Winter War

[composer99]

Nice.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

May I just congratulate you on the word verisimilitude. Perhaps you will permit me to counter with:

I think the MSoW rule is simply floccinaucinihilipilification.

The MSoW rules have a tendency to deride others??? I thought that was limited to humans.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: warspite1

May I just congratulate you on the word verisimilitude. Perhaps you will permit me to counter with:

I think the MSoW rule is simply floccinaucinihilipilification.

The MSoW rules have a tendency to deride others??? I thought that was limited to humans.

warspite1

Eh? I don't follow.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Italy / France and the CW

Sorry but this is simply a NO under any and all circumstances imo. Churchill was desperate to keep France in the fight (and so was France funnily enough!). We are envisaging the following situation. We have to assume Mussolini decides he wants Corsica, French North Africa and Savoy. He doesn’t want any of the British Empire and so declares war only on France. It’s a stretch but I’ll go with it.

However, that is Mussolini’s side. What about Churchill and Reynaud? Italy has declared war on France but not the British. They launch an attack along the Mediterranean coast towards Toulon, supported by the Regia Marina. The French appeal for assistance from Britain.

Italian troops are being ferried to North Africa to seize Tunisia and Algeria and Morrocco.

"We need you to attack the Italian Fleet, they’re killing us here". Churchill chews on this cigar, sips a brandy and thinks about it for a nano second…. "Nah! I’d love to help seeing as I need my French Allies in the war and if the Italians break through it does not matter even if the Anglo-French forces hold the Germans in the north but you know what? I don’t think I’ll bother".

Where does that even begin to make any sense in the context of WWII?

In WiF, you are Churchill. You can DoW Italy if you like. That may go down badly in the isolationist US. You could send some units to stem the tide in the south of France and make it a tough go for the Italians through the Alps.

You also know that later on if Italy DoWs the CW, the US may once again swing towards supporting the CW in this war.

OTOH, if Italy can get a surprise impulse on the CW and is currently risking naval assets in the Med, the RN may be able to put a good hurt on their navy - especially if they are risking their TRSs - using their own surprise impulse.

Choices, choices, choices, each with their own set of pros and cons. Each spawning a set of choices for the other side.

That's what WiF is, and why it's still so popular after close to 30 years.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: warspite1

May I just congratulate you on the word verisimilitude. Perhaps you will permit me to counter with:

I think the MSoW rule is simply floccinaucinihilipilification.

The MSoW rules have a tendency to deride others??? I thought that was limited to humans.

warspite1

Eh? I don't follow.

Your word is inappropriately utilized.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: paulderynck



The MSoW rules have a tendency to deride others??? I thought that was limited to humans.

warspite1

Eh? I don't follow.

Your word is inappropriately utilized.

warspite1

Very likely - getting that in a sentence was not easy. But I don't understand the reference to deriding others?

[paulderynck]

That is one of its definitions. I am not claiming that you or I am indulging in that form of floccinaucinihilipilification, although the more commonly found definition of "estimating something to be valueless" does fit your opinion of the MSoW rules.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Italy / France and the CW

Sorry but this is simply a NO under any and all circumstances imo. Churchill was desperate to keep France in the fight (and so was France funnily enough!). We are envisaging the following situation. We have to assume Mussolini decides he wants Corsica, French North Africa and Savoy. He doesn’t want any of the British Empire and so declares war only on France. It’s a stretch but I’ll go with it.

However, that is Mussolini’s side. What about Churchill and Reynaud? Italy has declared war on France but not the British. They launch an attack along the Mediterranean coast towards Toulon, supported by the Regia Marina. The French appeal for assistance from Britain.

Italian troops are being ferried to North Africa to seize Tunisia and Algeria and Morrocco.

"We need you to attack the Italian Fleet, they’re killing us here". Churchill chews on this cigar, sips a brandy and thinks about it for a nano second…. "Nah! I’d love to help seeing as I need my French Allies in the war and if the Italians break through it does not matter even if the Anglo-French forces hold the Germans in the north but you know what? I don’t think I’ll bother".

Where does that even begin to make any sense in the context of WWII?

In WiF, you are Churchill. You can DoW Italy if you like. That may go down badly in the isolationist US. You could send some units to stem the tide in the south of France and make it a tough go for the Italians through the Alps.

You also know that later on if Italy DoWs the CW, the US may once again swing towards supporting the CW in this war.

OTOH, if Italy can get a surprise impulse on the CW and is currently risking naval assets in the Med, the RN may be able to put a good hurt on their navy - especially if they are risking their TRSs - using their own surprise impulse.

Choices, choices, choices, each with their own set of pros and cons. Each spawning a set of choices for the other side.

That's what WiF is, and why it's still so popular after close to 30 years.

Warspite1

Fair enough, I can see why the fear of surprise may urge the Italian to declare war on both and that makes the rule a little more palatable. However, for me, this is one of those rules that needs to be one of the set in stone rules that help form the WWII framework.

I asked for opinions and it's been good to hear some of the arguments for and against. We'll agree to disagree on this one.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

That is one of its definitions. I am not claiming that you or I am indulging in that form of floccinaucinihilipilification, although the more commonly found definition of "estimating something to be valueless" does fit your opinion of the MSoW rules.

warspite1

Well I only saw the one definition - and that was nothing to do with derision.

[Orm]

Peacekeepers: the problem is that the rule is absurd. If any country intervened that way, they would be at war. I defy you to find a situation anywhere that duplicates the effect of the peacekeeper rule. If you put corps size ground forces in the way of an invader, you are at war with them.

Trouble is that if you do not allow peacekeeper then neutral countries, read USSR, can cause serious trouble. So bad that it would break the game. Then you would need other rules to fix this.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Well, historically Italy was at war with Greece from 28 October 1940 and Germany didn't initiate hostile action against Greece until 6 April 1941 (without a formal declaration of war by Germany against Greece).

However from a gameplay perspective I would agree that a joint Axis DoW makes more sense.

A joint DOW by Germany and Italy make it two US entry rolls.

And why should this rule only affect Germany and Italy? Why not Japan as well?

And on the other side should it then be all Allied countries that DOW? Or all except US?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yes I meant to say historic feel. I would rather the Germans be a few months out on "Ochi" day than some weird take it or leave it situation where Germany could never go to war with Greece because they missed some false window of opportunity.

There can easily be a situation where Italy goes to war with Greece when Germany may not be at war with Greece. This because Greece aligned with USSR and the pact can not (yet) be broken.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Peacekeepers: the problem is that the rule is absurd. If any country intervened that way, they would be at war. I defy you to find a situation anywhere that duplicates the effect of the peacekeeper rule. If you put corps size ground forces in the way of an invader, you are at war with them.

Trouble is that if you do not allow peacekeeper then neutral countries, read USSR, can cause serious trouble. So bad that it would break the game. Then you would need other rules to fix this.

warspite1

Why is this different to 5th Edition? I do not recall MSoW in 5th Edition - or if there was - we never played it!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: composer99

Well, historically Italy was at war with Greece from 28 October 1940 and Germany didn't initiate hostile action against Greece until 6 April 1941 (without a formal declaration of war by Germany against Greece).

However from a gameplay perspective I would agree that a joint Axis DoW makes more sense.

A joint DOW by Germany and Italy make it two US entry rolls.

And why should this rule only affect Germany and Italy? Why not Japan as well?

And on the other side should it then be all Allied countries that DOW? Or all except US?

warspite1

Depends which countries you are talking about - I have only considered Italy / CW and France. Are there any others? If you mean minor countries then yes, France and the CW should act in concert or not at all imo.

WWII showed that Japan did not act in concert with Germany and Italy so no, this should not apply to Japan.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Eh? I don't follow.

Your word is inappropriately utilized.

warspite1

Very likely - getting that in a sentence was not easy. But I don't understand the reference to deriding others?

There is a chance that we would get along better if antidisestablishmentarianism would have had more success with its policy. Or maybe not but we can not know for sure. [;)]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: composer99

Well, historically Italy was at war with Greece from 28 October 1940 and Germany didn't initiate hostile action against Greece until 6 April 1941 (without a formal declaration of war by Germany against Greece).

However from a gameplay perspective I would agree that a joint Axis DoW makes more sense.

A joint DOW by Germany and Italy make it two US entry rolls.

And why should this rule only affect Germany and Italy? Why not Japan as well?

And on the other side should it then be all Allied countries that DOW? Or all except US?

warspite1

Depends which countries you are talking about - I have only considered Italy / CW and France. Are there any others? If you mean minor countries then yes, France and the CW should act in concert or not at all imo.

WWII showed that Japan did not act in concert with Germany and Italy so no, this should not apply to Japan.

I was mainly thinking of the combination of CW, France and USSR.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yes I meant to say historic feel. I would rather the Germans be a few months out on "Ochi" day than some weird take it or leave it situation where Germany could never go to war with Greece because they missed some false window of opportunity.

There can easily be a situation where Italy goes to war with Greece when Germany may not be at war with Greece. This because Greece aligned with USSR and the pact can not (yet) be broken.

warspite1

Now my head hurts.... So to stop the Germans helping the Italians, the Allies just need to align Greece to the USSR?

Mmmmmmm...

Was that possible in 5th Edition can you recall??

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm



A joint DOW by Germany and Italy make it two US entry rolls.

And why should this rule only affect Germany and Italy? Why not Japan as well?

And on the other side should it then be all Allied countries that DOW? Or all except US?

warspite1

Depends which countries you are talking about - I have only considered Italy / CW and France. Are there any others? If you mean minor countries then yes, France and the CW should act in concert or not at all imo.

WWII showed that Japan did not act in concert with Germany and Italy so no, this should not apply to Japan.

I was mainly thinking of the combination of CW, France and USSR.

warspite1

But again, there is absolutely no reason for those three to act in concert. Hell, if Churchill had had his way he would have sent troops to Finland (although they may have stopped off permanently in Lulea [;)])! and if Gamelin had had his way, he would have bombed the oil fields in the Caucasus!

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

Peacekeepers: the problem is that the rule is absurd. If any country intervened that way, they would be at war. I defy you to find a situation anywhere that duplicates the effect of the peacekeeper rule. If you put corps size ground forces in the way of an invader, you are at war with them.

Trouble is that if you do not allow peacekeeper then neutral countries, read USSR, can cause serious trouble. So bad that it would break the game. Then you would need other rules to fix this.

warspite1

Why is this different to 5th Edition? I do not recall MSoW in 5th Edition - or if there was - we never played it!

Imagine that Germany deny to declare Vichy France and spend a couple of turns to struggle towards the Spanish border. Or Germany declares Vichy and almost at once collapse Vichy moving towards Spain. The goal seem obvious that Germany want to declare war on Spain and go for Gibraltar.

USSR now declares war on Spain. No intention of ever actually invading Spain. Only reason is to stop Germany from entering Spain and stop them from reaching Gibraltar. Germany had planned and built for Gibraltar and then invading UK. All those naval builds are now more or less wasted since Gibraltar is out of reach until Germany is at war with USSR.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Depends which countries you are talking about - I have only considered Italy / CW and France. Are there any others? If you mean minor countries then yes, France and the CW should act in concert or not at all imo.

WWII showed that Japan did not act in concert with Germany and Italy so no, this should not apply to Japan.

I was mainly thinking of the combination of CW, France and USSR.

warspite1

But again, there is absolutely no reason for those three to act in concert. Hell, if Churchill had had his way he would have sent troops to Finland (although they may have stopped off permanently in Lulea [;)])! and if Gamelin had had his way, he would have bombed the oil fields in the Caucasus!

Persia!