All I am saying is give peace a chance

[The Great Santini]

Why are the diplomatic consequences for invading defenseless countries so trivial and ultimately nonexistent once the U.S. enters? It is outrageously ahistorical. The game deteriorates into nothing more than a massive land grab for MPPs. The minor countries become nothing more than piggybanks. If Germany wants to invade Switzerland, fine, but let the consequences be something like an increase in U.S. industrial capacity. And why just five chits for diplomacy? Is there a shortage of money for striped pants statesman?

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by The Great Santini:

... If Germany wants to invade Switzerland, fine, but let the consequences be something like an increase in U.S. industrial capacity. And why just five chits for diplomacy? ...

In this specific case I think it would be more accurate to have all negative effects for Germany rather than positive allied effects. Germany would lose the Swiss banking services, which in itself might have been ruinous. Further, it would have lost odd services Switzerland did that are still not widely known, such as supplying manufactured items being destroyed in Germany by Allied bombing missions, and also diverted power to offset damage done to major German river dams.

Also, the Swiss appear to have done a great job rigging their mountain passes and tunnels and other assets for detonation in the event of being invaded by either side.

I agree with the basic premise of this thread, and it's been an issue since the original SC days. It was discussed in considerable length at the SC(1) forum.

[carverrt]

Good point on the negative consequences of attacking a particular minor country. If invading Switzerland cost the Germans financially, then what economic effect/adjustment occurred when they invaded other countries.

In the game today, there are military consequences once the USA enters the war. If the UK invades Ireland or Germany invades Switzerland, these actions take away units from the main effort for 2-3 turns. If I were Russian in the Summer of 1942 I would love to experience the effect of German units to Switzerland for a season. If the Germans used units in France, I would conduct a few UK raids on European cites.

I think any invasion of a minor post-1942 will have an effect that may be exploited.

[SeaMonkey]

This is just the thing Terif was referring to that cuts down on the strategic possibilities, penalizing the player from deviating from the historical path.

Now I'm not saying yay or nay, just remember, be thoughtful about what you wish for.

[The Great Santini]

It isn't a question of "cutting down strategic possibilities" because there is only one path to victory, namely grab every minor country you can, with no consequences. Terif invented the "Terif cookie cutter". This so wrecked SC1 that it was necessary to add MPPs to the allied majors to rebalance the game. Right now the U.S. always enters no latter than summer 1942 no matter what the Axis does, so why not grab every minor for plunder you can. And with only five chits for diplomacy each side usually tries to cancel out the other when they see a move being made to influence a country. And once the U.S. enters diplomacy is out the window, assuming there are any unconquered minors left. And when we see things like England attacking Ireland or Saudia Arabia or Germany attacking Switzerland with NO consequences it isn't a game with "strategic possibilities" it's a Harry Turtledove novel.

[Colin I]

We could use more subtle levels of commitment in the diplomacy system depending on the degree of sympathy:

Strict neutral [less than 30%]: Country is not part of the war and makes no economic or military commitment to either side.

Passive support [30% or greater]: Contributes some MPP to the side it supports (like Norway now).

Active sympathy: [60% or greater] In addition to MPP neutral indirectly donates troops but does not enter the war. These become the nationality of the parent major and the type and location are scripted to suit the donating country (or add to build stack). An obvious opportunity for US lend lease destroyers to the UK for a start, or US tanks to Soviets. Most minor countries just contribute a corps at most, possibly a reduced one.

Full All [As now].

Additional to this you need a diplomatic model so that invading a country has widespread and more subtle effects depending on the audience (whether the country invaded is near another, leans the same way) and less dependence on simple if X then Y scripting. There is a little of this already, for example Turkish-Greek rivalry is modelled to some extent, but it needs to go much further. For example, hitting US to UK convoys with U-boats is likely to impact US public opinion, US boats are bound to be sunk in the ensuing chaos. In WWI this was a critical factor in the US entering the war.

And you definately need (as Santini says) the possibility that US stays out longer if its interests are not threatened. This will open up strategies that are currently possible but do not work well enough to use against a decent player; particularly Axis using minimal force in the West to keep US out and focus on Russia, albeit with less resources.

Finally, a deterrent to invading countries when all majors are in. I've slightly mixed feelings here. Even the Allies did take over countries (albeit in the guise of liberating Vichy territories, for example). In some contexts, even a UK invasion of Eire is not impossible (if it swings to Axis I think this might have happened). But there has to be an underlying model to this so actions make some sense in a historical context. Here the donation of MPP might work, you invade Sweden and the Swiss edge to the other side and quietly start donating resources.

[Colin I]

Just to add, if we can avoid using break points system becomes open to less manipulation. So, if we assume there will always be some trade and interchange of resources, you could have a country donate (% bias towards Axis or Allies) multiplied by the maximum MPP of that nation multiplied by 1/3 or another fraction. The net effect is that even minor shifts in public opinion, if they happen in lots of countries, will have an MPP impact that could add up.

[Lars]

Originally posted by The Great Santini:

Why are the diplomatic consequences for invading defenseless countries so trivial and ultimately nonexistent once the U.S. enters?

Lets see, countries invaded…

Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, France, UK (Channel Islands), Greece, Albania, Soviet Union, Latvia, Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, Vichy France, Egypt and Yugoslavia.

So I don't think invading Switzerland or Sweden is going to exactly piss anybody else off. Anybody who cared already was.

[Colin I]

Not sure. Axis had good reason to stay out of Sweden (they were getting passive assistance and materials). Switzerland had value to both sides and was probably harder to take than WaW suggests. Greece and Yugoslavia may or may not have been more trouble than they were worth.

As this is a game of strategy it is valid for Axis player to try and tread more softly than historically. Additionally, as Santini has pointed out, the Allied spree of invasions after US entry makes little historical sense.

We can campaign for a better diplomacy system and this is what this thread is about!

[Lars]

Well, when you go to war on this scale, most of diplomacy goes out the window.

Your suggestion of incremental mpp's is an interesting one. Would give a chance to show the war's effects on all the countries that aren't even on the map.

However, I don't think it'll stop somebody from invading all the little minors. That's what they're there for.