like, 5) Historical influence, as the British had in Iraq and 6) there could be even more factors, some of which would be "hidden" from the game-player, so that you might have surprises and sudden reversals of fortune.

No doubt that Economic Power is real and daunting, but we wouldn't want the Axis to have too much at the outset, where they could cajole & coerce to the extent that the Allies are mostly shut out from ANY effective diplomatic influence.

[JerseyJohn]

Immer

Exactly right. I've been trying to tiptoe around a system that would have to favor whoever gets the first few victories. I think you've got the proper approach, it has to be a combination of factors with a random element thrown in. Great idea. Can't see any way of refining it any further than you have.

There has to be a way of presenting all these things (diplomacy, revised economic model, minor country bias, etc.) into a single unified idea. I haven't got it worked out at this point but if you or Kurt or Shaka find the key first I hope the new forum will be created. From there these related ideas will be a little closer to becoming incorporated into the game.

Glad you made the point about bludgeoning; if that's all there is the idea would degenerate quickly into tedeous might is right tactics. Which, of course, is an approoach that also needs to be represented i.e. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini.

[ February 04, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[kurt88]

Ok here it is:my long and winding idea for a diplomatic system in SC2.

It's based on diplomatic points much like MPP's in SC today (I'll call them DP's).

Lets take the Axis as an example.Each turn Berlin would receive DP's from Nazi-diplomats and friendly regimes at the start of the game (see JerseyJohn's Neutrals and biased neutrals).These points could then be spend on befriending true neutrals or increasing the level of influence in already Axis-oriented regimes.

Lets say Romania starts the game at level 1 of Axis influence.This would mean that a certain number of Romanian MPP's go to Axis.This number increases with the level of influence Axis has in Romania.The Allied player/ai can counteract this be spending his DP's on Romania.And so a diplomatic battle of influencing nations is created.A wise allocation of 'precious DP's is in order.

Now,when Romania reaches level 3,a puppet regime can be installed by Axis.This would ensure a flow of half of or 3/4 of Romanian MPP's to Berlin.From this point on Allied DP's spent on Romania would result in the appearance of partisan units near Romanian resource hexes (sabotage if you want).

The next step would be annexation (level 5?) and ALL Romanian MPP's go to Berlin.Romania is from then on lost for the Allies.

This system should IMHO be complemented with an historical event engine for each nation on the map.These events can alter the levels of influence by Axis or Allies.

Ofcourse this is just a rough idea and the most important part,the numbers (how many DP's,how many MPP's per level,wich events) is still to be invented.I'll leave this up to the peaople with the right knowledge.

Either way diplomacy should be interwoven with JersyJohn's and Shaka's ideas on economy and MPP's

And as JersyJohn stated,it would be nice to have a seperate forum for this where Hubert could easily monitor our progress.

[JerseyJohn]

Kurt

Nice entry. Why not copy it using [control+c] and put it into [New Topic] with a title of your choosing. That way it would be the first post of a new forum!

You've made exactly the right entry for it but, unfortunately, it's still part of this forum.

If you aren't sure how to transfer this entry so it begins a new forum I'd be glad to do it, just give me the word.

Thanks for posting it, now we're getting somewhere!

[kurt88]

go right ahead man!I'm not to forum-posting wizard!I'll trust you to find a good title for it

[JerseyJohn]

You've got it my friend.

[JerseyJohn]

In the less than one month it's taken for this Forum to drop to page 4 Obscurity, many interesting topics have come and gone. To me this one was never quite resolved.

The gist of the neutral economic allignment idea was to give MPP credit to both the UK and Germany in relation to their influence over neighboring minor countries. In the UK's case they wouldn't need to be neighbors as Britain was, and is, built on an international economy.

It occurred to me that this MBB effect could be accomplished through the Scenario Editor using the current Game system.

UK receives Ireland, Portugal and Iraq as Allies from the beginning of the 1939 scenario.

Germany receives Sweden.

This is not as outlandish as it appears.

Sweden was engulfed, literally, by Germany. Her mining economy was heavily tied in to German industry and she cooperated heavily with the Reich, even to the extent of allowing supplies and reinforcements to pass through Swedish territory (after some initial argument) to Narvik in 1940. This saved a German unit from internment or surrender and even enabled it to capture that Norwegian city (see link I've provided in the Denmark-Norway Option).

Iraq had an agreement with Britain going back to Winston Churchill's WW I policy as First Lord of the Admiralty to sell her oil to Britain (when Churchill decided Royal Navy had to switch from coal to oil). A a minor pro-Axis palace uprising was crushed with the timely arrival of a small number of British troops and the country's extreme pro-British economic tilt was never again in question.

Portugal represents trade from the Iberian Peninsula and Switzerland that went thru England -- much of this benefited Germany, such as the import of American motors and parts even after the United States entered the War.

Ireland Had recently received it's independence (at least the south had) and, despite much popular antagonism to Britain, was bound to the Britain in local trade and economy.

[ March 02, 2003, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

One note on this subject, Hitler got a lot of Gold for when he plundered a Nation he took their Gold Reserves too which is a valuable item for each country. Chamberlain gave him one of those without a fight! Without these early plunders the Third Reich would've been possible. Should've never been possible! <when your money loses it's value Gold Holds it's value> That was the Job of the US<who chose Isiolationism> and Britian & France to keep her under control. They knew a lot was going on in Germany, unchecked. Anti-War turned into Utterly Foolish!

[Shaka of Carthage]

There are merits to the idea of making them part of the different alliances as you suggested. But there are a few problems.

Sweden going to the Axis makes Norway a target from the very beginning. Unless the reasons are corrected, then the "bonus" 42 MPP's are just too good to pass up, even if part of Norway is in Allied hands.

Iraq is going have a similar effect of "bonus" MPPs for the Allies, once Russia joins.

That gets back to the original point of this topic, that part of a nations MPP should go to a specific alliance. I agree with that.

But it also points out that there were very good historical reasons that these nations were not invaded, that we are not reflecting in SC.

Maybe we should be giving more thought on how to represent why those nations were not invaded.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

There are merits to the idea of making them part of the different alliances as you suggested. But there are a few problems. ...

That gets back to the original point of this topic, that part of a nations MPP should go to a specific alliance. I agree with that.

But it also points out that there were very good historical reasons that these nations were not invaded, that we are not reflecting in SC.

Maybe we should be giving more thought on how to represent why those nations were not invaded.

Exactly right.

I've tried some of these ideas in experimental scenarios; using Iraq to cancel Sweden, adding Portugal and Ireland (both unlikely candidates for an invasion) to augment UK MPP levels. And the results are mixed.

Part of my reasoning on Sweden reasoning was, by using the Swedish armies and airfleet against Norway it would bring the original timetable back on track without causing unrealistic numbers of German troops being diverted to Norway. In earlier models I either eliminated the two Swedish armies and airfleet or had Sweden and Iraq shown as Conquered by Germany or UK but thought it was better to ally them, preserving the plunder incentive.

It succeded in that respect, the Swedish Army becoming an occupation garrison (representing security as opposed to front line trrops) with their Airfleet adequate to protect Bergen from nuisence raids while being too weak to dominate the North Sea. But, as you mention, the economic bonus of possessing the two countries becomes overly favorable for Germany.

Your concluding thought sums it up precisely.

There were good reasons why nations such as Switzerlan, Sweden, Spain and Portugal were not invaded by Germany. They were too useful as neutrals, which is what I think Liam was getting at. Of these, only Spain could have had greater value as a beligerant by adding Gibraltar (presumably it would have fallen, the Germans had assigned to it the pair of giant siege guns later used against Sevastopol).

It's difficult to classify Iraq as having been conquered by the UK. As I've said earlier and in several different forums, it was only a palace revolt easily dealt with by a very small number of British troops. The flow of oil never stopped.

There's another way of seeing some of this, of course: Who could Sweden have sold it's iron ore to other than Germany? Who else was in a position to utilize Iraqi oil other than Britain? Spain and Portugal were able to trade with both sides and numerous neutral nations.

As time passes an ever greater amount of Spanish collaboration with the Axis is being unearthed or released from archives. It was so blatant even during the war that Britain routinely introduced disinformation to Germany by planting it in Spain.

All in all these are complex issues and I'm trying to find simple solutions within the game's present framework.

I don't know the correct answers but I think the various topics we've explored searching for them have been moving rapidly in the proper direction.

[ March 04, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Jersey John

Great Post, this really accounts for the economic realities of WWII Europe.

Especially, the bribes(ie resources) that Soviet Russia gave to Germany to stall off a German invasion and the value of neutral companies to the major powers.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin P.

Glad you like it. This was part of three or four threads originated by Shaka, Kurt88 and myself that tied into one another regarding economics and diplomacy. Hubert seemed to be interested in the concepts so possibly we'll see something along these lines in the revision.

[ March 21, 2003, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[disorder]

anything involving some diplomacy with "historical" type neutrals would be fantastic!. great ideas!

as for vichy it seems everyone has expressed their opinion, and i too would like to see a thread on our "collaborator friends" the vichy.

samuel adams could as well have been talking about the vichy when he said;

"if you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.we ask not your counsels or arms.crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.may your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were my contrymen."

[SeaWolf_48]

Jersey

I've read that only 20% of the Nazi economy was made up from outside of Germany. If this is true then getting more MPP's from the countries that Germany conquers would only make up 1/5 of their economic needs.

The game needs to give Germany, and the US more MPP's per turn, and not depending on conquering land. When the US conquered african and european countries like Algers, France and Italy, they gained nothing from them, and it probibly took away from their economic strenght. (How much did England add to the US supplies needs... none).

It took from several months and up to a year for Germany to see any enconomic benefit from conquered countries.

Just some thoughts, and ofcoarse I know that you know all of this, You are the DEAN of SC, over 1400 postings!

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf_48

Thanks for the kind word, many of those 1400 postings were aknowledgements to yourself and others that I'd just learned something in reading an entry.

Agreed entirely about the plunder and gain from conquests. In the case of the Axis it wasn't till the middle of the war that they had any semblence of a productive conquered country. And you're entirely right regarding the Americans and British, they never gained anything other than strategic locations from liberating countries. Actually, as the US always began rebuilding the transportation network I think liberating countries, as you mentioned already, was really an economic drain. The Soviets took whatever they wanted as they entered Europe, but never made up for the massive losses they themselves had suffered.

The system needs some sort of revamping but I'm not quite sure how it can be done.

Germany did salvage a lot of war material from France, principally oil, vehicles and industrial machinery. The vehicles were of too many different manufactured types to be very useful; the units they were assigned to, principally in the Afrika Korps, had to generally machine shop replacement parts for them right out in the field.

What complicates all of this was the medieval approach the nazis used of pulling hordes of people back to Germany to serve as slavelaborers. This wasn't only self-defeating, but inefficient as well. It wasn't till Albert Speer began running things that Germany's economy became reasonably effiecient. It's interesting to imagine what Germany would have been capable of if they'd had Speer, or someone like him, running things from the start.

Do we want that sort of efficient Germany option? I think it would be a good idea, though already covered, I'd imagine, in the research category; what it amounts to is Germany was at L=1 till 1943!

Actually, you've introduced a very complicating element here. I think there should be a new thread to deal with the topic and also on how it should be incorporated into SC or SC 2.

[ March 21, 2003, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by disorder:

anything involving some diplomacy with "historical" type neutrals would be fantastic!. great ideas!

***

disorder

Here's a link to what is definitely the best thread we've had so far regarding Diplomacy in SC, or rather the lack of it but how it might be incorporated.

-- I can't seem to Link to Kurt88's Diplomacy Thread (it just leads to the main screen) so I'll bump it back to the top of this page.--

***

as for vichy it seems everyone has expressed their opinion, and i too would like to see a thread on our "collaborator friends" the vichy.

samuel adams could as well have been talking about the vichy when he said;

"if you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.we ask not your counsels or arms.crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.may your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were my contrymen."

***

There have been a few threads on Vichy, the most recent having been set up by Califvol .

Link to Calivol's Vichy French Thread

I like to give the Frenchmen a lot of slack. I don't think they entered the war with much commitment. Their Political and military leadership was inept; instead of cultivating more committments in Eastern Europe during the 30s they let it stand with Chzechoslovakia, then sold them out, and immediately followed Britain's lead in making an impossible committment to Poland. Did anyone in France honestly believe in that alliance?

By the time the country collapsed I think the average Frenchman was too disgusted to care about abstract values like liberty; by then it was down to sheer survival, which is what they were trying for.

True the Vichy Government was a sham, but what could have been expected? Aside from which, it was either Vichy or direct German rule. It's good to talk about liberty, but people still have to live in the country. I think a government's first and, in the final analysis it's only obligation, is to it's people. The French knew German occupation was a horrible situation and some of them attempted to get around it. If they'd been truly pro-Axis they would have joined Germany either after Britain's takeover of Syria or it's shelling of the French fleet at Mirs el Kebir, but it didn't.

Anyway, in the past I've overdone my position and have probably created enemies on this point. As you've said, everyone's entitled to their opinion. As I see it the French who were able to get away joined the Free French and the French who couldn't kept a low profile. The Southern French chose collaboration and mock independence over outright occupation.

I think the British should have left them alone, the agreement not negotiate a seperate peace treaty should have been considered void when France ceased being a nation. The Brits took an overly idealistic and selfish view of this -- it wasn't their own country that had been invaded; it's easy to tell someone else they're supposed to fight to the last. Britain wasn't called upon to actually do it.

[ March 21, 2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[_Sardaukar_]

it might be an irrelevant detail but denmark was by no means economicly neutral. Denmark was declared neutral also in WW1, but danish production could keep germangy going for 1 month or so (food wise) .. and due to the borders, denmark has always been biased towards german .. not that its symphathy, its just the closest 'larger power'.

Its been like this ever since 1864 and the occupation of jutland and the removal of schleswig and holstein from denmark.

In short: you cant say denmark was neutral prior to the war decleration, as the shear geographic will always push trade towards germany.

[JerseyJohn]

Sardaukar

Thanks for the input and the web link.

Yes, and that's part of the point being made, that small countries have little choice other than to trade with their larger neighbors even if they totally disagree with them on everything else.

I got a kick out of people who were finally amazed by all the trading activity that took place between Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland that benefitted the Reich. What's the big surprise, who else were they supposed to deal with? Only two choices and even if they weren't biased the chances are geographically they may have had to physically go through the Reich to get anywhere else (Sweden and Switzerland) or trading with Reich and England was the only feasable arrangement (Spain and Portugal).

People tend to see the war as opposing causes and the circumstances of neutrality tend to become blurred. Certainly the United States was never an unbiased neutral and neither was the USSR.

[ June 03, 2003, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[_Sardaukar_]

Well, as dane, sweden was wierd, they gave in to the demands of the reich, and traded with them in larges quantities at the same time being 'freedom' for all jews in denmark (they where saved thru sweden).

Nevertheless, the point was that there are no such thing as neutrals. There are only non-combating nations / unallianced nations.

In WW1 Denmark was neutral thru strong military around especially the capital (europes best fortified I would guess). Nevertheless, still there was giving in to the demands of germany "lay mines in the sounds of denmark" .. ontop of a huge trade with germany. They only act that showed a 'non-puppet' status was the refusal to remove them, when germany found out they locked themselves in the baltic ..

Again, its not really neutrality, its just following orders of the most powerfull nation.

One could model this trading nearest naibour by giving a small procentage of MPP from neutralls to thier neiboars. This would also remove the tendency to claim territory for small gains of MPP .. I just played a game where I ate evertthing as axis as long as I wasnt in war with russian or us .. before this happened i had the whole iberia island. If I had just a little benefit from them being neutral I would have attacked,as there are just more places to cover, but I needed the production.

[ June 04, 2003, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: _Sardaukar_ ]

[xwormwood]

Its been like this ever since 1864 and the occupation of jutland and the removal of schleswig and holstein from denmark.

Better: "...removal of schleswig and holstein from the danish crown" (From 1773 the kings of Denmark held the duchies Schleswig & Holstein — Schleswig as full sovereigns, Holstein as princes of the Holy Roman Empire; both duchies were in personal union with, but not part of, Denmark):

http://www.netspace.net.au/~pmaci/wwd.htm

[JerseyJohn]

Bumped this back up in relation to the Lend Lease Thread, mainly with regard to economic ideas posted on the first page.

[jon_j_rambo]

Bottom Line: When it comes to the definition of a "country", this is simple. A country that cannot protect their borders, is not a country (or will not be for long).

The United States currently has this problem. The manifestation is obvious & will continue to worsen.....then, new borders are drawn.

Here's God's viewpoint:

Isa. 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.

The Passion of the Rambo

[Liam]

Rambo getting a bit philosphical there aye

IMO

Neutrals:

Germany had walked into Turkey, Spain Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland along with every other nation that would be kind of Strange don't you think? For History's sake there should be no gains for this. They should get the option but with no gains whatsoever. In fact in Spain I'd make it a Russian and Yugoslavian situation. Constant Partisans and requirement of much more than 4-5 corps to keep it under control. That way you pay for taking Iberia.

No 8 Supply for Sweden, as Denmark and Sweden are not connected, thus gives you 8 For Norway. Why not Finland if you're going to do it? It's more connected than Sweden and Denmark

Suez should allow ships both ways, and units, and FASTER! If Suez falls Iraq should not have to be conquored but join the Axis with the Pro-Axis Goverment there. Bigger penalty for the UK losing it, making it imperative they defend it and not just send their ships and units to pound experience outta Brest Bergen or useless other places in the 40s and 41...

Any Invasion of the Swiss should void out Turkey or Spain from ever joining the Axis no matter what.

That's fairly straight and historical.

Lastly I feel that The Allies Shouldn't have the ability to invade any Neutral without Massive hits. After a certian level I'd break the Russian US/UK Federation into two halves. Both seeking their own Domination. Don't think it would've happened? Much more possible than you realize, especially with the weak relations between Stalin and Churchill/FDR

[Desert Dave]

... he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.

The Passion of the Rambo

Been over to Britain

Playing... scratch golf with

Goldfinger and Odd-Job

Again, eh? :eek:

Who's your backer?

Daddy Warbucks?

And let's see, the caddy

Would be... the ever-faithful,

(Though her hair be... turning gray)

Ms MoneyPenny?

JK, jjr ... JK, and actually,

Good to see you back

And active in yer OTHER great

Passion... Competitive SC!

Just wait until SC2 arrives!

Then!

And it's about time!

We'll see some REAL

Deal-em-in,

Deal-em-out... medal play, eh? :cool:

[Edwin P.]

Liam

Great post. Excellent observation on Spanish partisans, the Suez, and the effect of attacking Switzerland.

I would add that if the Axis attacked Switzerland there should be a chance (say 10%) that such an action will cause Spain or Turkey to join the allies. It adds a bit more exciting that those two always staying neutral.

[ March 13, 2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]