Diplomacy, Minor Country DOWs, and WAW

[MJY]

I have been reading the forum discussions concerning the upcoming WAW expansion pack but I have not seen much regarding how WAW might treat diplomacy -- especially as it relates to the impact of DOWs on minor powers.

I mention this because I include myself amongst the group of SCII players frustrated by the limited consequences that arise under the current system when players go around the board knocking off all the minor powers in a big resource grab! (I am specifically thinking of some of the posts made by Targul and others on this matter.) In many instances, attacking a minor power has little or no effect on the war preparedness levels of the major powers or neighbouring minor powers. Worse still are what I would argue are extremely unhistorical strategies where major powers are free to DOW friendly governments (Axis DOWs on Franco’s Spain being perhaps the most egregious example).

I guess I have a question and some suggestions regarding these issues. In terms of the question, does anyone have any insights regarding any changes with respect to diplomacy in WAW?

In terms of suggestions, I have a couple of ideas I would like to throw out. One would be to limit which countries can be attacked by a major power. In much the same way that “historical accuracy” is furthered by existing limitations whereby Germany cannot DOW Italy and the UK cannot DOW Russia or the United States and diplomacy cannot cause Italy, Russia, or the United States to switch sides (only delay their entry into the war), it might make sense to limit major power DOWs to those countries that are either leaning towards the other alliance (e.g., the Germans can DOW Greece or the British can DOW Sweden) or absolutely neutral (e.g., Ireland, Iran, and the Baltic States at the start of the game).

Obviously, the list of eligible countries would change over the course of the game on account of diplomacy, other DOWs, and the like. But it would prevent current strategies wherein the Axis can attack a pro-Axis Spain and the Allies can invade a pro-British Iraq.

Such a change might also add another dimension to the use of diplomacy. For example, imagine it is early in the game and Britain is considering whether or not to spend diplomacy on Spain. On the one hand, a successful diplomacy hit or two might lower the pro-Axis leaning of Spain to the point where Spain’s attitude negatively impacts the pro-Axis leanings of Hungary and Rumania. On the other hand, too much success might lower Spain’s political orientation to the point where Germany is free to attack Spain and (ultimately) Gibraltar. And the random diplomacy bonus makes everything even more dynamic – and interesting! Similar choices would face the Axis with regard to Iraq (e.g., change the orientation of Iraq by too much and you open Iraq to a British invasion).

A second suggestion might be for minor neutrals to “mobilize” their forces should a neighbour country be attacked (e.g., a minor country’s 3-strength corps might grow – over the course of a turn or two -- to a 10-strength corps and become more heavily entrenched). With this sort of system in place, an Axis force that invades Spain might find Portugal a (somewhat) tougher nut to crack as a follow up. And the British might find Vichy Algeria tougher to crack after Tunisia is first attacked!

I am interested in any feedback forum members might have. I would also be interested in playing a few PBEM games employing the first suggestion (i.e., the DOW limitations) as a “house rule.” (I don’t know the editor enough to know if you can repeatedly change the strength and entrenchment levels of minor powers once a game has started.) Anyone interested in trying this via PBEM can e-mail me directly. Depending on the response, I may not be able to accept all challenges (at least not immediately), but I will respond to all messages.

Thanks!

[ev]

I am not thrilled about your first suggestion, but, I liked your second suggestion:

Originally posted by MJY:

A second suggestion might be for minor neutrals to “mobilize” their forces should a neighbour country be attacked (e.g., a minor country’s 3-strength corps might grow – over the course of a turn or two -- to a 10-strength corps and become more heavily entrenched). With this sort of system in place, an Axis force that invades Spain might find Portugal a (somewhat) tougher nut to crack as a follow up. And the British might find Vichy Algeria tougher to crack after Tunisia is first attacked!

I am interested in any feedback forum members might have. I would also be interested in playing a few PBEM games employing the first suggestion (i.e., the DOW limitations) as a “house rule.” (I don’t know the editor enough to know if you can repeatedly change the strength and entrenchment levels of minor powers once a game has started.) Anyone interested in trying this via PBEM can e-mail me directly. Depending on the response, I may not be able to accept all challenges (at least not immediately), but I will respond to all messages.

Thanks!

It makes sense, although I do not know if it is historically accurate: Did Yugoslavia increase the size of its army after Italy attacked Greece? Did Finland increased the size of its army after Russia invaded the Baltic States? Did Sweeden drafted more men in account of Germany's invasion of Norway? etc.

Any one knows?

[Hubert Cater]

MJY, all I can say is that there will be some changes but nothing finalized just yet. Idea being any changes implemented need to balance out game play, historical imperitives as well as not lead to further exploits etc.

For example, at the moment if the Axis attack Spain there is an increase in US readiness, i.e. US enters earlier and chances are the US will also receive an addition to its naval forces. We could have it where if you attack Spain, Portugal automatically joins as a consequence but in the long run this might not be ideal. Reason being is that the chances of the Axis attacking Portugal as well after Spain is likely but now there is no diplomatic penalty to increase US readiness as it has entered on its own. Additionally having Portugal enter on its own will not change much as the Axis are still very likely to crush it quickly with little benefit to the Allies.

This is just one example of where there may be unintended consequences but we'll find the right balance as best as we can.

[MJY]

ev,

With regard to increased size, I was not thinking so much in terms of conscripting more soldiers and training them (which would take FAR too long in game turns (i.e., months and months instead of weeks), but rather it could represent in the abstract the mobilization of Reserves and other previously training individuals and/or various militias and other paramilitary forces -- a process that most armed forces would have already have made plans for well before the war started.

As for increasing levels of entrenchment, that could represent the deployment of forces from peacetime barracks (etc.) to frontline fortifications and/or other strategic locations on a war time footing.

The bottom line is that it would stop minor neutrals from just sitting around waiting to be cannon fodder for major powers on the rampage in their neighbourhood. Certainly neutral nations mobilized at various points during the war as various crises occurred.

[Hubert Cater]

I also just wanted to say thanks for your proposals... eventually all game changes are a combination of my own intuition, beta feedback as well as the suggestions found througout the General Forums

[TRintala]

Originally posted by ev:

I am not thrilled about your first suggestion, but, I liked your second suggestion:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MJY:

A second suggestion might be for minor neutrals to “mobilize” their forces should a neighbour country be attacked (e.g., a minor country’s 3-strength corps might grow – over the course of a turn or two -- to a 10-strength corps and become more heavily entrenched). With this sort of system in place, an Axis force that invades Spain might find Portugal a (somewhat) tougher nut to crack as a follow up. And the British might find Vichy Algeria tougher to crack after Tunisia is first attacked!

I am interested in any feedback forum members might have. I would also be interested in playing a few PBEM games employing the first suggestion (i.e., the DOW limitations) as a “house rule.” (I don’t know the editor enough to know if you can repeatedly change the strength and entrenchment levels of minor powers once a game has started.) Anyone interested in trying this via PBEM can e-mail me directly. Depending on the response, I may not be able to accept all challenges (at least not immediately), but I will respond to all messages.

Thanks!

It makes sense, although I do not know if it is historically accurate: Did Yugoslavia increase the size of its army after Italy attacked Greece? Did Finland increased the size of its army after Russia invaded the Baltic States? Did Sweeden drafted more men in account of Germany's invasion of Norway? etc.

Any one knows? </font>

[Guest Mike]

Sweden and Switzerland also mobilised - Sweden created it's home guard/militia in 1940.

spain was still "mobilised" following the end of the civil war. Portugal was probably incapable of mobilising any sgnificant army?

Yugoslavia did not mobilise before the war - and only a few of its divisions were ready - wiki says 11 of a possible 28 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Yugoslavia

IMO a better way of motivating historical behaviour for the Iberian nations at least, is probably to give Germany a convoy route - if possible an overland one (can you do that??) representign the tungsten and other minerals they obtained until late 44 - if it was overland through France then that would provide a nice cutoff when/if the Alies reinvade.

[arado234]

Another big help for minor countries would be to let the country representing the minor about to be attacked setup their forces and put them in a position that would make more sense instead of the computer setting them up.I know this would take a little more time but it could make a difference.

[MJY]

Allowing the country representing the minor to set up its forces would work in the case of the "big minors" as it were (e.g., Spain and Turkey and perhaps one or two others), but it doesn't do much to help the smaller ones with only one or two units. In those cases, there may be only one or two logical placements for these units in the whole of the country (e.g., the capital and one other city or a piece of defensive terrain) and if the units are still understrength and unentrenched, they are goning to die quickly in any event. The problem is that mnor countries at present just sit around waiting to contribute resources to whichever major power gets there first!

I would also worry about the historical accuracy of allowing radical redeployments in the context of the time frames available in SCII as these sorts of deployments were not very flexible for most countries (e.g., deplyments are typically associated with bases, fortifications -- even fortifications not significant enough to be indicated on the SCII map -- and the like). Take the example of a neutral Turkey eyed hungarly by both Russia and Germany. And imagine the kind of deployments you might prefer depending on which major attacked first. Obviously the preferred deployment would be raqdically different depending on which country attacked. And now imagine -- from a historical accuracy perspective -- how a neutral Turkey might deploy its forces in peacetime. I suspect as a neutral it would attempt to be ready for either attack -- not just one or another. But the bottom line is that it would not mirror the preferred deployment once the attack actually began. Moving forces around would take too long in real life (e.g., the infrastructure associated with modern armies). On the other hand, as I suggested in an earlier post, calling up Reservists (and other personnel) to pre-existing albeit understrength formations in real life could happen relatively quickly that is in a matter of days and/or weeks (i.e., within the context of even a short summer game turn).

None of this is to say that FULL mobilization couldn't/wouldn't take longer than a turn or two. In that case, it might make sense to increase the strength and entrenchment of minors not only in the turn following an attack on a neighbour but even further in subsequent turns.