Idea: Off-Map Japan & Diplomacy

[Edwin P.]

Idea: Off-Map Japan

a. USA could spend Diplomacy Chits on Japan to increase chance for Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, thus bringing the US into the war early.

Source: Encarta - Japan was heavily dependent on the United States for vital strategic material, such as petroleum, steel, and heavy machinery, so the Roosevelt administration gradually imposed embargoes on such goods. Negotiations aimed at settling differences between the two countries began in April 1941, but when the Japanese moved troops into southern Indochina in July, the United States responded by placing a complete embargo on oil. Britain, countries belonging to the Commonwealth of Nations (an association of states that gave allegiance to the British Crown), and the Dutch East Indies followed suit.

The U.S. oil embargo threatened to bring the whole Japanese military apparatus to a halt when its limited oil reserves were used up. Rather than face the humiliation of giving in to U.S. economic pressure, in early September the Konoe cabinet decided to continue negotiations while at the same time preparing for war

Japan 25% Anti-USA:

"USA Congress embargos Oil shipments to Japan"

Japan 50% Anti-USA:

"USA Congress embargos rubber shipments to Japan"

Japan 75% Anti-USA:

"USA Congress embargos steel shipments to Japan"

Japan 100% Anti-USA:

"Japan attacks Pearl Harbor", USA war readiness jumps to 100%

b. Russia could spend Diplomacy Chits on Japan to allow for an early Siberian transfer.

Source:Encarta - The Soviet Union, growing more wary of German intentions, renewed diplomatic contacts with Japan. On April 13, 1941, the two countries signed a five-year neutrality pact.

c. Germany could spend Diplomacy chits on Japan to encourage it to attack Russia (and not attack USA) and thus delay any Siberian transfer while preventing the entry of the USA into the War resulting from a Japanese attack.

Note: USA war readiness would be affected by Axis actions in Europe and American relations with Japan.

Now, the USA player could attempt to stroke Japanese anger and provoke an attack on the USA.

The Russian player could pursue peace with Japan while the Germans aim to get the Japanese to attack Russia in Siberia.

How would this be implemented?

The USA, UK, Russia and Germany could purchase Japanese Diplomacy chits. The UK would be limited to one chit in this area to reflect the UK joining the USA economic embargo against Japan.

USA and UK chits would increase Japanese Anti-US rating. At a 100% rating Japan would attack the USA and America enters the war in Europe.

The Russian chit would improve Japanese relations with Russia. At a high enough level this would lead to a 5 year neutrality treaty that allows a Siberian Transfer to occur.

The German chit would decrease the Japanese Anti-US rating while harming Japanese relations with the USSR. If Japanese relations with Russia drop low enough then chance for a Siberian transfer declines.

[ March 22, 2005, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

@Eddie --- You bring up good ideas, but remember this: Once strategies are know, events like this just become luck....UNLESS it is done well. Have you ever played 3R? I remember you drew a chit for a "random event" at the beginning of the game, that was kind of cool. Maybe SC-2 could have the ability to program random events (lots of them) & allow the players to turn it off too.

[Edwin P.]

Yep, Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich and other similar games had random event chits. Add 30 random events to the game start;1 of 15 for the Allies and 1 of 15 for the Axis, and you could really shake up the game.

[pzgndr]

We CAN program lots of random events in SC2, but not like the 3R variants. It would be nice to have an ace in the hole, a variant that you know you can play at some date, but unfortunately there's nothing like that here.

We CAN have events with very low probability, like 1% chance, that could add units or randomly adjust war readiness to provide occassional variety to the game. Maybe France gets a free tank group or not. Maybe USA gets a free carrier. Maybe Spain suddenly shifts toward activation as an Axis minor. Whatever. This should help keep the game interesting over time.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Idea: Off-Map Japan

a. USA could spend Diplomacy Chits on Japan to increase chance for Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, thus bringing the US into the war early.

Why the heck would the US do that?

You'd think they'd be spending the chits to stay out. Perhaps you should modify the idea a bit. Make the Germans spend the points to get Japan to attack.

Or perhaps US spends chits to keep Japan from attacking, allowing for increased start units (mostly naval) and MPPs when they are finally drawn in.

You could have a random US declaration on Germany at some point as it is in SC, but the longer the delay in this case, the better it is for the US.

Or perhaps if the German U-boat campaign gets to a certain level? The US was in a undeclared shooting war with them.

[Edwin P.]

Lars - Historically, the USA did undertake actions that increased Japanese hostility towards the USA. "Why the heck would the US do that?" So it could enter the war in Europe against Germany sooner, rather than later. Without the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the US would have probably entered the war in Europe about a year later, if at all.

The sooner that the USA enters the war the sooner its economy will be on a warfooting and better able to support England and the Soviet Union in its war against the Axis.

Historically, I believe that Germany preferred that Japan not attack the USA.

[ March 23, 2005, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

We CAN have events with very low probability, like 1% chance, that could add units or randomly adjust war readiness to provide occassional variety to the game. Maybe France gets a free tank group or not. Maybe USA gets a free carrier. Maybe Spain suddenly shifts toward activation as an Axis minor. Whatever. This should help keep the game interesting over time.

The key is that such events have to be balanced.

[Desert Dave]

The key is that such events have to be balanced.

Rest assured Edwin P,

These events will - precisely be

At balance.

As though a micro mm filament

Resting exactly mid-point

Thereon the keenest razor-edge

You ever did dare to feel, or, better

Merely - closely - see.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Lars - Historically, the USA did undertake actions that increased Japanese hostility towards the USA. "Why the heck would the US do that?" So it could enter the war in Europe against Germany sooner, rather than later. Without the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the US would have probably entered the war in Europe about a year later, if at all.

The sooner that the USA enters the war the sooner its economy will be on a warfooting and better able to support England and the Soviet Union in its war against the Axis.

Historically, I believe that Germany preferred that Japan not attack the USA.

But the US did not undertake those actions in order to enter WWII early.

I guess it's just the way you phrased the question. Smacks of the loony Roosevelt conspiracy theories.

[Edwin P.]

Good point, but Roosevelt and his advisers knew that they were taking a chance with their demands on Japan. They would either cave in to American demands or attack the Phillipines. They never expected an attack on Pearl Harbor. In either case the effect of their embargo against Japan lead to war.

However, it was only becuase the Japanese military won out in the battles for governmental power.

What if, the embargo's caused Japan to back down and withdraw from China and Indochina.

Then they would not have attacked Pearl and the UK would have had more resources available to it for the War in Europe from the Far Eastern Commonwealth Nations.

Perhaps, at 100% Japanese Anti-USA Rating

70% Japanese military interests win control of government,

-------Japan Attack USA,

-------USA Enters War,

-------UK Merchant Shipping from Far East drops to Zero as Japan attacks Singapore and Malaysia

30% Japanese economic interests win control of government,

---------Japan Withdraws from China,

---------UK Merchant shipping from Australia Shipping Doubles to 60 mpp per turn as the threat to its interests in Asia are removed,

---------USA War Readiness declines by 20% with peace in the Far East.

Any opinions? I think that these options are historically possible and relatively balanced (at least as balanced as is possbile without playtesting). And the randomness makes the result of pursuing an aggressive and demanding diplomatic strategy with Japan a calculated risk.

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

References:

http://www2.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Sp1941-42/chapter3.htm - interesting information on the British View of War Strategy (from Jan 1941):

Grand Strategy and the Issue of Singapore

At the opening of the conversations the British representatives presented a clear, complete summary of their views. They began with three propositions of general strategic policy:

The European theatre is the vital theatre where a decision must first be sought.

The general policy should therefore be to defeat Germany and Italy first, and then deal with Japan.

The security of the Far Eastern position, including Australia and New Zealand, is essential to the cohesion of the British Commonwealth and to the maintenance of its war effort. Singapore is the key to the defense of these interests and its retention must be assured. 9

The first two propositions were evidently in accord with the views of the American representatives; the third evidently was not.

http://www2.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Sp1941-42/chapter4.htm - Interesting information on how washington begain preparing for a Japanese invasion of the Phillipines after Roosevelt ordered the oil embargo of Japan.

[ March 23, 2005, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

Well, the basic problem is this is a war game. One centered on the European theater.

Any really rational strategy in the Far East followed by the historical participants would keep both the US and Japan out. Japan had other options than caving to the US over the embargo and the UK certainly had no need to pick another fight. In the end, the UK lost India because of it.

But in the game, the Allied player needs to suck the US in for the MPPs or the game becomes wildly unbalanced. Or you have to come up with some deux ex machina to rebalance it.

For instance, you could assume the UK would get a large contingent of ANZAC and Indian forces at some point if war with Japan was avoided, but you've still lost the key for the Allies, the industrial might of the US. There's no way to make up for it. US MPP's are underrepresented in the game as it is. So you'd have to throw in increased military Lend Lease to both Russia and UK. Plus a few ships to patrol the Atlantic. Plus one hell of a lot of gasoline. And the German player would have to sit and take it because declaring war on the US is patently stupid for him.

And at the end of the day, what have we really accomplished? Maybe forced an early D-Day by the UK with those colonial forces before the German advantage gets too huge but if they don't win that one, it's game over. The subs alone are going to strangle the UK at some point. And then Churchill breaks out the anthrax. And Hitler breaks out the Tabun. And now we're really playing a game we don't want to play.

At least, that's the way I see it playing out. Sure you could modeled what would happen if the Pacific war didn't happen (to some extent), but I'm not sure it would be any fun other than to the hardcore history grogs. It's just too great a change. An object lesson in one of Hitler's great mistakes.

With all that said, what you have would be interesting as a scenario as it totally changes the UK strategy of playing not to lose until the US shows up.

[Edwin P.]

Good analysis.

My thoughts were that the USA player could ignore Japan and enter the war based on how German actions affect his war readiness, or he could take a calculated risk with influencing Japan. This might cause the USA to enter the war in Europe early (ie no later than Dec7,1941) or it might delay the entry of the USA while boosting UK MPP production. Both actions would dramatically affect the war. Naturally Germany could act to counter USA actions in this area.

Or as you said, perhaps if US entry is delayed it triggers a large contingent of ANZAC and Indian forces appearing in the Middle East, so the Brits have the forces to defend Egypt, take Beruit, control Iraqi Oil and threaten Italian Libya.

The key is to allow the USA player a way to influence when his nation will enter the war so that it is not totally dependent on actions by the Axis powers.

As you said the key is how to maintain play balance while totally changing the standard cookie cutter strategy.

[Lars]

You can't give the US player a way to influence his entry. Otherwise he's jumping in as soon as possible.

Historically, with the US unwilling to enter the European war even after all the German invasions, it's kinda hard to imagine some reason they would absent an direct attack. And without that, you don't really have a game.

I think your best bet in your scenario is to posit some sort of Lusitania type event and go from there. Perhaps if the German player gets too successful with those subs it begins to draw the US in? Would be the only way I can see to bring back an element of risk of a US entry. And if the German player doesn't build subs he risks the UK build-up and invasion.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Lars:

You can't give the US player a way to influence his entry. Otherwise he's jumping in as soon as possible.

Good observation and I would agree if there was no cost to doing so. But if the Diplomatic chits to affect entry via Japan are expensive that means that the US player will be paying MPPs to enter the war early or he can wait unit his war readiness brings him in naturally. If he used the MPPs to influence Japan then his spending on merchant shipping, research and military units is reduced. Of course, this would have to be extensively playtested.

Effect of Using Diplomacy Chits with Japan

Diplomatic Cost: ? MPPs

---- 75% USA Enters war no later than Dec 7,1941, regardless of Axis actions in Europe

Popup: "Japanese Attack Pearl Harbor on Sunday December 7,1941"

---- 25% USA War Readiness Declines 20% on Dec 7,1941

Popup: "Japanese agree to American demands and will withdraw from IndoChina and China."

Note, in the example above, the chance (25%) that diplomatic efforts may reduce USA war readiness rather than increasing it - if the Japanese backdown and accept the loss of face associated with American demands to withdraw from China and IndoChina. Also, note that Germany may choose to temper Japanese anger at American demands with diplomatic chits.

I think that this option adds historical flavor to the game.

Possible Outcomes

Japan +100% (with Allied Diplomatic Chits)

75% USA enters war on Dec 7,1941

25% Japanese accept American demands, USA war readiness declines by 20%

Japan -100% (with Axis Diplomatic Chits)

75% Japan attacks Russia (No Siberian transfer, increase to UK merchant shipping from Asia)

25% Japan Russia Trade Treaty - Normal Siberian Transfer

[ March 27, 2005, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

I think your best bet in your scenario is to posit some sort of Lusitania type event and go from there. Perhaps if the German player gets too successful with those subs it begins to draw the US in? Would be the only way I can see to bring back an element of risk of a US entry. And if the German player doesn't build subs he risks the UK build-up and invasion.

I wonder if it is possible to tie Merchant Ship Interdiction to an Event?

Ie: Germany attacks Merchant Ships = 1% US War Readiness Increases by 5% and popup of:

"Americans angered by Axis submarine attack on US oceanliner."

[Exel]

I like Lars' and Edwin's idea on the use of submarine warfare as a factor on US entry best. It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive with scripted events or means of diplomacy, though I see it as the more realistic choice. German subs attacking American convoys gave the White House a great propaganda tool to use in turning the people of America against Germany and to support war. So the more the Axis would use submarines on the Atlantic, the more they risk increasing US war entry. On the other hand, if they don't use subs to interdict the convoys, they risk UK (and to some extent the USSR) growing ever more stronger with its own merchant shipping and US lend-lease. This would of course require that the significance of the naval convoys is increased quite a bit - in SC1 submarine warfare is rarely worth the effort and with added risk of increasing US war entry it would become very unfavorable. The MPP loss from submarine raids would really have to hurt the UK player.

With this system the Axis player would be forced to choose - or find a delicate balance - between restricting UK resource income and trying to keep USA out of the war as long as possible.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Edwin, without disputing some of the mistaken conclusions you've drawn, all you really need is a system that randomly determines when the US enters the war. Thats it.

You don't let the players modify it, since those modifications really are only important to the Pacific Theater, not the European Theater.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Lars:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Lars - Historically, the USA did undertake actions that increased Japanese hostility towards the USA. "Why the heck would the US do that?" So it could enter the war in Europe against Germany sooner, rather than later. Without the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the US would have probably entered the war in Europe about a year later, if at all.

The sooner that the USA enters the war the sooner its economy will be on a warfooting and better able to support England and the Soviet Union in its war against the Axis.

Historically, I believe that Germany preferred that Japan not attack the USA.

But the US did not undertake those actions in order to enter WWII early.

I guess it's just the way you phrased the question. Smacks of the loony Roosevelt conspiracy theories. </font>

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn, interesting observation on Japan's other possible action, that would not have involved an attack on Pearl Harbor or acceping US demands and withdrawing from Indo-China and China.

That gives three options for a Japanese response to an American oil embargo:

20% Japan accepts US demands

--------USA War readiness declines by 20% but war production continues to increase allowing for greater lend lease contributions.

70% Japan attacks Pearl Harbor

--------USA enters war in Dec 1941 even if war readiness is below 100%

10% Japan attacks the East Indies.

------- No effect on USA war readiness

------- No UK reinforcements from Australia or India

------- UK Mpps from Asia eliminated

------- American Atlantic fleet gains 1 carrier

The one question is; What should have been the chance for each of these options? and are proposed consequences reasonable; ie historically possible, and not unbalancing to game play?

Shaka of Carthage, what I am looking for is a historically possible way for the USA player to directly affect the conditions surrounding his entry into the war with diplomatic chits and to make the result somewhat unpredictable. Randomization of USA entry is already included in the game to a certain extent with Axis and UK actions affecting war readiness.

The method I propose would allow the USA player to effect their entry into the war, to a limited extent (ie no later than Dec 1941) if they are willing to take a calculated risk.

Thus American entry into the war can be affected by British, Axis and American actions.

Of course, a good USA player would not take a calculated risk on the reaction of the Japanese government to an American oil embargo if Axis actions appear to ensure an early American entry into the war.

[ April 01, 2005, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

JerseyJohn, you missed one other Japanese option.

Repudiate the alliance with Germany and Italy and sign a sweetheart deal with the Dutch government in exile for the oil.

[Edwin P.]

Lars, now we have 4 possible outcomes that could change the game in different ways:

20% Japan accepts US demands

--------USA War readiness declines by 20% but war production continues to increase allowing for greater lend lease contributions.

65% Japan attacks Pearl Harbor

--------USA enters war in Dec 1941 even if war readiness is below 100%

10% Japan attacks the East Indies.

------- No effect on USA war readiness

------- No UK reinforcements from Australia or India

------- UK Mpps from Asia eliminated

------- American Atlantic fleet gains 1 carrier

5% Japan breaks Alliance with Axis and signs treaty with Dutch Government in Exile

------ USA war readiness declines by 30%

------ Early Siberian transfer, as Russia no longer plans for an attack by Japan.

------ USA Pacific fleet transferred to the Atlantic - Ie US navy gains 3 carrier fleets and 2 battleship fleets and McArthur HQ unit.

[JerseyJohn]

Lars,

You're right, that never occurred to me. I don't remember ever reading about such an arrangement being considered. Do you think it had a chance of happening? Is there an historical basis for the idea?

I'm not asking those questions to be sarcastic, it would have been a great idea historically.

Generally the Japanese, at that time, didn't do things that way, which doesn't mean it couldn't have been done. The main problem was the shots were being called by either the army or the navy, and they never needed to think outside of their own warlike mentality.

I'd say Washington would definitely have put pressure on the UK to prevent any deal that would have circumvented the U. S. embargo, so it would have needed to be arranged in secret.

There's also oil in Asiatic Russia, I think this was known at the time and those fields were being worked. If so, it would also have made sense for the Japanese to have traded for it as part of their non-aggression pact.

Interesting possibilities.

[Edwin P.]

Hubert, any chance for the effects of diplomacy on Japan, with 3 or 4 possible outcomes, being included in SC2.

It would give the neutral American player a diplomatic option to explore and adds more unpredicatablity to the standard game.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

USA Pacific fleet transferred to the Atlantic - Ie US navy gains 3 carrier fleets and 2 battleship fleets and McArthur HQ unit.

Dear God Nooooo!!!....

Could you imagine Patton andMacArther running around the same theater?

Heh, think you'd have to spot the Germans a few mass confusion points there.

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

Not sure if you mentioned China or not.

The US demands on Japan (in regards to China) were something the Japanese would never agree to.