Instead of U. S., UK / French Plunder ...

[JerseyJohn]

We've had numerous discussions and one going on right now about the lack of realism in having the Western Allies plunder countries they conquer.

I'd like to propose the following:

1) The Western Allies do not receive plunder when they liberate a minor nation from Axis rule. Instead one corps immediately appears beside the liberated capital or, if the liberating unit passed through, the corps appears inside the city itself.

-- If the UK, France or U. S. A. is liberated, one of that country's armies appears in or beside it's liberated capital.

2) No Western nation, the USA, UK or France, receive anything from a nation they've DoW'd and conquered. But they do, of course, receive that nations MPP production after doing so.

3) United States War Economy

In the actual war the United States increased it's armament production tremendously with each year of the war. To reflect this, the mainland United States MPP centers double in value after the first year the country is at war, and increase by a further 50% after it's second. Afterwards, it remains at that level.

-- In SC1 terms, if the U. S. entered on it's historical date of 12/07/41 with 180 MPPs, it's production would be 360 on 12/07/42 and 540 on 12/07/43.

-- -- I think this restructuring would do a lot even if it were applied to SC1.

[SeaMonkey]

Excellent, JJ. This is exactly the mechanism(well not exactly) that exists in GGWaW. The factory production for the major powers expands multiplicative depending on the war and chronological conditions. One FP(factory point) coupled with one RP(resource point) equals one PP(production point) which is the same as MPPs in SC.

I also agree with the plunder allocation for Allies....none, or almost none, but I would add that in the case where the Allies are liberating a country, that the rise in production(MPP)/Supply from their assets should approach 100% some time in the future and not be restricted to 80%.

In fact this scenario (the appearance of combat units and plunder/asset allocation) should be tied somewhat to the diplomatic prowess of the governing belligerent or use of diplomatic chits to simulate a governing philosophy. The Axis would be more restricted in their MPP/%asset acquistion due to their characteristic of being the conqueror, but would receive the plunder factor as its incentive.

[Blashy]

I like the USA idea.

But if you decided to play the allies as "bad guys" and conquer neutral countries, you should receive plunder just like the Axis.

Remember, this is about re writing history, sure the Allies were the "good guys" in WW2, but in this game they can be whatever the player wishes. So if you decide to attack neutral countries, you would plunder them.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey,

Glad you like it. I didn't get the idea from the game you mentioned, but CoS had it for all the major countries (maybe HiCom too, but I'm not sure). The only difference I see is that Germany's war production was not efficient till Albert Speer became head of that area late in the war. By then it was too late to save them.

It would be more accurate to give Germany and the USSR a variable increase factor.

The UK and France are hard to figure as in the UK's case the drain on manpower and U-boat activity led to a huge drop in it's peacetime manufacturing abilties. Britain built only one BB from start to finish during the entire war, and that wasn't completed till after VE Day!

< Story of that British Battleship >

Italy's war production was very poor. Japan's was very focused but so hindered by lack of resources (US submarines sinking it's merchantfleet) that it's difficult to evaluate what it might have achieved with a sensible convoy protection system and sonar.

Blashy

Germany, The USSR and Italy would still take plunder as in the present arrangement.

The USA, UK and France, would not get plunder. This would also discourage them from invading neutrals for quick gain.

-- But all countries would still receive the regular production from all countries they conquered.

[Blashy]

It makes no sense John, what you are saying is that the Allies would be "nice" conquerers and let countries keep their wealth but use their industries.

If a player decides to go after Minors as an allied player, he is changing history and making the Allies and aggressor and not a liberator. Which means you want to grow your power and like the Axis will TAKE what those countries have to increase your power.

If I'm Allied and attack a minor I expect to get plunder because I would take it.

Actually it should be a pop up decision, if you don't take it, other minors % of joining Axis drops, if you don't it goes up.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy, the only Allied country I know of that plundered during WWII was the Soviet Union.

When the United States or UK liberated a conquered nation the first thing they did was to begin rebuilding transportation systems and harbors. After that they did their best to feed the populatin and provide medical care. I'd say that was being a damn nice conqueror. And the country's involved all seemed to think so as well.

At no time did they pillage, they didn't run off with the rolling stock or take grain, livestock and everything else not nailed down as the Germans and Soviets did. Nor did the British or Americans even take the nations gold, if any was left. Additionally, they returned things they later found that had been removed by Axis leaders, such as artworks and historical documents. Again, I'd say that was very nice behavior.

What do you define as plunder?

Receiving the nations MPPs doesn't mean it was conquered. It just means that the nation is from that point forward on the allies, unless reconquered by the axis.

I'm always in favor of making something an option, as you've said, good guy or bad guy allies.

[Avatar]

JJ, I agree 100% with your reasonings. However, I believe 'plunder' should be seen as more abstract. An additional corp (or whatever) created by liberating a country can equally be transposed with 'plunder' money. For the sake of easier programming, and more simplified game flow, it's easier that the allied player just decide what he wants to spend the money on. Portugal, when it declared war on the Axis provided almost entirely money and auxiliary troops, kinda like most free minor countries did. All this can be translated into MPP. A corp would be too restrictive. At the time, you might need the extra money for AF's or whatever, and getting a corp, well, it's just not enough.

[Edwin P.]

I agree with Avatar, plunder as it is now is nice and simple.

The only change I would consider is allowing the conquerer to choose between 2 levels of plunder (low and high).

If you are aggressive and take it all this has a strong negative effect on how other countries view you.

If you are nice, rebuild the country and feed the people; as JJ mentioned, you get less plunder but other countries don't view your conquest so harshly.

Example: UK Attacks Neutral Ireland

Plunder High = 360MPP + USA War Readiness -20%, Spain +5% to 15% Pro Axis, Sweden +5% to 10% Pro Axis

Plunder Low = 120MPP + USA War Readiness -10%

[ May 23, 2005, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

I like it Edwin. Would be a good option for the Axis too. Try being a "nice" Hitler and see if you can get still the job done.

btw, poor choice of Ireland for a example. The English had already pretty well plundered it out by WWII.

[SeaMonkey]

Me too Edwin, it gives a definitive nature to your governing philosophy, good idea.

JJ I agree with Avatar, but not totally, perhaps a randomizer for a mix of both, depending upon the "high" or "low" selection.

Now Edwin, I believe there should be further consequences for the "high" selection. What if all major countries are at war? Maybe a diplomatic chit or two, or an inhibited MPP production from the conquered countries' assets?

Heck, this reminds me....I had a thought on the use of Diplomatic chits for a side's conquered territories. Depending upon the plunder selection, a conquered country's MPP producing assets could start rather low, say 30%, if high plunder was selected and it was an Axis possession. This could be tailored to the historical alignment for each individual country, depending on the owner. Now if a player wanted the asset production to rise to say 50% for supply and other obvious reasons, then he would need to spend some of his diplomatic prowess in the form of his accumulated chits to hopefully obtain that higher output, not always guaranteed. Further, depending on the size of the conquered country, like USSR, there maybe continuing chit investments needed for the additional assets/regions/ethnical diversity as more territory is possessed?

[ May 23, 2005, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Edwin P.]

Seamonkey,

I agree with your view for other conseqences. Question - what could they be?

Perhaps a high level of plunder gives a percentage chance for partisans to be activated in that neutral nation.

Perhaps a high level of plunder gives your opponent a free diplomacy chit.

Futhermore, your idea of using a diplomacy chit to increase the output of a conquered country is a good idea, and represents investment in rebuilding their industry.

[JerseyJohn]

Avatar, SeaMonkey, Edwin, Blashy & Lars

All of the ideas sound good, I especially like Edwin's idea about an Allied DoW effecting other factors.

In the case of Ireland, it was largely through United States pressuring that the south gained it's independence, which was granted just a short time before the war, so I honestly believe that's one instance where the UK would not cavalierly DoW the place to gain experience for it's aircraft carriers!

To me abuses like that one really cheapen the game.

Perhaps the simplist way would be to keep plunder for both sides and allow the Allies to receive it when liberating countries previously conquered by the Axis (as well as receiving it when conquering Axis nations).

I understand the idea of the game having to be abstract.

I understand the limitations Hubert and any other game designer needs to work under and the limitations of computer code and AI.

But I'm always in favor of anything that makes the game more realistic. Toggles and choice of levels are fine, but I like to see something in there that would basically keep the game, when recreating WWII, more realistic than is presently the case.

[Korut Zelva]

Allowing plundering for USSR but not other allies would be realistic but may lead to abuse. Like allies letting ussr get the neutral capitals to take advantage of the plundering.

How 'bout

Civilized conquest: little or no mpp plunder, city supply capped at 8

Savage conquest: huge mpp plunder, city supply capped at 5 (from damaged economy and less cooperation from population resentement)

[SeaMonkey]

Lots of great ideas here, variations of the same concept. I guess it will be up to HC to determine the most viable avenue of approach. If I believed we had some influence on the final course of action, I would want to organize these considerations into a logically deduced conclusion, but its probably a waste of our time.

One thing for sure, the abuse JJ spoke of with Allied CVs attacking Ireland should have no place in SC2, totally illogical, and I have a great imagination when it comes to the abstract.

Oh well, back to SC PBEM and WaW.

[Blashy]

The WHOLE point of this game is to play the game ANOTHER way.

So if I decided to invade countries as an Allie, I would plunder.

You should definitly get the option and a consequence if you do plunder or not.

[Edwin P.]

Here's an interesting consequence of the UK or USA subjecting a nation to plunder:

5% News Flash - General [Montgomery/Eisenhower] refuses order of [Prime Minister/President] to plunder Belgium and resigns. (If HQ is in play it is replaced by another randomly selected HQ unit or if not in play the specified HQ is removed from list of selectable HQ units).

This would be especially effective if one or two level 5 HQs was included in the USA and UK HQ lists.

[ May 24, 2005, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Blashy]

I don't like it. Once again it does not leave the player with the Ability to decide what to do.

If I don't plunder I loose a General? Nonsense.

You plunder or you don't. A simple consequence is that if you do, other minors % go up for Axis, if you don't other minors stay the same.

Lets keep it simple and not with the usual 10 options per action Edwin .

[Liam]

I agree with some of the thoughts that John layed out. That adding in something for the liberation of countries for the Allies dependant on the nation would work well vs Plunder. Really, any invasion of France should include a violation of Belgian, Dutch and Luxembourg's borders and automatically draw them into the war on the Allied side, which somewhat historical, no?

[Edwin P.]

Denmark and Belgian remained neutral until invaded despite France and Germany being at war.

Why, small countries with small armies tend to remain neutral if at all possible, especially when faced by countries with much larger armies.

[ May 25, 2005, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]