Romanian and Bulgarian entry

[CapitaineHaddock]

Hi, I decided to give it a go against the AI. Switched West in 39' and took out France early. Attacked the USSR in July 1940.
Now I'm in September '40 and Romanian war entry is still at 71 percent and not budging. Bulgaria is at 84 but also not going anywhere. Hungary and Italy are about to take Yugoslavis, but that doesn't seem to change anything either.
I invaded before the USSR annexed Bessarabia.
What should I do? I think this is a design flaw. If you attack the USSR in 40', you should at least get the Balkans minors straight away. Yugo and Greece should probably swing towards the axis as well.
I think both historical probabilities and play balance speak strongly in favor of this.

[ILCK]

The random effect of the diplomacy creates a level of replayability I guess. I had the same issue that I actually invaded Russia with no Hungarian and Romania help in 1941. Same "stuck" levels BTW.

Also, the event says Finland will enter if the Axis DoW's but it doesn't until you can the Baltic states.

[Goodmongo]

Since you went ahistoric who says that they would join you on those dates? Especially since Romania no longer loses Bessarabia to the Russians. Why should they fight? I 100% disagree that it is a design flaw. After all you have no historical proof that what you want to happen would have happened.

[CapitaineHaddock]

Well, I certainly have no proof whatsoever. I Guess the main reason would be the widespread and fundamental anti-bolschevism at the time which was the main argument in favour of the invasion. No one trusted the Soviet Union, least of all the governments in Eastern Europe. Germany was simply seen as a far better alternative - not to mention that Romania was a Mussolini-style dictatorship, at least after the coup in september 1940. Of course, the Romanian leadership hoped to regain Transylvania and Bessarabia by being Hitler's most important ally in the East. But even without that, after the fall of France and thus the de-facto disappearance of the historic ally and protector, I would argue that Romania was destined to join the axis. They actually mobilized a huge army during the war and had over a million men on the Eastern front. If anything is ahistorical, it's the relative unimportance of both the Romanian and Hungarian armies. Anyway, I don't want to get too serious or contentious. This is a game and we must always think of it in those terms - meaning play balance must be somehow preserved. Those who want to stick Close to history are better of Reading books. It's a game, not a simulation, so it should be credible, but not historical. And by making such a bold move as invading the USSR in the summer of 40' at least the axis player shouldn't be penalized by losing the minors he would normally get. Invading in '40 would already put the allies in a favorable position. In game terms, it's good to know that there are several options who are at least halfway credible. The possibility of a '40 invasion after an early Conquest of France should get the Allied player a bit wary and not just pour all his MPPs mindlessly into Research until early 1941 which seems to be the default option now. So the bottom line is: Of course I don't claim to know what Romania would have done in such a scenario, but joining the war on the axis side remains very credible and - importantly - it makes for a better game. The genious of the SC series is that it never adds complexity just for the sake of complexity (like the IMO unplayable HOI-series - who BTW create vastly more unhistorical outcomes than the SC-series). Rather it adds complexity and detail only when it adds Depth to the game. And in this case, having the usual Balkan 3 join the war on the axis side would add flavour to the game - because it adds Depths and options. A 41 invasion would still be the default and in most circumstances the best option, but at least an alternative start date would be a workable possiblity, thus adding to the quality of gameplay. This is getting long, but I hope you get the gist of my thinking.

[Numdydar]

Wall of text man. Try using the return key a few times in the next post [:)]

[Goodmongo]

Romania is a direct sequence of cause and effect. You broke that sequence so it makes no sense that they would join Germany. Look at all the historic actions taken from mid 1940 when Russia took the land. And follow that through fall 1940. They each rely on the previous action. Your actions in Russia broke that sequence.

All of your arguments are post Russia taking land from Romania. Therefore, you can not assume any of those actions would have happened without that stating event. Without the loss of that land the government would not have fallen to the pro-Nazi forces within Romania and most likely they would have stayed neutral. Or force Germany to DOW Romania. But nothing in history suggest Romania would have willingly joined Germany if not for the land lost by Romania.

Remember that Romania joins the Axis because of the coup that took place where Antonescu takes power.

As for Bulgaria I think you also need to study why they joined the Axis. They had a strong stance of neutrality till 1941 when the war in Greece brought pressure on them to pick a side. Without this event Bulgaria would remain neutral.

Your whole premise is not based on historical pressure related to clearly defined events. It is more of a wish based reasoning instead of how the various countries actually viewed and reacted to real world events.

Bottom line is there is no historical support for what you think would happen with Romania and Bulgaria. And since you went ahistorical none of the actual historical outcomes should apply.

[CapitaineHaddock]

Well, you may be right. It is certainly hard for me to point to an alternate sequence of events since such a sequence is entirely fictional. It is true of course that Antonescu's coup would probably not have happened in that form without a revanchist sentiment due to the loss of Territory. Still, isn't that a bit like arguing that the First World War would not have happened without Sarajevo?

My reasoning doesn't start with the annexation of Bessarabia but with the Fall of France, which had been Romanias most important Strategic ally ever since Independence and which effectively made Hitler the arbitrer of Europe and fascism appear to be the form of government of the future. I believe that was a widely shared sentiment at the time. Plus of course the virulent anti-bolschevism of the day, which was particularly strong amongst military officers (and thus potential coup-makers in unstable states).

So I think it would have been difficult for the Balkan-countries to stay neutral after a Barbarossa in 1940, or 41 for that matter if Mussolini hadn't attacked Greece and if Hitler had chosen a subtler response to the coup in Yugoslavia. Anyway, Hitler had huge leverage against these politically unstable states. Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Switzerland all had much stronger positions from which they could negotiate - for a variety of reasons.

So again, while I cannot construe a Chain of events, one could easily imagine it could have taken many forms. A German backed coup is only one of them. The easiest way to depict this in game terms is to have their war entry increase.

Of course, you could argue that a 1940 attack on the USSr would have been a logistic impossibility. And you would probably be right. But then again, I actually managed to move the Whole army into starting position..

[Happycat]

I agree with your comments about keeping it realistic and plausible, but allowing ahistorical events to occur. But I am less in agreement about the three Balkan countries joining in for a romp through the Ukraine in 1940. To me it seems more likely that the thinking in Bucharest, Sofia and Budapest would be like this:

Romania---Hmmm, we've got what we want, let's hang back for a bit and see how the Germans make out...
Hungary---Hmmm, let's wait to see whaat Romania does. If they attack Russia, maybe we can wait for a bit and see how that works out for them...
Bulgaria---we've got no beef with Russia. Now Greece, on the other hand...

So 71% pro-Axis might be reasonable for the moment.

[crispy131313]

Am I a huge supporter of what if events, especially reactions of non-belligerent countries to ahistorical events. IMO this leaves a lot to be explored in SC3. However there should not be a "best way" set of events and rather balanced reactions. I have tried to explore some of these, just look at my AAR. Greece has joined the Axis because I have invested in Greece to the point where the country is Axis leaning and only then could I explore concessions. As a result Bulgaria will not join the Axis, Italian prestige has plummeted (both do to concessions to Greece) and Possibly other effects to come. Alternatively if Greece would not have been Axis leaning perhaps events would play out historically.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: ILCK

The random effect of the diplomacy creates a level of replayability I guess. I had the same issue that I actually invaded Russia with no Hungarian and Romania help in 1941. Same "stuck" levels BTW.

Also, the event says Finland will enter if the Axis DoW's but it doesn't until you can the Baltic states.

Hi

Finland's war entrance requires it to have a pro-Axis leaning and for the Axis to have a unit within either 4 hexes of Leningrad, 5 of Novgorod or 1 hex of Pskov, Ostrov or Polotsk, i.e. the Axis have to be invading the USSR.

Otherwise Finland could join the Axis in a game where the Axis are effectively losing when the USSR joins the Allies, and if that were the case then they'd have been far more likely to try to remain neutral.

[BillRunacre]

With regards to Bulgaria, it never fought against the USSR and was never officially at war with it.

Interesting discussion, like many others on this forum! [:)]

[CapitaineHaddock]

My frustrations ended after my small intervention in Yugoslavian politics promptly convinced Romania to do the right thing. I am now in september '41 and I've taken all Three Soviet victory cities, so I Guess the 1940 attack was a smart move. The allies won't offer peace, though. Too bad, since I was hoping to win before US entry.


I'm unsure the tactic would have worked against a human player. My total Garrison in Western Europe consists of 1 slovak corps in Paris, plus a few units in Italy;-)

[Scook_99]

I am thinking also, for Romania and Bulgaria, the logistics may not be in place to support a large army. If you keep playing this game, let us know if they do enter the war on your side. I would say if they don't by August 1941, then they won't. At the very least, that would be a great piece of knowledge to have. If you have to spend some Diplomacy points to bring them in, that can be important. Especially Romania.

[Scook_99]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

ORIGINAL: ILCK

The random effect of the diplomacy creates a level of replayability I guess. I had the same issue that I actually invaded Russia with no Hungarian and Romania help in 1941. Same "stuck" levels BTW.

Also, the event says Finland will enter if the Axis DoW's but it doesn't until you can the Baltic states.

Hi

Finland's war entrance requires it to have a pro-Axis leaning and for the Axis to have a unit within either 4 hexes of Leningrad, 5 of Novgorod or 1 hex of Pskov, Ostrov or Polotsk, i.e. the Axis have to be invading the USSR.

Otherwise Finland could join the Axis in a game where the Axis are effectively losing when the USSR joins the Allies, and if that were the case then they'd have been far more likely to try to remain neutral.

The text message post Winter War should be changed. It does specify that a German declaration of war on the USSR will immediately enter the war on the side of the Axis. Reality is the Germans have to push quite ways into the Baltic States before entering. A small, but important point of communication.

[BillRunacre]

Thanks, I see the issue now in the scripts with regard to the declaration of war on the USSR not triggering Finland to automatically join the Axis unless advances have been made into the Baltic. The solution will be complicated but I think it can be done. [:)]

[Goodmongo]

Please don't change it where Finland joins the war on day one. I like that it waits till you get to Riga. Else it will be too easy to surround Leningrad as the SU simply doesn't have the troops yet to defend properly.

[BillRunacre]

Interesting. I'm not averse to that, at least for the 1939 and 1940 campaigns.

I welcome thoughts from other players too on this. [:)]

[Hartmann]

I'm with Goodmongo here. BUT it should without a doubt work when you get up to Riga! [:)]

Regarding Romania, I really want them to reannex Bessarabia once the Axis overruns the area during Barbarossa - like they did in the real world. This would kinda complete the Balkan events too.

[crispy131313]

I also agree with Goodmongon and Hartmann regarding Besserabia.