Allies attack spain - axis minors wont join. Possible gigantic flaw

[Kuniworth]

Hey. Ive Played nimitz(allies) and suddenly he DOW:s Spain and it turns to axis. He toldme it was because my minors wont join and I told him that he was probably wrong, it works the otherway around if axis attack spain first.

So I was glad because it gave me some corps and lowered US readiness but then something weird happen. The minors never joined. It´s august 1941(Ive got Vichy, Norway, Sweden, Yugoslavia) neither Hungary, Rumania or Bulgaria joined the axis. Yugoslavia had an allied coup in april 1941 and was quickly overrun.

So after waiting for the minors to join I finally had enough and attacked Hungary surely bringing Finland out of axis(?). Meanwhile Russian readiness skyrocketed and I had to do a bad Barbarossa due to not having Rumania.

Does anyone know if it´s supposed to work like this? It must be a flaw, Ive tried it in Hotseat and it works out the same way - minors wont join. I waited until march 1942 and the turn before russia joins and minors dont turn axis.

RIDICULOUS. I AM SO ****IN FRUSTRATED.

[ August 04, 2003, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[JerseyJohn]

I think it's a flaw and got there by a different route; in making scenarios I've found that putting either Sweden or Spain on either side seems to prevent the Axis minors from joining it. When activating those countries now I write in the Scen Description USE HISTORICAL MINOR ALLY ENTRY, other wise they remain neutral.

There are similar problems with other neutrals, such as Greece and Yugo affecting minor ally entry. Now I use the Historical note with them as well.

But you're right, having countries behave this way shouldn't be part of the game.

[ August 04, 2003, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kuniworth]

This so ****in idiotic that it makes me furious. Playing for 6 hours then you discover this. Both me and Nimitz think that this sucks.

Ive tried what war-percentage does if allies attack Spain;

USA -12

USSR Nothing

That can be a fairly small price to pay to make Axis chase down their minors.

If axis attacks minors war-readiness change like this;

Rumania;

USA +9

USSR +19

Hungary;

USA +7

USSR +5

Bulgaria;

USA + 9

USSR + 6

So allies in need of Russia should attack Spain. Germany will increase russian war-readiness with +30.

:mad:

[Shaka of Carthage]

Isn't that interesting. Lets see.

Spain gives the Axis 48 MPPs. The "Minors" 100 MPPs (Hungary 20, Romaina 60, Bulgaria 20).

After Allies DoW on Spain, you get 50% of the Minors MPPs. Also the bonus of being able to get Gibralter. Assuming most people would go after Portugal, that gives you 10 more and the plunder.

You lose out on the Minors and the border with Russia.

I think in this case, you would be better off without the Minors. The extra MPPs (and plunder) isn't worth the increase in Russian readiness. Once you enter into war with Russia, then its a different story. Go after them then, assuming it doesn't mess up your Russian plans.

[Iron Ranger]

Breaking down the good/bad of and Allied DOW on spain (assuming they don't attack only DOW)

Political

1)Germany loses Hungery and Rominia (we think, not a sure thing as they just might be delayed for a very long time)

2) Bulgeria and Finland will join but are delayed/have lower % of joining.

Military

1) Gain 2 armys and 4 corps

2) Lose (R&H) 3 armys and 2 corps

Econimic

1) Gain 70 MPPs (assumeing land connection to capital)

2) Lose 100 MPPs untill you attack them then the number changes to 20 MPPs

Readness, Kuni covered this just fine

Location: By bringing Spain into the war as an Axis minor Gabralter becomes imposiable to hold and Portugal is and easy conquest.

I would say its a push on if this is a good idea or not, depends on the players and if they know they will not have control of the Balkin minors when they attack Russia. I personally think this is a bad plan as the gabralter hex is the most important non-capital hex on the board and giving the axis easy access will mean losing the game in the long run (major mistakes and tech excepting).

Bottom line is Kuni is right this is a flaw, gaining Spain as a minor should not cause you to lose Rominia and Hungery and delay Finland and Bulgeria. You might even get a positive vote in Z-league as HR if you ask.

[ August 06, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Iron Ranger ]

[Terif]

Its no flaw that the minors (Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria) dont join any more when Spain turns Axis - either by conquering it, or if Allies DOWs it. It is written in the manual/manual update and also mentioned in several threads from time to time.

More important:

- it is necessary, otherwise Axis would attack Spain immediately after France. With the current system they have to think if and when to attack Spain.

- if Allies DOW Spain it is usually a big advantage for Axis. Only if Allies can manage to conquer Spain before the fall of France it is perhaps good for them. This is very unlikely and risky - but can be fun doing it one time, creates a really different game .

It is a disadvantage for Allies if they DOW Spain because:

-Axis get Spain, Gibraltar and the virtual connection to Africa for free and earlier than normal.

- i.e. Axis dont need units for Spain and can use everything for other purposes.

-Axis dont have to DOW Spain, this saves 18-27 %US readiness and around 5 % russian readiness (+ US penalty for Allies for the DOW). Thats a lot of mpp...

- Axis only looses mpp for the minors for the time between their normal join date and Barbarossa. When they attack Russia/USA comes in the war, then they also get their minors by conquering them. And they also get a lot of plunder, evening out the loss of the minor units.

Summary:

If Allies DOW Spain it creates a totally different game, but is usually a disadvantage for Allies. The only advantage is a better start for Russia, but thats not worth the thousands of mpps Allies loose by declaring war to Spain.

But it can be a lot of fun making something different .

[Kuniworth]

But Terif it don´t make any sense therefore it is a flaw. Why should minors refuse to join axis because Spain is attacked by allies???? It does´nt make any sense. And it' s not mentioned in the latest manual-update.

I think it is vital that the very shallow diplomacy model in SC makes sense. A player should know that his actions leads to consequenses which is seen as natural and understandable.

This is as stupid as if Axis attacks Switzerland and that makes USA neutral.

[Terif]

Kuniworth:

This is the old discussion: historical accuracy vs playability... and SC is not a historical simulation, but a strategy game with historical background. You know about the Spain thing, therefore use it for your strategy...

BTW: it is mentioned in the manual, but you have to read very carefully .

[Kuniworth]

Hm Ive read the manual again and did not find it. But yes, maybe my heart wants a little more historical accuarcy but this question is not about that. This is a simple matter of getting a diplomatic system that´s understandable. I can´t see why we cant have that.

Increase russian readiness if axis attacks spain.

[Bill101]

Kuniworth is right. Such an action would probably make the minor axis powers more likely to side with Germany. However, perhaps it could be set according to the speed with which the allies conquer Spain.

For example:

Allies conquer Spain in 3 or less moves - Romania and Hungary don't join the Axis as they are overawed by the allied victory.

However, should Spain still be fighting on the 4th turn, then the minor axis powers should automatically join the Axis alliance.

How's that for a compromise solution?

Or do you think Terif that the rule has been made for the sake of balance? In which case maybe it is correct?

Bill

[Terif]

Bill:

I dont think the Spain rule has been "made" for balance. But the result is the same: with the rule it is more balanced, than without and it provides another possible strategy for Allies.

And you have a logical (historical) possible explaination why Axis minors wont join if Allies attack Spain:

Allies show their power and make an example of Spain. The potential Axis minors are afraid that they would be fighting on the loosing side if they join and that Allies would do the same with them as with Spain if they do so...

[Kuniworth]

But Terif, with that logic would´nt minors join when allies to the dutch gambit either. Or if allies attack Ireland. What makes Spain so diffrent? Is it because it´s a possible axis minor to begin with? In that case why may then Bulgaria and Finland still join?

The diplomacy model is inconcequent and hard to comprehend.

[Jordy]

With the LC gambit it was almost expected that France was going to do that in real life. With Spain, in regards to the difference to Ireland, Spain is on the continent. Also, the Allies sacking of Ireland and/or LC would not have been as impresive as the sacking of Spain. If Ireland and/or the LC countries get overrun by the allies, oh well. If Spain does it may be enough to raise the eyebrows of some, if not all, of the axis minors.

Finland on the other hand had recently fought a war with the USSR and wanted revenge. They should join no matter what happens (as long as germany is at war with the USSR). As for Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary I don't have an expalnation as to why only Bulgaria would join.

[Kuniworth]

Jordy So with that logic an allied attack on Turkey would also make the balkan minors not joining? Or if not why is that?

I tell ya, it´s not consequent and a flaw IMHO.

[Jordy]

With Turkey it could also go either way.

An attack on Turkey, also seen as more powerful than the LC or Ireland could scare the axis minors into not joining.

On the other hand, an invasion so close to home (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary) may force the axis minors to join in fear that they may be next. (Spain isn't a next door neighbor)

So either way, the axis minors are going to be affected. They way they are affected is determined by the programmer and what they feel may best represent history and/or be best for the play balance of the game. But there can be made a case to support either effect.

[Iron Ranger]

I was looking at this as more of a historical flaw. That if the allies DOW spain and made no attempt to attack it (as the first post by Kuni states) but only to deny the Balkin minors, thats historically wrong.

As stated by Terif, this is done more for game balance then any other reason. Though its not a historical simulator its very close and most players (I think) would like to see features that follow, as near as programing allows, a historical path.

[Jordy]

Your right, the allies would have to conquer Spain, in lets say 3 turns, otherwise the it should have no effect on the axis minors. If the allies don't conquer Spain in 6 turns, then the axis minors join automatically, and with no effect on war readiness.

Something similar could be worked out for Turkey.

Sorry for not realizing that the Allies never sacked Spain. Then it is, I believe, a serious flaw.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Its interesting reading all the "reasons" why it should be one way or the other.

It also points up a big difference between a "historical gamer" (aka gamer) and a "game player" (aka player). Obviously, I consider myself the former, one of the reasons I never invade Canada or US.

As a gamer, when I am the Allies, I would never invade Spain since there are no advantages for me. I would assume that Mr H is kinda the same, so when he put in the effects of an invasion on Spain, he probably only thought in terms of Axis doing it. In that case (Axis invasion), the effect on the Minors makes sense.

Even though I will never forgive Terif for the carrier "doctrine" , you have got to love the players who figure these things out. It makes life exciting for the rest of us, not to mention keeping us on our toes. I remember the first time Terif tore me a new one with those carriers. I was pissed. Now I sink those little buggers every chance I get.

I remember when JerseyJohn complained about the Italian Amphib "Tango". He was not a happy camper. There where also a couple of guys from way back, who went nuts over the lack of unit limits.

Think of it this way. The players are actually doing us a favor, since when they spring these things on us, we gamers actually get to experience the type of "surprise" the French High Command felt when Germany unleashed Blitzkreig.

[pzgndr]

Turkey does not affect the Axis minors like Spain. All these political triggers are described in the User Manual Updates and Errata text document. I believe Spain also affects Bulgaria, but isn't listed and is probably a typo.

OK, is all this Spanish Gambit stuff a gigantic game flaw or no? If the Allies deliberately DOW Spain and DO NOT conquer it, I'd say that's a plus for the Axis. It makes for a different and interesting game, which is fine. Deal with it.

Question. Would a game without any of these gambits or other ahistorical options allowed really be as interesting to play?? A rigid historical game would have been "solved" months ago, yet here we are a year after SC was released and still debating the merits of various strategies. That speaks volumes for the replayability of this game. :cool:

[ August 05, 2003, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Bill Macon ]

[Iron Ranger]

True Bill, but people like to bitch. If game play was perfect for everyone then some players would say the Red color for the Red army isn't a deap enough Red, and others would say Germany should be Black for the Nazi/SS and not gray ect....

Good point on the replayablity, but we all have our 'hot button' and this is what makes a forum interesting.

[Jordy]

Myself, I like it the way it is.

But I do think the Russian units aren't as red as they could be. :mad: