U.S. Entry is Broken

U.S. Entry is Broken (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan

Message

DicedT -> U.S. Entry is Broken (1/26/2020 12:27:43 AM)
I can accept Germany invading Belgium/Netherlands in 1939. That's a standard move in Strategic Command-style games, and an option in World in Flames. The problem is that in WarPlan, there are no consequences for invading neutrals. In WiF, Germany invading neutrals -- or Britain invading Ireland -- affects U.S. Entry. Germany cans still do it, but they do have to weigh the downside. The essence of a good game boils downs to risk vs. reward: is the risk worth the reward? That's one of the reasons WiF is such a classic. The U.S. Entry aspect is a fascinating sub-game in itself. In WarPlan, there are no negative consequences for invading the Low Countries, or Norway, or Greece. The Allies can't really stop it. It makes the game more predictable and therefore less fun. Michael

AlvaroSousa -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/26/2020 1:02:44 AM)
Thanks for the input

tigercub -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/26/2020 6:31:04 AM)
same thing if UK takes out Portugal there is no back lash! Tigercub

aspqrz02 -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/26/2020 8:47:29 AM)
I'm pretty sure that if the UK invades Portugal there is a pro-Axis bonus for Spanish entry as a German Minor. This is pretty standard for UK invasions of Minors, even when historically inappropriate, but there seem to be no penalties for German invasions of Minors. For example, if the UK invades Norway, Sweden gets a +10 bonus to their entry as an Axis Minor ... bzzzt ... rubbish! Sweden played a careful game during the war to avoid offending Germany while remaining as friendly as possible with the Allies, and, as soon as it was obvious to them that the Allies were winning (mid- to late-43 ish) they became markedly less helpful to the Axis in the vital trade in Iron Ore etc ... and in mid 1944 they became even less helpful, as Germany had no capacity to do much to them at that point. IF the Allies invade Norway, then Sweden is NOT likely to become more pro-Axis ... not even if the Allied invasion ultimately fails. And if it SUCCEEDS, then they are likely to become pro-Allied, at least as far as stopping all trade with German in return for trade with the Allies (which is what they really wanted, historically ... trade with Germany was done mainly to keep the Nazis from invading). Likewise, according to scripted events, Spain and Turkey are more likely to get a bonus to entry as Axis Minors in the event of a UK invasion of Norway. Neither is realistic or, indeed, likely. Franco was a bastard, but not a fool. There's a reason he demanded such a high price in terms of supplies from Germany at Hendaye ... Spain was gutted. The Civil War was, what, barely two years over and her economy and agricultural sector were in a parlous state. She relied on imports of food, fuel and industrial goods from the Allies to survive. And Germany didn't have the goods to spare to make up for their loss (and the Allies kept Franco on a short leash to prevent him cross-transferring allied goods to Germany). So, no, it will take more than an Allied invasion of Norway to get Franco more likely to go active. And if the invasion is successful he is actually more likely to cut ties with Germany, though probably not ally with the Allies (they'd find him as obnoxious as he would find them untrustworthy for his version of Fascism). Turkey is much the same. There is no percentage in Turkey getting interested in the UK invading Norway. And, of course, something most people don't know, Ataturk (who the Turks thought somewhat highly of) had seen the clouds of war gathering before he died and warned, specifically, the leadership NOT TO BACK GERMANY. In both cases I would think that the only things that would trigger Spanish or Turkish active Axis status would be Germany defeating Russia ... which makes their involvement moot. Given the strong US anti-interventionist stance prior to 1940-ish (the OHIO Plan largely signals the end of that, mid 1940) there is little chance of Axis invasions of anyone triggering actual intervention before late 1940 ... and even then it would have to be low. After all, even Barbarossa didn't trigger US involvement. If you want unrealistic chances of Spain, Sweden or Turkey becoming Axis Minors, then you really should have unrealistic chances of the US going active sooner as well. Phil McGregor

AlvaroSousa -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/26/2020 4:07:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tigercub same thing if UK takes out Portugal there is no back lash! Tigercub There is a backlash. Minor countries start going Axis. Read the notes. So if you are playing with diplomacy it does have an effect.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/26/2020 4:20:25 PM)
The detriment of the UK invading Norway is that they give Germany a naval group, a mountain of MMs (which they don't get), and a free unit. Germany can easily defend Norway, invade it, and take it from the UK causing a lot of PP damage. It would actually be cheaper for Germany to send expert troops destroying their units than subs in the convoy lanes. They could do both and stretch the UK out pretty good. Portugal just needed a diplomatic counter balance because there really is nothing you can do. In WiF games usually Portugal is invaded by the UK for the resource and the protection of Gibraltar and convoy lanes. The key points here are modifying US entry here and there with little things isn't going to change anything. If the Axis do really well they come in earlier but delaying them really doesn't change anything unless it is a really drastic delay. As the Axis you can stage a game where your strategy is to delay the USA as long as possible and do a Sitzkreig. It has a very good chance of winning the game as the Axis. Yawn, boring. WarPlan is based on performance. If you screw up as Germany early you will lose early and game over. Unlike the last WiF game I had. I played Germany and got incredibly unlucky in France. I only took them in 1941. Italy did not provoke the Allies. We went for a USA delay strategy. Well it worked. They came in in 1943. If we really wanted to win the game I would have done a 1942 Sitzkrieg and just pushed to the river line in Russia and a Leningrad line in the North doing an mathematical game saving my production as much as possible. Instead I choose and Winter 1941 Barbarossa and attempted to go for a crippling. I only did this to keep the game fun for the Russian player. Still with all this the game came down to the last turn and the last die roll. Germany died the last turn of the game. So somethings will just stay as they are. If the UK chooses to invade Portugal so be it. There isn't much punishment I can do there because a US entry punishment has pretty much zero effect. Their production is relatively the same and they entry would be delayed a month which does nothing. I look at this issue from a mathematical game theory perspective and a balancing perspective. If there is no way to do the former and the balancing perspective is minor I don't bother.

tyronec -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/26/2020 5:04:21 PM)
quote: I can accept Germany invading Belgium/Netherlands in 1939. That's a standard move in Strategic Command-style games, and an option in World in Flames. The problem is that in WarPlan, there are no consequences for invading neutrals. In WiF, Germany invading neutrals -- or Britain invading Ireland -- affects U.S. Entry. Germany cans still do it, but they do have to weigh the downside. The essence of a good game boils downs to risk vs. reward: is the risk worth the reward? That's one of the reasons WiF is such a classic. The U.S. Entry aspect is a fascinating sub-game in itself. In WarPlan, there are no negative consequences for invading the Low Countries, or Norway, or Greece. The Allies can't really stop it. It makes the game more predictable and therefore less fun. Michael I just don't get this argument that the US will intervene if Axis go around invading Neutrals. Germany broke just about all of the Versailles treaty, that USA was a part of. They invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Yugoslavia, Greece, USSR... Italy invaded a few too. They wouldn't help Spain against the facists. They joined WW2 when Japan attacked them and Hitler declared war. There is no historical basis for USA intervention on this grounds. As the game stands you get USA if the UK is knocked out, this is just wrong. If Axis can knock out the UK in '40 (which needs to be very difficult) that that is a justified probable win for them.

James Taylor -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/26/2020 7:53:08 PM)
The USA wasn't all that enamored by the UK's commonwealth possessions around the World. France either, in fact all the European nations that had colonies were not exactly "well thought of". One of the reasons the isolationists had such a hold over American foreign policy. There was much argument over using the USN to protect overseas(Pacific) colonial interests, excepting of course, USA's own.

DicedT -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/26/2020 8:06:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tyronec quote: I can accept Germany invading Belgium/Netherlands in 1939. That's a standard move in Strategic Command-style games, and an option in World in Flames. The problem is that in WarPlan, there are no consequences for invading neutrals. In WiF, Germany invading neutrals -- or Britain invading Ireland -- affects U.S. Entry. Germany cans still do it, but they do have to weigh the downside. The essence of a good game boils downs to risk vs. reward: is the risk worth the reward? That's one of the reasons WiF is such a classic. The U.S. Entry aspect is a fascinating sub-game in itself. In WarPlan, there are no negative consequences for invading the Low Countries, or Norway, or Greece. The Allies can't really stop it. It makes the game more predictable and therefore less fun. Michael I just don't get this argument that the US will intervene if Axis go around invading Neutrals. Germany broke just about all of the Versailles treaty, that USA was a part of. They invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Yugoslavia, Greece, USSR... Italy invaded a few too. They wouldn't help Spain against the facists. They joined WW2 when Japan attacked them and Hitler declared war. There is no historical basis for USA intervention on this grounds. As the game stands you get USA if the UK is knocked out, this is just wrong. If Axis can knock out the UK in '40 (which needs to be very difficult) that that is a justified probable win for them. In fact, Axis actions did have an effect on U.S. policy. FDR did his best to prepare America for war, despite the domestic political limitations of isolationism. The U.S. Navy began a massive shipbuilding program in 1938, and most important, Congress approved a peacetime draft (which passed by a single vote) in 1940 after the Fall of France. The same applied to Britain, which didn't react at first to the Nazis, and then began rearming by the late 1930s. I agree with Tyronec that Axis invasion of neutrals shouldn't bring the U.S. into the war. But it would be reasonable to have it affect U.S. preparedness, expressed through increased American production. Michael

aspqrz02 -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/26/2020 11:31:43 PM)
As for the 'Free Unit' ... they certainly didn't get much, perhaps a Division equivalent. AND they most certainly did NOT get it because the UK invaded, but because there were a TINY number of nutjob fascists in Norway, as there were in most European countries. In fact, if the UK invades and makes it stick, THEY should get a Norwegian Corps ... THAT is actually FAR more likely. Phil McGregor

bjfagan -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/28/2020 6:39:10 PM)
Every game models the US game economy on what happened historically. But the only reason the US had an all-out war effort was because of being attacked by the Japanese. There was a huge anti-war sentiment in the US that never really gets factored into a game. If the US goes to war early, without an attack at Pearl Harbor then the war economy would be much less than historical. Probably less than half. The US public would see themselves as the aggressor (even if taking on the all conquering Axis), and getting involved in other peoples problems. Support for war would have been very low, any major US losses would have crippled public support for the war effort, and the government would never have been able to mobilize for war like it did historically. I believe a great way to model USA entry is to change the size of the US economy in game. If the US starts with an attack at Pearl Harbor, then the normal all-out war effort. If the US enters early, in response to Axis actions, then the economy would be much smaller. If the US enters to save Britain, the economy might be higher but still would not be the all-out effort.

tyronec -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/28/2020 6:57:01 PM)
Good points and suggestion. The one line I would take issue with is that US might have entered to save Britain, is there any historical justification for this ?

bjfagan -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/28/2020 7:21:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tyronec Good points and suggestion. The one line I would take issue with is that US might have entered to save Britain, is there any historical justification for this ? Considering the US close relationship with Britain, the fact that the US's neutral status was already pushed to the limit under Lend Lease to help Britain, and FDR's belief that Hitler/Germany needed to be stopped, that yes the US would most likely get involved militarily to save Britain from a German invasion. Again, though, the US economy and war support would not be the all-out effort.

Michael T -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/28/2020 8:28:51 PM)
quote: The one line I would take issue with is that US might have entered to save Britain, is there any historical justification for this ? Historical justification??? In WarPlan? Surely you jest [:D]

Flaviusx -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/28/2020 8:29:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tyronec Good points and suggestion. The one line I would take issue with is that US might have entered to save Britain, is there any historical justification for this ? Public opinion polls. Roosevelt never got ahead of them, but as support rose, so did US steps for lend lease, the destroyer deal, and rearmament generally. We will never be completely sure if he could have gotten a DoW without Germany doing it for him, admittedly. But even before Pearl Harbor, the US was getting there, bit by bit.

tyronec -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/28/2020 8:49:14 PM)
quote: Public opinion polls. Roosevelt never got ahead of them, but as support rose, so did US steps for lend lease, the destroyer deal, and rearmament generally. We will never be completely sure if he could have gotten a DoW without Germany doing it for him, admittedly. But even before Pearl Harbor, the US was getting there, bit by bit. I can buy that, USA might have entered mid war if Axis continued to misbehave. Sank a few merchant ships, killed US citizens, broke some ultimatum or whatever. That is very different to them joining in during '40 to save Britain as is postulated in the game.

aspqrz02 -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/28/2020 11:07:00 PM)
Actually, the polls at the time show that the anti-war sentiment modified dramatically around 1940 ... the respondents became more and more resigned to the reality that the US would likely enter the war and so the anti-war percentage went down dramatically. Would this 'resignation' have been enough for a DoW? I don't know. But it is far more likely than you seem to believe. Phil McGregor

Meteor2 -> RE: U.S. Entry is Broken (1/30/2020 4:45:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tyronec quote: Public opinion polls. Roosevelt never got ahead of them, but as support rose, so did US steps for lend lease, the destroyer deal, and rearmament generally. We will never be completely sure if he could have gotten a DoW without Germany doing it for him, admittedly. But even before Pearl Harbor, the US was getting there, bit by bit. I can buy that, USA might have entered mid war if Axis continued to misbehave. Sank a few merchant ships, killed US citizens, broke some ultimatum or whatever. That is very different to them joining in during '40 to save Britain as is postulated in the game. Probably right, to assume, that an early entre is unlikely. Roosevelt had won his election with the promise, not to sent troops to europe and only in mid 1941 he gave order to a war planing group (Maj. Wedemeyer), to plan a war entry against Germany. The plan was ready in autumn 41 and result was a start for the war in mid 43. The preparations were secret, but a newspaper published it in Dec. 41 surprisingly.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2