Pregame Phase Idea

[Edwin P.]

A one turn pregame phase where each side can select one option from a limited number of options before the game officially starts:

Allies

- Encourage Polish Mobilization (thanks to Retributar)

------ Poland Starts with Extra 3 Corps, US War Readiness declines by 15%

- Pressure Low Countries

------ Low Countries starts as Allied but Italian War Readiness increases by 10%

- US and Japan Reach Understanding

------ Russian Siberian Transfer Off, US Receives increased Naval Forces; 2 Carriers, 2 Bombers, 2 Cruisers, McArthur HQ, when it enters the war.

- Block Axis Choice X (For example - Block Axis Choice B, if Axis selects C this has no effect)

- Allies Court Franco, UK Starts with zero MPPs but Spain is 20% Pro Allies, just waiting for a diplomatic chit or two to join the Allies.

- French focuses military spending on a stronger army, France loses 3 warships, gains 3 Corps.

Axis

- Deploy Subs to the Atlantic

------ German Subs appear in randomly selected Atlantic Ocean Hexes

- Turkey receives massive economic aid from Germany and allies with Germany, Italy miffed at not receiving same amount of aid as does Turkey.

------ Turkey Joins Axis, Italy remains neutral

- Germany lauches massive economic aid plan for Spain and Spain Allies with Germany, Italy miffed at not receiving same amount of aid as does Spain.

------ Spain Joins Axis, Italy remains neutral

- Germany Supports German Sympathizers in Iraq with Military Hardware. Iraq starts as Pro-Axis Ally so if UK attacks Iraq it does not penalize US war readiness.

- Block Allied Choice X

- Germany devotes more resources to Submarine arm, Starts with 2 more subs, 1 less air fleet.

Germany's Campaign Against Poland

[ June 27, 2004, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Retributar]

The Allies forced the Poles not to mobilize! ...in order to fully mobilize...the Poles would have to go against the wishes of their so called allies.

I don't understand what really happened there but...i'll speculate, i suspect that Britain and France knew that they would have to face the Germans soon...and needed more time themselves to mobilize...especially the British.

They may have wanted to garner the Frendship of the Russians...and thus...allowed Poland to be Sacrificed (To appease the Russians...no action would be taken to attack Germany from France)...in order to reap the benefit of an alliance with the Russians.

At that particular time period...Stalin did not really believe that Hitler would attack him (Infact he was convinced of that)...so Stalin was not concerned about Poland being an Ally...and instead prefered to profit from taking Polish Territory...therefore...so attacked Poland at the same time that the Germans did...by mutual agreement.

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

I really like the idea of a pre-phase turn before the actual turn...it would certainly add UNCERTAINTY into the game. It may not make it for this game...we'll see!.

This pre-phase turn could be toggled to comply with the players desire to incorporate a random factor (some that have already been mentioned in this posting and the AI wish-list posting) or it could be toggled in the set-up game menu to be applied each time one excersises to to initiate the Event.

The computer player would be able to use random events as well.

[ June 28, 2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Exel]

To Edwin:

Where's the realism in those choices? You think the Allies didn't attempt to pressure the Benelux into alliance, for example? The French especially wanted to form their primary defensive line in Belgium, but the Belgians didn't allow any Allied units on its soil prior to the war because they didn't want the war to be fought on their soil. Likewise, Hitler tried his best to persuade both Turkey and Spain to join his war, but he failed to get them to even seriously negotiate about it.

[Arngrim]

The idea is interesting, a bit like DoD light...

Although to options needs a bit tuning...

[Retributar]

Excel your argument is valid...and that's what we want...is a historical WW2 game.

Also...besides that...we would like to explore what-if alternatives...so using these events allows us now to see what could-have or might have happened.

These EVENTS if ever implemented...will be able to be toggled on or off...so no harm done to the Main-Historical-Game.

[Night]

I dunno seems Iffy. Maybe some differnt choices or something would do it.

[Edwin P.]

"You think the Allies didn't attempt to pressure the Benelux into alliance, for example?"

What if they had succeeded?

"Hitler tried his best to persuade both Turkey and Spain to join his war, but he failed to get them to even seriously negotiate about it."

What if he had succeeded. As JerseyJohn pointed out his own emissary sabotaged negotions with Spain. What if someone else was the emissary?

"During World War II, Felix was the proposed name for a German/Spanish seizure of Gibraltar. It was scheduled for 10 January 1941 but never executed. This plan was discussed at a meeting held between Franco and Hitler in late October, 1940, in Hitler’s railroad car at Hendaye. Hitler later said he would rather have three teeth extracted than to meet with Franco again.

It is subject to historical debate if Franco overplayed his hand demanding too much from Hitler for Spanish entry into the war, or if he deliberately stymied the German dictator."

"Spain altered its policy of neutrality following the lightning success of Germany's 1940 spring offensive. The German armies appeared invincible, and Franco was eager to assure Spain a voice in the postwar settlement. In June 1940, The Spanish government adopted a policy of nonbelligerency, which permitted German submarines to be provisioned in Spanish ports and German airplanes to use Spanish landing strips."

[Retributar]

E-G-Z-A-C T-A-C-A-L-L-Y ! ! !

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

I don't understand what really happened there but...i'll speculate, i suspect that Britain and France knew that they would have to face the Germans soon...and needed more time themselves to mobilize...especially the British.

Wrong.

those peace-loving idiots of prime ministers(Chamberlain for the UK and Daladier for France) did't want to 'provoce' the Germans and thought that the real danger for world-peace came from Russia, what is even more ridiculous is that stalin thought exactly the same.He was more afraid of the UK than of Germany because he recognized his own regime and methods in them.

Have you ever seen the movie 'mars attack'?

Do you remember the scenes where they're destroying the planet running around with speakers shouting 'don't run, we are your friends'?

Well, I have never seen a better explenation of German pre-war diplomacy.

[Exel]

Edwin:

I agree that there should be a chance for ahistorical "what ifs". But having such a player selectable surefire option would be way too unrealistic, at least for my tastes. A better way to do it would be with "random" events together with the new diplo system. Let's say the Allies spend two diplo chits on the Low Countries and with a 20% chance an event letting Allied troops in occurs. Just as an example.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

- Turkey receives massive economic aid from Germany and allies with Germany, Italy miffed at not receiving same amount of aid as does Turkey.

------ Turkey Joins Axis, Italy remains neutral

- Germany lauches massive economic aid plan for Spain and Spain Allies with Germany, Italy miffed at not receiving same amount of aid as does Spain.

------ Spain Joins Axis, Italy remains neutral

As Axis, why on earth would I ever chose one of these two? Spain and Turkey put together aren't worth Italy.

Interesting idea though.

[Retributar]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/3818/EASTBALT.HTM

POLAND

In making plans to attack Poland, Hitler had quite a problem. Not only was Poland fairly strong militarily but she also had an alliance with Britain and France, which meant that if he attacked Poland then he would also be at war with Britain and France. He figured he could handle that, but what about the Soviet Union? With Hitler being unsure of the Soviet reaction if he invaded Poland, Hitler did not dare to invade Poland. The Soviet Union, Britain and France tried to form a triple alliance in order to defend against Hitler, but it never came to pass. While on the surface Stalin was trying to make an alliance with Britain and France he was in fact carrying on secret negotiations with the Nazis in order to obtain guarantees of Soviet safety from the Germans . On August 23, 1939 the world was shocked to learn that a German Soviet non-aggression pact had been signed. In effect, the pact meant that Germany was free and clear to invade Poland without fear of interference from the Soviet Union. Also, Germany was to take Western Poland as a part of its new territory while the Soviet Union was to take Eastern Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland. This Pact was considered by many as an act of great immorality.

Retributar[Original quote:]

I don't understand what really happened there but...i'll speculate, i suspect that Britain and France knew that they would have to face the Germans soon...and needed more time themselves to mobilize...especially the British.

------

Roosevelt45[Reply quote:]

Wrong.

those peace-loving idiots of prime ministers(Chamberlain for the UK and Daladier for France) did't want to 'provoce' the Germans and thought that the real danger for world-peace came from Russia, what is even more ridiculous is that stalin thought exactly the same.He was more afraid of the UK than of Germany because he recognized his own regime and methods in them.

Roosevelt45 your Arguments hold no water...they are fallacies

Stalin replied that he thought that England must be bluffing; he knew that Britain had only two divisions that could be mobilized at once, and he thought that Britain must know how bad the French Army was and what little reliance could be placed on it. He could not imagine that Britain would enter the war with such weakness

While on the surface Stalin was trying to make an alliance with Britain and France he was in fact carrying on secret negotiations with the Nazis in order to obtain guarantees of Soviet safety from the Germans.

France, waiting for the British to arrive in significant numbers, kept behind their wall :

Soviet and Nazi collaboration

In Moscow in August of 1942, Churchill asked Stalin how he had come to sign the pact with Hitler in 1939. Stalin replied that he thought that England must be bluffing; he knew that Britain had only two divisions that could be mobilized at once, and he thought that Britain must know how bad the French Army was and what little reliance could be placed on it. He could not imagine that Britain would enter the war with such weakness.

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

http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_3.html

On March 31, the British government, attempting to forestall the German dictator, had given a unilateral guarantee of Poland's territorial integrity. (France had a military alliance with Poland dating back to 1921.)

In July 1939, under the guise of conducting summer maneuvers, strong German forces moved into assembly areas on the Polish border. Others were sent to East Prussia on the pretext that they were to take part in celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Tannenberg (now Stebark). In the first three weeks of August, German-inspired civil disorders broke out in Danzig and the Polish Corridor, and the remaining units scheduled to participate in the attack moved up to the border. On August 22, Hitler assembled the generals who would command the larger units and told them that the time was ripe to resolve the differences with Poland by war and to test the new German military machine. He predicted that Great Britain and France would not intervene. He intended to begin the attack on August 26.

In a last attempt to intimidate Hitler, Great Britain announced on August 25 that she had entered into a full-fledged alliance with Poland.

http://victoria.tc.ca/~d.piney/WW2.htm

Hitler than made an offer of peace to Britain and France: he had never declared war on them (and never did during the entire course of the war) and did not seek a war with them. Making the offer of peace in a speech in Berlin, Hitler put no pre-conditions other than that the two European nations recognized the right of Germany to re-incorporate the German lands in Poland. The offer was rejected out of hand by both the British and French governments.

Still no military action took place: caught in between building up military reserves and trying to end the war by diplomatic means, Germany kept behind its Siegfried Wall. France, waiting for the British to arrive in significant numbers, kept behind their wall : both sides feared above all else a repeat of the static trench war of 1914-1918. The Sitting War, or Sitzkrieg, continued from September 1939 until May 1940.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsBritain.htm

DECLARATIONS OF WAR

After Germany invades Poland on September 1st 1939, Britain and France demand the withdrawal of German forces. The ultimatum expires and at 11.15am on the 3rd, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain broadcasts to announce that Britain is at war with Germany. He forms a War Cabinet with Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty.

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

Here's an article that will BEND-YOUR-MIND...

World War II Alternate History

By: Dale Cozort

World War II Alternate History For February 1998:

http://members.aol.com/dalecoz/WW2_0298.htm

[ June 28, 2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

All right, I'll rephrase my point.

Stalin thought that there was more chance of the free democracies UK and France going to war with his regime(in Finland for example)than Hitler, who had installed a similar dicatorship in his country.The Molotov-Von ribbentrop pact clearly shows that Stalin and Hitler had something in common: a greed for expansion.If Hitler would have been a reasonable man, he probably wouldn't have invaded the USSR but he wasn't, he was a psychopat who hated the Russians and wanted to enslave them.

As for the rest of your post, I don't see why you've explained the entire Dow-traffic of 1940 here.

[Retributar]

Roosevelt45 Quote:

As for the rest of your post, I don't see why you've explained the entire Dow-traffic of 1940 here.

To show that those peace-loving idiots of prime ministers(Chamberlain for the UK and Daladier for France) did't want to 'provoce' the Germans and ... .

The real reality is that...they wern't overly concerned about provoking the Germans...Roosevelt promised Churchill that the United States would get into the war to defeat Germany.

So yes...the British & French were Peaceloving...but not terrified of the Germans.

[Lars]

Umm, why would Roosevelt promise Churchill to get involved before the invasion of Poland on Sept 1, 1939 when Chamberlain was Prime Minister?

Churchill wasn't even in the government then. He was in Parliment.

[Retributar]

Lars Quote:

Umm, why would Roosevelt promise Churchill to get involved before the invasion of Poland on Sept 1, 1939 when Chamberlain was Prime Minister?

http://www.barnesreview.org/May_2002/WW2_/ww2_.html

REMEMBER...POLAND WAS NOT THE FIRST VICTIM OF HITLER'S REGIME... Hitler had been on his expansionist rampage for a while by this time.

Roosevelt and Churchill were in secret communication before Churchill became prime minister . This is the reason why Tyler Kent, who worked in the code room in the American Embassy in London beginning in 1939, was thrown in

prison as soon as Churchill took office. Kent was sentenced not for anything criminal, but because of what he knew. Roosevelt would not rescue this American citizen from Churchill’s clutches because Kent had proof that FDR was promising the British leader that he would eventually come into the war . Churchill records a conversation he and Harry Hopkins had on January 10, 1941:

The president is determined that we shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him. There is nothing that he will not do, so far as he has human power.3

----------

Churchill became prime minister on May 10, 1941. When the Germans captured Poland, they found in the Polish archives the evidence about the part FDR played in getting the fuse of World War II lit . These Polish records were transported to Berlin for safekeeping, and when Germany fell to the Allies, they were shipped to Washington, where they were kept under lock and key for about 20 years so that no one could see them.

David Irving reports in Hitler’s War what these documents say:

A different aspect of Roosevelt’s policy was revealed by the Polish documents ransacked by the Nazis from the archives of the ruined foreign ministry buildings in Warsaw. The dispatches of the Polish ambassadors in Washington and Paris laid bare Roosevelt’s efforts to goad France and Britain into war with Germany while he rearmed the United States and psychologically prepared the American public for war. . . . n spring of 1939, [Ambassador William C.] Bullitt quoted Roosevelt as being determined “not to participate in the war from the start, but to be in at the finish.” . . . The Warsaw document left little doubt as to what had stiffened Polish resistance during the August 1939 crisis.

[ June 28, 2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

I never said they were terrified of the Germans.

Have you never heard of the appeasement policy?

People like Chamberlain and Halifax(I don't know the name of his position in english,the British Von Ribbentrop, secretary of foreign business?) thought that if they would allow Hitler to ignore the Versailles treaty and to annex Austria and Chzechoslovakia, he would be appeased and stop his 'lebensraum'-policy without a conflict.

If any of them had read 'Mein Kampf' they would have seen that this was impossible for him to do, he was obsessed.

What was the appeasement policy?

[pzgndr]

A one turn pregame phase where each side can select one option from a limited number of options before the game officially starts:

Dave and I have been campaigning for pre-game variants (a la 3R) for a looong time. There will be some additional game options available in SC2 (like Free French on/off, etc.) but don't expect true variants. However, with the new scripts we can add a reasonable number of low probability events to introduce some randomness and variability to the game. Diplomacy will also provide a few surprises in SC2. I suspect most players are looking for just little bit more variability than SC1 provided, but not so much more that each new game takes off on a wild tangent away from history.

[SeaMonkey]

Bill, you suspect wisely.

[Exel]

Indeed you do. *bows humbly*

[pzgndr]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I've played enough games of SC to see some really odd things, most notably the German AI attacking Russia in 1941 with L5 tank groups!!

Statistically speaking, it's quite possible to have low-probability events occur. If too many odd events occur in a single game, then you're stuck playing out something you may not want to be playing. It would be nice to have a few surprises here and there, but there's no guarantee you'll be limited to only a few if we include too many possibilities. That's my concern. So we need to be selective about which events really need to be included in the official version of SC2.

Of course, the new Editor can be used for customized mods to make games as random and variable as you desire. That can be fun also.

[Edwin P.]

US War Strategy Selection Popup

The one player choice event I hope the editor will allow us to create is a US War Strategy Event where the US player preparing for war selects one of three strategies: Europe First (historical), Japan First (Early Siberian Transfer as Japanese forces diverted to fight American Marines, Reduced US Production available for Europe until Japan Defeated), Armistace with Japan (No Siberian Transfer, Increased US Production/Naval Forces from Pacific).

This gives the US player the opportunity to really change the game. With a Japan First strategy the Russians get their Siberian reinforcements early but US production for Europe is reduced. Reaching an understanding with Japan allows the US to deploy more resources to the Europe but forces the Russians to keep their Siberian forces in Siberia to deter Japanese aggression. Interesting and balanced choices.

One strengthens the US and the other strengthens the Russians.

[ July 02, 2004, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Retributar]

'Not-likely' that US Production would 'NOT-INCREASE'...as Churchill was already promised that the US would enter the war!...so why would the US want not to increase production when all the signal-input would be telling them to ramp up?.

[Edwin P.]

What I ment to say is that under the Japan First option more US Production would be diverted to the war in the Pacific leaving less production available to fight the war in Europe, opposite the strategy that the US actually took.

When Japan attacked the US many Americans wanted to focus on defeating the Japanese first but Roosevelt believed in a Europe First Strategy.

This option allows players to see, in a limited way, what would have happened if the US decided to defeat Japan before Germany. Reduced resources would have been available to aid the UK until the Japanese were defeated. Russian forces in Siberian would have been free to move west as Japanese forces would be focused on halting the American advance across the Pacific.

When the US defeats Japan (determined randomly - say 4% per turn starting in 1943) then US production should double and the US should receive a few carriers and several bombers, transferred from the Pacific Theature of Operations.

Of course, the question is - Can the European Allies hold back the Axis onslaught until the US defeats Japan?

[ July 01, 2004, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Retributar]

Personally im not against trying that out that Scenario in a what if.

The question that should be asked instead is...Can the Russians hold back the Axis onslaught until the US defeats Japan?. The Western Allies were not under heavy pressure as the Russians were...not even close!.

I haven't studied this area for lack of interest...but, from what i can remember is that 'Stalin' was demanding action from the 'Allies' as he was under tremendous pressure from the 'Germans'...and needed the help right-now!.

It's possible that if this course of action were taken...that Africa and beyond would have been taken by the Axis. Italy and Western Europe would not have been as heavily garrisoned...and those extra forces would have been sent to the Russian front.

The Russians did not have unlimited supplies of manpower, 'contrary to popular opinion'...that's why they sent for the Siberian Units(They had nothing else to send)...the Russians came close to the breaking point...they could have lost the fight for Russia.

Imagine what would have happened without the Siberian Reinforcements?....imagine what would have happened if all those freed-up troops from Italy and Western Europe then entered the fight against the Russians?.

Still...i would like to try out that What-If Option.