Diplomatic Confusion

[Ludi1867]

WaW seems to have introduced a number of minor changes in scripts. Others have asked about this, but no clear reply has been forthcoming beyond the general claim that WaW follows roughly along the lines of SC2. This may be true, but it certainly seems that there are some new oddities. In addition, there are some strange results that are, well, dubious or ahistorical.

The following are issues that I am confused by. There may well be others, or there may be simple explanations. In either case, I would appreciate knowing about other issues, and even better explanations as to what is happening here.

1. Italy joining the Axis. In SC2 vanilla, Italy seldom joined the Axis unless the Allies moved land units in the Mediterranean littoral or German units approached Paris. Neither criterion seems to apply in WaW, where Italy regularly joins the Axis in late 1939 or January 1940. What causes Italy to join the Axis so soon and so regularly now?

2. USN units cannot gain re-supply from Newfoundland before the US enters the war. This may be a game engine issue, but it certainly is ahistorical. Not only did the USN establish a port and airbase in Newfoundland well before Pearl Harbor, but the USN was even given operational command of Allied naval forces in the western Atlantic in the summer of 1941 (yes, well before Pearl Harbor). The USN retained this command role until May 1943, despite the majority of USN forces in the NW Atlantic departing in the wake of Pearl Harbor. Why cannot USN units gain re-supply from Newfoundland (at least – should probably be any British port) before the US enters the war?

3. If the Axis conquers Portugal prior to the Azores being leased to the Allies, the Azores become Axis occuppied. Is this automatic? It is hard to see this happening automatically in reality, where an Iceland like event seems historically more likely. Is there a script for this? Is this deliberate, or just an oversight?

[PowerGmbH]

to 2:

TheBases in Newfoundland that US used where part of the "Destroyers for Bases" program, in which UK "leased" for 99 Years some bases From UK-Guyana via Bermudas up to Canada in exchange for 50 (mostly) usless old US-Destroyers.

i.e. you can change this by Annex Skipt of the Canadian Port in the "Case-White/Fall Weiss" Game.

to 3: Historically not unrealisitc. dont forget that Portugal also had some Colony "Timor" in Asiatic Waters as well as "Macau" and Colonies in Africa. So If the Allies would respect their own UN-Resolutions they should not interfere in colonies duties of surrendered countries. See also Vichy France which was recognized officially by USA and which colonies (Martinique/Guadeloupe i.e. ) belonged officially to Vichy, EVEN IN WESTERN Hemisphere territory ! (not forget about the interisting History of the French Carrier "Bearn" that carried the Gold from Surrendered Franch Central Bank inside, and was stationed in Martinique(!), and the attempt of UK to seize (rob!) this Gold and PAY whith this gold the "Supply for Cash" US Sellings..., while US warned Axis NOT to do the same (rob the gold), but US could NOT afford to march into the island.

Interisting no?

Long story short: Historically almost every dirty land/resource taking activities where possible, but not allways realized when other solutions where somehow "less" dirty...no matter if Axis or Allies activities.

[Joshua22]

Nice story about that French Carrier. Sort of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" all wanting the gold, only this time it's not buried in a unmarked grave... but in a Carrier.

[Terif]

1) The only difference between SC2 and WaW concerning Italy are the Med garrisons - which usually causes Italy to join early when the allied player didn´t look at the script changes: in SC2 UK has to garrison Alexandria, in WaW they need to garrison Cairo ! Often players don´t pay attention to this change and this results in Italy joining already in 1939.

2) Neutral units only get supply from their own supply bases - never from future allies (we as players know which side they will join later, but the game nations are no clairvoyants )

3) If a country surrenders, then all its territory gets occupied by the conquering nation.

Exception: special script events or if units from allied nations are still defending parts of the country - and neither is the case with the Azores.

[Ludi1867]

powergmbh

Thanks for your comments.

re 2. I agree that the scripts can be changed (and should have thought of that, I guess) but why would not the base game have that script? My sense is that the US and UK are almost excessively penalized by the game system. Historically these two Allies shared much of their R&D (remarkable amounts, really). Yet in the game both have to research everything separately, etc. Lend-lease provides MPPs in the game, but in reality many important weapons were directly provided by the US – Montgomery would have had much more trouble at El Alamein without all the Shermans the US sent directly to the Middle East for the British to use, as just one of thousands of examples.

re 3. Well, I am not sure I would use the description not unrealistic historically. Your points are well taken regarding the western hemisphere Vichy experiences. However, the similarity between Iceland and the Azores as strategically important islands should be considered. The US would likely have intervened directly militarily if the Vichy islands in the Caribbean had attempted to directly assist the Axis. The UK moved very quickly to occupy Iceland when Denmark fell. If Portugal, a long standing ally of the British, had been viciously attacked, it is actually difficult to see the Portuguese just handing over the Azores. Even if they did, Allied naval supremacy in the Atlantic makes it hard to see the Axis actually occupying the Azores before the Allies preempted them. The islands are almost 1000 miles into the ocean – Axis air units would have difficulty flying there in an operational capacity (aside from the very few aircraft with that kind of range, such as the FW 200), and it is out of the question that any significant airlift could reach the island. To have an air unit operate into the Azores, as the Axis can now apparently do, is, in my view historically unrealistic – the Allies would have acted to prevent this from happening, as they did in Iceland.

Terif

Thank you as well for your comments. Your comments and another thread now make it clear what is happening with Italian entry.

re 2. As powergmbh noted, this is not historically true for the US and the UK, who did have very effective working relationships prior to US entering the war officially. While your comment may be true in a general sense, the “special relationship” between the US and the UK (and you can argue forever as to how special it really was) really was an important fact in this conflict, one which the current SC system only acknowledges in a very rudimentary way with the lend-lease activation (and that only for MPPs, not for tech, which historically was vital to the success of these two powers).

re 3. Again, your comment is generally correct. Perhaps I should rephrase and say there SHOULD be a special script event if the Axis conquer Portugal, and it should be similar to the Denmark conquer then Iceland goes Allied script that now exists.

A final overall comment is that the game system provides too many rewards for conquest, and not nearly enough penalties. There is a certain obvious sense to providing a conquering nation with so many MPPs, but many invasions had serious negative consequences that are not reflected in the game. And I am not arguing that only the Axis should suffer negative consequences – the ease with which the Allies can now invade Ireland is an egregious example of the flaws in the current system.

[PowerGmbH]

Ludi: Well taken Historically Axis Powers didn't have a chance of winning or even holding back US Capacities.

see: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

So if the game shall be balanced the Axis power needs a lot of pushings, else it appears to be the simple Historical outcome...not so fun.

[arado234]

Ludi in W.a.W.there are more penalties for just going nuts and attacking everyone.If the Allies invade Ireland there is a chance that Spain will join Germany(or atleast get a big diplo hit in favor of Germany).There are other instances where attacking historically friendly neutrals can backfire.I dont know how far you would want the penalties to go.