Iceland and a Call to Add Egypt to the List of Countries

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by JerseyJohn:

...but if Denmark is attacked, as it inevitably will be -- does that mean it's still neutral? And if it's activated does it have an army?

JJ, you can set the alignment in the Editor... neutral, Axis or Allied.

You can also set the controlling or "parent" for each country on the board.

So, for Denmark, default setting might be... Neutral, with UK and Germany the "parent" Major Powers.

You could change that schematic all around if you wanted to, and you can also Edit the default Armed Forces that Denmark will have when war is declared on them.

Want them to have one Corps and one Cruiser?

(... and one... Rockets :eek: )

So be it.

Not that you'd want to create a little island monster out in the far north Pacific, necessarily, but you... could.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn

I agree and to elaborate:

What might happan to Egypt after the UK surrenders?

A. Commonwealth Continues to Fight On, from Canada, and the overseas territories. As the US has entered the war by now would they simply become US terroritories until the UK is liberated? or does the US promise them independence in order to secure their support?

At the least Canada should become a US Ally.

UK warships become free Brits?

Overseas UK troops become free Brits?

If Egypt joins the US as a Minor Allied Nation it should not revert back to UK control if the UK is liberate.

B. Egypt Goes Neutral

1. Axis Attacks Neutral Egypt

---- Perhaps Turkey decides to annex Syria and Iraq before the Axis troops can.

---- Perhaps the other nations of the region (Turkey, Iraq, Iran) panic and join the Allies

---- Perhaps the other nations in the area are too afraid to do anything.

2. Perhaps the Muslim nations (Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran) enter into a joint defense agreement. If one is attacked then that will be considered an attack against all. Of course what is signed on paper might not be followed by actions.

Perhaps this is an area for diplomatic action? It would make the Middle East a very interesting area and provide an opportunity for an Allied comeback from a successful Sea Lion, if they could convince the countries of the Middle East to join the Allies.

[ April 20, 2004, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Man, what a great piece of info!

I didn't know that and am glad you posted it, explains quite a few things I've been wondering about -- not game related, just wondering about. :cool:

When Britain first started dominating Egypt and controling the Sudan, during the late ninteenth century, much of the work was done by Egyptian soldiers under British officers. Over the course of time this altered, of course, as the Sudan became a prolonged bloodbath after the fall of Khartuum and the death of British General "Chinese" Gordon.

Your post covers the period after all of that was settled and also after Great Britain greatly expanded it's influence in the Middle East, mainly but not entirely at Turkey's expense.

Okay, so for game purposes I think we can say neither Egypt or Iceland has it's own army. So even if suddenly independent, those places and others such as Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Arabia should not have national armies comparable even to that of Yugoslavia or Greece. In truth, they are in no way comparable to such minor countries.

I didn't catch that list of countries you mentioned earlier. Are countries like Austria, Czhechoslovakia and Albania -- annexed before the start of WWII -- on the nation list?

This would only be important for scenario purposes, but I know some people, such as CvM and myself, would like to have the ability to simulate earlier than the Sept 1, 1939 situation. Again, I realize this is only a scenario situation and has little to do with our discussion but it would be interesting to have that information.

[JerseyJohn]

[continued from above post]

Desert Dan

Thanks for the information, that clarifies quite a few issues.

[Edwin P.]

The problem was that the Government of Egypt and England argued over who should control the Sudan. Egypt loss and when the UK used the assination of their official as an excuse to force the Egyptians to remove their army from the Sudan. The English then replaced it with a Sudanese force of 4,500 troops commanded by British officers.

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

As for the list of countries you listed they are not represented in the SC2 editor; however, you can create your own countries in SC2.

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

More importantly, I am interested in how the Event Editor and Diplomatic system will work as I think that we could create a most interesting and varied set of possibilities for the Middle East in the event of a successful Axis Sea Lion.

With the US using its influence to sway the alligence of the Middle Eastern countries whose leaders might be uncomfortable with an Axis power that has attacked every country in Western Europe - Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden.

[ April 20, 2004, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Desert Dave]

Desert Dan

Thanks for the information, that clarifies quite a few issues.

JJ,

Well, I have a brother named Dan , but he isn't interested in war-gaming... he mostly likes Harleys and road trips to Black Hills of South Dakota and up along Hiway-One out in God's Country, California, but... Denmark is not high on his must-see list.

Dave

[JerseyJohn]

Sounds right.

The Sudan was actually a millstone for the Brits, they only exerted influence over it to insure their control of more important territories.

As per game purposes, these token forces of 5,000 or fewer such as held most Middle Eastern territories for Britain, would be negligible for game purposes. Also, in most cases they were given very low priority for equipment and training and leadership. The main purpose was to control local chieftans.

[JerseyJohn]

[continued from above post]

DesertDave

I just started writing your name as Dan again.

You may have noticed I usually use either initials or only the first part of a person's tag. There's a good reason for that -- many of my nuerons have somewhat dubious connections!

Anyway, please say hello to Dan for me.

[Edwin P.]

In my view the the Middle Eastern countries might be willing to join the Allies if the UK has surrendered only if they thought that Germany's conquests would not stop. Thus the chance of convincing them to join the allies should be dependent upon how many Pro-Axis Neutral Countries the Axis has attacked - ie Vichy France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and Egypt.

If the Axis has attacked all of them then I would like to see the Diplomatic system allow for Turkey, Iraq and Iran to join the Allies as American Minor Allies - as the Turks and Iranians did not like or trust the Russians.

Say that Axis has attacked one of these nations then 0% for middle Eastern countries to join the allies if the UK has surrendered.

If the Axis has attacked all of these Nations then a 50% for the Middle Eastern countries to ally with the Americans if they exert diplomatic pressure and the UK has surrendered.

[ April 20, 2004, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

We've had similar discussions and interestingly I see it in an opposite way.

It seems more reasonable to me that, if the UK were defeated, those countries would strike their best deal with the Axis!

I'd include Spain and Turkey in that category. Why would the back a sinking ship?

The only way they'd join the Allies if the UK was defeated would be extremely extenuating circumstances, such as Soviet troops crushing the German forces in the east and pushing into Poland and the Balkans. Then, and only then, would it make sense to me that any of those nations would join against the Axis.

Also, as has so often happened before, our discussions have run into the wee hours. It being 1:45 a.m. now -- as I know it is for you as well, I'll be calling it a night and wishing you a good one. As always it's been a delight. :cool:

PS -- ah, you've sneaked some extra stuff in your last post!

-- Intersting, as always, I'll have to get back to that when my eyes aren't closing!

[ April 20, 2004, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

I agree that they would be more likely to join the Axis, except if they saw that even pro-axis nations such as Spain and Sweden were attacked by the Axis. As you said earlier Germany's representative to Spain sabotaged all negotiations. What the same thing happened with Turkey?

[ April 20, 2004, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Well, that's an interesting situation, yes.

If they lose their credibility, treat their allies as vasal states, then I agree with your original premise.

Great speculations, as always my friend. And now, it's off for some shut-eye.

Have a good one.

[Edwin P.]

I agree, I have to attend a meeting in the morning at 8.

But I wonder, if SC2 will include Diplomats that can be selected at the start of the game. One Diplomat might give a Bonus in one type of situation and another a penalty in another type.

So in this game I pick Herr XXXX as my Foreign Minister expecting to negotiate a deal with Spain but instead I am forced to send him to Turkey, and he hates the Turks and so my dealings with Turkey suffer a penalty.

I could see the Axis, Russians, Americans, and Brits having a choice of four ministers each. Each one with their own strengths, weaknesses and secret agendas. Thus diplomacy is affected by the choices you make, by the foreign minister you have selected and your opponent's choices and the foreign minister that they have selected to use.

Naturally the secreat agendas should be randomly assigned each game and become known only during the course of play.

Germany - Ribbentrop,

UK -

US - Sumner Wells (+10% European Negotiations), Edward Reilly Stettinius, Jr, Louis Dreyfus (+10% in Middle Eastern Negotiations)

USSR -

[ April 20, 2004, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

The Germans had lousy diplomats.

von Neurath was the most capable but the Nazis didn't like him.

Ribbentrop was an imbecile. He replaced Neurath in England and immediately gave King George and his wife the Nazi salute at his first audience. You can imagine how that went over.

In Spain Hitler sent Admiral Canaris to pave the way with Franco -- Double Agen Canaris, what a great choice that was! The Admiral urged Franco to enter the war with promises like, "If you join the Axis we can't help defend you against Britain, do you really want to do this? Hey -- most of the troops and plains in France have been moved east so it isn't as though you've got to worry about being invaded or anything."

I'm paraphrasing, of course, but that's the way their talks went and Franco gave Hitler a stone wall when they met in the Pyrannies.

Those countries that did join the Axis were either terrified of Germany or even more terrified of the USSR.

Germany would receive an extremely low rating on my diplomacy scale. But naturally I'd like the option of changing that in the scenario editor.

Well, good luck at the meeting later this morning.

[Blashy]

Let me put it this way.

Germans rant and rave about blonde / blue eyes being the master race all others inferior.

The Arabian response to that:

JIHAD!!!!!!

[Lars]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Let me put it this way.

Germans rant and rave about blonde / blue eyes being the master race all others inferior.

The Arabian response to that:

JIHAD!!!!!!

You know what the German answer to that was, don't you?

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Let me put it this way.

Germans rant and rave about blonde / blue eyes being the master race all others inferior.

The Arabian response to that:

JIHAD!!!!!!

WRONG.

The response would have been:

"we hate jews & christians, too

where can we help? ..."

Islam Under the Swastika