DoW's are too easy

[Guest Mike]

In "real life" many of the DoW's that we happily do simply were politically impossible - the Allies were never going to declare war on Spain, Germany was never going to declare war on Turkey or Syria.

How about a limitation that you annot declare war on someone unless they are some % activated to the other side? I'd suggest at least 50%.

[JerseyJohn]

Excellent idea.

The problem would come with countries like Benelux, Denmark and Norway.

Both Spain and Sweden feared German invasion during 1940.

The Swedes allowed German troops to violate their territory while fighting for Narvik -- even to the extent of transporting troops and supplies on Swedish rail lines. -- I hope nobody becomes outraged about this without first looking up the facts. We had a thread on this two or three years ago in the original forum.

Spain might well have kicked in with Germany during the summer of 1940 but for Admiral Canaris convincing Franco that Germany had already sent the bulk of it's forces east and was no longer in a position to invade his country. The same disclaimer to anyone saying this is nonsense; during the past few years we had several threads on Franco and his political movitvations.

Back to the original point, while I agree with what Stalin's Organist is saying, I also think an option needs to be maintained for invading nations that are less than 20% to the opposite side.

Why not make it cost diplo-chits? If a country is 11-20% pro-other side it costs 1 diplo-chit to DOW on them. If 0-10% it costs 2 diplochits.

And/or there could be an MPP cost.

[Guest Mike]

Spain and Sweden might well have feared it, but that doesn't mean it was ever goign to hapen - like the British feared the RAF would be destroyed by the Luftwaffe in the BoB - it was never going to happen.

I thought Canaris persuaded Franco on the basis that there wasn't that much in it for Spain - eg Spain relied upon oil from the USA, and the US had agreed with the UK to limit Spain to a 10 week reserve. So if it entered the war it would ahve to be supplied from Germany - something the Germans would not have been able to do!

Diplo chips look like a reasonable idea.

[JerseyJohn]

I'll try and find one of the old threads on Franco and his one and only meeting with Hitler during the summer of 1940. Hitler sent Canaris to smoothe the way for him and, instead, he talked Franco out of joining the Axis.

Upon his arrival Franco was willing but apprehensive about going to war while his own bloody victory was still so recent and raw. Canaris tipped that an invasion of the Soviet Union was in the works and also that most of the German troops had already begun shifting east. As I remember, he conveyed similar info to Salazar in Portugal.

So, when Hitler's meeting with Franco came around, the Spanish dictator mainly sat watching while a representitive did most of the talking. German witnesses said Hitler was twitching with aggravation and also that they were amazed about him putting up with such disrespect.

Franco's strategy was to keep upping what he wanted in return for Spain's joining the Axis, also insisting that Gibraltar could only be assaulted by Spanish troops. Hitler said he had heavy guns (no doubt Dora and it's companion) that would destroy it's defenses, but he didn't want to wait too long before committing them.

Initially Hitler thought Franco would be satisfied with Gibraltar and, in return, would allow one of the Canary Islands to be used for a submarine base. To his astonishment Franco shook his head and said Spain would not go to war if that was all it was getting in return. Hitler couldn't offer much more as he was also hoping to get Petain to join the Axis and wouldn't offer any Vichy territory.

At the end of the day he made that famous remark about preferring root canal work without sedation to having another meeting with the Spaniard.

Regarding Sweden, I think their main defense against invasion was Hitler's justified fear that either the rail lines or the mines themselves would be lost to him if the country were invaded.

Hitler spoke several times about the hardy nature of the Spaniards and how they had been toughened by their Civil War. He was probably very well aware of Napoleon's experiences in the country. He learned that lesson better than the other one, involving Russia.

[Guest Mike]

Franco's demands weer somethign like 500,0000 tons of Grain, all the fuel for the spanish army, all the missing equipment required to bring the army up to strength, planes, guns, transports, etc, plus IIRC French Morocco & somewhere else in Nth Africa.

The Vichy French had recently reacted against the British attacking their ships at Mers el Kebir & Dakkar, so Hitler figured perhaps he didn't really need the Spanish so much.

I thought the comment was he would rather have 3 teeth pulled than negotiate with Franco again!

However spain did allow axis shipping to use Spanish harbours until 1943 when he adopted strict neutrality.

[JerseyJohn]

I think you're right about the remark.

Agree with the other details, at the time it must have seemed to Hitler that, one way or the other, the UK would be agreeing to peace fairly soon regardless of whether Spain joined the Axis.

Your last comment about Axis shipping using Spanish ports is very interesting because I think Spain was at least as valuable to Hitler as a pro-neutral as it would have been if it had entered.

The big loser in all of that was Mussolini. With Gibraltar out of the way, and Malta soon to lose most of it's effectiveness, Italy would have been relatively shielded. Also, in the meeting Hitler brought up how much aid both he and Mussolini had extended to Franco and I believe he emphasized how grateful he should have been to Mussolini.

I don't remember Franco's demands other than French Morocco and Algeria, but what you stated sounds right. Naturally Franco would have been concerned about having to fight off British coastal raids, if not a full blown invasion later on. Also, I think he was afraid that they'd stir up trouble with those parts of the population that were less than enthusiastic about his government.

-- Which I think would be an interesting element to introduce in the game. Spain joins the Axis and Britain can help cause internal problems for them, including partisans.

-- -- If that's already in the game and I don't know about it, my apologies for the redundancy and also my congratulations to Mr H for including it. :cool:

[John C]

I don't like rules that say you simply cannot do something. I prefer rules that make the consequences so severe that you won't do it. For example, I could see where a DoW on an "ally" would create a diplomatic stir. What if a DoW on a nation slanted in your direction by more than 25% caused ALL other nations to slant towards your enemy by whatever amount the target nation was slanted towards you. So, if Spain is 50% tilted towards the Axis and Germany declares war, All neutrals (including the US and the USSR) tilt towards the Allies by 50%.

The same might occur with Minors already in the war so that if they ever get to where they are at less than even, they switch sides. So, Hungary joins the Axis and is +100% towards Germany. Spain and Turkey are both +51% Axis and Germany declares war on both. Hungary takes double -51% penalties and is now +2% Allies. At that point, she switches sides and immediately makes peace with the Allies and declares war on Germany. Her allegiance is then set to +100% Allies.

[Fartknock3r]

Didnt we go a little off topic? I think that happens a lot here. I think the best thing would be to pay for DoW's. Which vary from country to country. So attacking denmark would be like 25 mpp's. And stronger countries like Finland,Sweden,Spain and Turkey should cost 50. And DoWing major powers would be 100 mpp's. But im not sure if that should apply to USSR.

[Kuniworth]

what would be cool would be if you could make peace with countries without a forced annexation.

[Blashy]

You do pay for DoW, diplomatically, although this needs to be tweaked to have more "invariables" so you can't just look at the scripts and know X will never happen.

Saying Germany NEVER would have, well of course THEY never would have, but would YOU have .

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Blashy:

You do pay for DoW, diplomatically, although this needs to be tweaked to have more "invariables" so you can't just look at the scripts and know X will never happen.

Correct, less predictable scripts are the answer!

[JerseyJohn]

JohnC & FN3rd,

Basically I agree with you, though there's little distinction between rules that say you can't do something, and rules that it all but impossible to carry out.

What, really, were the consequences of Hitler's invasions? Was there universal outrage in the either the United States or the USSR when he invaded any of those countries? I don't think so. The United States in 1940, after the invasions of Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxemburg, Holland, Belgium and France was as isolationist as ever. FDR did his best to stir the population against Germany and Japan, but not even the sinking of two destroyers in the Atlantic and two gunboats in China could arouse any war fever! The reaction was (1)Why are American warships escorting convoys? and (2)Why are American gunboats in warzones on Chinese rivers?

The only friction brewing at the time between Germany and the USSR was over whether or not Germany should lease one of the Norwegian ports to Russia, with another lease for a rail line cutting across Finland and Sweden to said port. In retrospect, it wasn't a particularly unreasonable request as Russia has always sought a warm water port.

So, why would an invasion of Spain have stirred things up? Extending the U. S. popular attitude, it remained isolationist even after the invasions of Greece, Yugoslavia and the USSR. It was isolationist right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, even after FDR had begun preparations for war and instituted the Lend Lease Act.

Stalin, why would he have cared about Germany invading Spain and/or Portugal? His only concern would be that Germany had suddenly gotten Gibraltar and, naturally, if the Axis won in the Mediteranean he'd have wanted some sort of outlet to the sea via that route.

I've always felt that Stalin had no intention of ever starting a war with Germany. And, the earliest year that he might have even attempted a preemptive war would have been 1943 or 44. It would have taken that long for him to rebuild the Red Army and modernize the huge but absolescent Soviet Air Force.

As for the United States, I can't see any point in which the population would have been moved to support a DoW on either Germany or Japan without something like Pearl Harbor or a direct attack on some other American land possession. We expected it to come at the Phillipines -- though, incredibly, the government did almost nothing to prepare for such an attack.

War with Germany? I think, perhaps, if the war had actually gotten to Canada or maybe even Greenland. An Axis invasion of the UK might have awakened some people to the danger, but the popular sentiment was that Britain and France had declared war on Germany, not the other way around. If they lost and were invaded it was tragic, but not an issue the United States was even remotely involved in.

Kuniworth,

Possibly the first valid suggestion for SC-3.

I think it would also be great as a diplomatic option to be able to offer slices of territory to another country in exchanfe for their alliance. Not whole territories (which we can't do now in any case) but specified land areas, such as the 1939 Russo-German Pact. I guess that would be done by highlighting the area involved and offering it in exchange for a DoW on your enemies, or some other consideration.

-- Or, MPPs could be offered.

Peace could be negotiated by agreeing to accept areas instead of the entire nation. That way, there would be the possiblity of a negotiated peace between Germany and the USSR, for example.

-- And, of course, the possibility of that peace being broken after a minimum time of, say, one year. The violation could incur an MPP penalty that becomes smaller as the duration of peace increases.

Blashy & Edwin,

Yes, I think anyone who's played around with the game so far has seen the mechanisms that Hubert has built into it. Some good ideas there.

I hope, in the next game, the scripts and scenario options can be further refined to become even easier to implement without losing any of its current flexibility.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

what would be cool would be if you could make peace with countries without a forced annexation.

Good Idea. Or maybe draw your own new map after the capitulation ("well, i have to get this city and all east of this river, but for god's sake, yes, keep all the rest and let us be brothers again...")

[TaoJah]

The problem is that if you make the game too much like real history, you might as well make a movie for us to watch.

If Germany can only do what they did in WWII, then why play the game at all ?

[Blashy]

The people were isolationalist, not the Govt in power.

So an invasion of Spain or Spain joining Axis and then taking Gibraltar, well the US Govt knew the vitaly of having access to the med and would have mobilized probably regardless of what the population thought. We`re seeing it right now.

The Govt would have made something happen to light up the people (conspiracy theory on Pearl Harbor for example), as long as it is not a lie, I can sometimes agree with a Govt doing what is best for the people even if the people don`t agree, most likely due to being poorly informed which is a major problem nowadays, as it was back then.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I can sometimes agree with a Govt doing what is best for the people even if the people don`t agree, most likely due to being poorly informed which is a major problem nowadays, as it was back then.

Yeah, the American government is REALLY well informed lately, lol.

The problem with that whole "we-are-better-informed-then-the-people-so-we'll-make-the-decisions-without-listening-to-them" is that it sends you straight back to the 18th century where countries were ruled by so-called "enlightened" monarchs that ruled the country with exactly that we-know-better attitude you mention.

Anyway, I think one of the posters said it perfectly : the US didn't do anything after the Germans invaded half a dozen of countries. Saying that it all of a sudden would have helped if Germany took Gibraltar is kinda weak.

[Blashy]

No one saying they would have, but the % of them joining would have slightly gone up.

USA was going to DoW on Germany because Germany was allied to Japan, Germany did it first that's all.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

The problem is that if you make the game too much like real history, you might as well make a movie for us to watch.

If Germany can only do what they did in WWII, then why play the game at all ?

the game doesn't have to be history, but the starting conditions and reactions of non-players need to be.

[Blashy]

Exactly what Stalin has posted, the START of the game HAS to be historical and from then on, the logistics (manpower) and consequences of actions (DoWs) have to be historical, apart from that, the player re writes history.

[hellraiser]

Couldn't agree more.

[guinty1]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Spain and Sweden might well have feared it, but that doesn't mean it was ever goign to hapen - like the British feared the RAF would be destroyed by the Luftwaffe in the BoB - it was never going to happen.

I thought Canaris persuaded Franco on the basis that there wasn't that much in it for Spain - eg Spain relied upon oil from the USA, and the US had agreed with the UK to limit Spain to a 10 week reserve. So if it entered the war it would ahve to be supplied from Germany - something the Germans would not have been able to do!

Diplo chips look like a reasonable idea.

regarding your 1st paragraph,the bob might have had a different outcome if the LW had stuck to hammering the raf airfields and radar masts instead of piecemeal city attacks.It was very much possible for the LW to inflict a crushing blow to the RAF in 1940.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy,

There are a few points I've got to differ on. First, the U. S. Government wasn't pro-war in 1939-41, only FDR and some of his inner circle. The congress was solidly against entering the war in Europe. FDR barely pushed things through like Lend-Lease, rearmament -- which was mainly for the Navy, and the 50 WWI destroyers for naval bases exchange with the UK. I don't think it's very likely that the U. S. would have entered the war at all if it hadn't been attacked.

Whether FDR intentionally set up the attack on Pearl Harbor is still very much in question. There's little doubt, however, that he backed the Japanese in a corner with his embargoes and the Japanese themselves saw U. S. naval expansion as a direct threat.

-- As for fighting in Europe. Averill Harriman said, in The World At War documentary that Roosevelt's staff doubted they could get a DoW on Germany approved and were trying their best to find a reason that Congress would go along with when, as though it were a gift, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.

-- -- As for the government knowing more than it's citizens. The citizens are supposed to be the government. "We the people" and "Government for the people, by the people." In other words, if the people do not want something the government is not supposed to do it in their name. Also, the government is not supposed to hold information from it's citizens. We've gotten so far away from those principles today that they're almost forgotten. But in 1941 they weren't, and the government was aware of that.

During the Vietnam War, I think it was 1968, Nelson Rockefeller stated that (paraphrased) The government has the inside information and knows the best course of action; not the people of the United States. He was publicly lambasted over this. Overnight the anti-war movement, which was already very strong, seemed to be twice as powerful.

[Rolend]

Yep even after Pearl Harbor there were very STRONG anti-war in Europe feelings. Most Americans thought that the Euros have their war and now we have ours in the Pacific. Without a Pearl Harbor I don't think there could of been much of anything to get America into the war in Europe.

Hitler made a HUGE mistake by declaring war on America, although I do beleive he thought he had a deal with Japan that would have Japan declaring war on Russia if he did against America. But of course after Pearl Harbor there was no way Japan was going to take on China, America, the British Empire and Russia.

[Yogi]

I am certainly no expert, and could be wrong, but in addition to the ease of a DOW, it also seems to me that the reality of the difficulty of doing some of these things is not easily depicted.

I don't think that the Axis was in aposition to support troops in Norway, Turkey, Iran, Spain etc. etc. etc. The game makes it too easy. Maybe this is just another do we want a game or historical simulation question, but as I read a number of the matches on the forum, I often think that we are no longer looking at a simulation, just a game. Fantasy buffs welcome.

[Rolend]

Yep Yogi having the forces to invade all those minors and having the logistics to be able to pull it off are two entirely different things.

Maybe the Infrastructure tech should have a bigger impact on the ability to 'Operate' troops around. Have the number of Operates per year limited based on your level of Infrastructure.

If you have limited number of Operates per year you are going to have to seriously limit how many places you are at war. Seems a bit more realistic to me.