Spain

[Grotius]

I'm finishing up my latest PBEM of GGWaW, and this one had a feature in common with all others: one side or the other took Spain. In this game, the WA actually took Spain after Germany declined to invade it! I know the new patch makes it a little tougher, but still, each side seems to have srong incentives to take Spain. Germany gets 3 resources toward auto-victory; and the Allied side can invade Spain from Gibraltar, obviating the need for any D-Day later in the game. I don't mind the idea that either side can invade it but I think the penalties for doing so need to be higher.

Do others see Spain invaded every game?

[James Ward]

I've never invaded Spain. It seems to gamey for me just like invading Sweden or Switzerland. In the game invading a nation is not given the importance it had in real life. It's a mindless decision in the game.

Historically there was no reason for Spain to be invaded, the Italians didn't want to send their fleet out in the Atlantic, heck they barely had fuel to putter around the Med, and the Germans had enough coastline to defend and Gilbralter wasn't a big strategic goal for Germany to take. Yet in the game they have importance all out of reality. So on principal I don't ever invade Spain. It totally ruins the game.

[Grotius]

Well, I agree. In my most recent game, as the Axis, I didn't invade Spain -- but my opponents did! I'd like to see a bigger penalty attach to invading big neutrals like Spain and Sweden. (At least Turkey unfreezes stuff.)

[Maginot]

Spain is a standard German move. I almost always see the German player invade Spain. A way to alleviate this, I feel, would be the allowance of a Spanish retreat into Gibraltar. If Gibraltar were to recieve the undamaged Spanish units it would be much easier to hold Gibraltar for a few turns.

[aletoledo]

I think for a decent atlantic strategy, the germans need to base off of spain. its hard to loop around the top of england and still have movement points left for any sort of attack in the atlantic. if you use a sub this is OK (since they don't need supplies to move), but if you do it with a surface ship, you end up stranding yourself without supplies after that single attack.
plus basing out of western france can be a pain due to fighter cover from england performing cap over the sea hex outside of western france.

Spain on the other hand can be dangerous for the axis. they have to protect a lot of shoreline as it is and defending spain in addition can stretch the army/aa defense thin. recognizing this in one of my recent games as allies, I attacked the netherlands and ended up trapping a bunch of troops in spain (that obviously went unused in defense of germany).

[James Ward]

If Gibraltar were to recieve the undamaged Spanish units it would be much easier to hold Gibraltar for a few turns.

What would have been cool would be to have a separate Declaration of war phase (or have to declare war in the production phase) done in the movement phase along with each nation being given 1 suprise declaration per game. You would have be much more careful when declaring war on a neutral because they would get to react before being invaded in most cases.

[Grotius]

I'm tempted to suggest a house rule in my next game: neither side invade Spain. As the Axis in my most recent game, I decided to try a more "historic" approach and not invade Spain -- but then my opponent WA player invaded Spain anyway!

[Bitterboy]

Invading Spain is a must for the Germans. You get 3 resources and you protect the "soft underbelly" of Europe from invasion.

[lkendter]

ORIGINAL: Bitterboy

Invading Spain is a must for the Germans. You get 3 resources and you protect the "soft underbelly" of Europe from invasion.

Don't forget access to Gilbrater. That port is brutal on the allies trying to keep transports at sea.

[Harrybanana]

I posted that the consequences of invading Spain were not severe enough several weeks ago. I would say in 90% of the games I play the Germans invade Spain, and when they don't it is usually a mistake. IMHO if the Germans had historically invaded Spain the US would have immediately increased war production. In other words a realistic effect would be to increase the US production multiple to 2.

Having said this, if you make the penalty for attacking Spain this severe you will get the result that the Axis will never attack Spain. This would reduce German strategic options and all games would play out the same. As an alternative I would suggest the Vichy French units should all be removed and Vichy territory unfrozen. The reason for this is that the Germans would have had to violate Vichy territory to attack Spain; and even if they didn't a German attack on Spain would have destroyed Vichy- German relations. This effect would hurt Germany, but would not be as crippling as increasing US production. If this rule change were made Germany would still often invade Spain, but it would not be almost automatic like it is now.

If the Allies invade Portugal this should activate Spain as a German ally. If the Allies invade Spain this should activate Vichy. Additionally, the supply cost to the Allies to invade Spain, Sweden and Turkey should be increased to 25 supply.

Just my thoughts

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I posted that the consequences of invading Spain were not severe enough several weeks ago. I would say in 90% of the games I play the Germans invade Spain, and when they don't it is usually a mistake.

So, it seems that in your opinion, Germany must invade Spain and other strategies are so obviously worse that Spain is rarely left alone.

IMHO if the Germans had historically invaded Spain the US would have immediately increased war production. In other words a realistic effect would be to increase the US production multiple to 2.

I disagree. Spain was no more worth to US than France. The only thing Americans were concerned about was Royal Navy.

Having said this, if you make the penalty for attacking Spain this severe you will get the result that the Axis will never attack Spain. This would reduce German strategic options and all games would play out the same.

Well, according to you, 90% of games play out the same anyway, by having an ahistorical invasion of Spain as an optimal strategy for Germany to win. How is that different from having 90% games playing out WITHOUT ahistorical invasion of
Spain. If you ask me, any German player who prefers molesting neutrals throughout 1941 instead of invading Russia should play some other power. Invasion of Russia is what WW2 was all about.


Drax

[carnifex]

So in your games it's mandatory for Germany to attack the USSR in 41? Can't wait for 42?

[Daykeras]

I think Spain should be a double movement to france. The mountains were a large reason neither side attacked it.... other than politically.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yes, I had noticed the same trend in Axis strategy from early on too, especially while the 'surprise' turn 1 invasion of Italy was being attempted more often.

The benefits of attacking Spain just FAR outweigh the penalties. You get VPs, resources, a secure base for attacking the Atlantic, and you get to cut the Med off so that its no longer as necessary to defend Italy. This also gives you a much freer hand in Africa...whats not to like? Sure, you have to defend it, but its easier to defend there than all across the southern frontiers of Europe.

So, as was indicated, now a vast majority of competitive players will invade Spain as a matter of course. In game terms, there is no really good reason not to. Even if you arent trying for the (somewhat cheesy IMO) Auto-victory by Fa42, its still a good decision to secure the south before turning to Russia.

IMO, something definately should be done to make it an OPTION but not the no-brainer that it is now. I think increasing the supply cost dramatically would help, but IIRC, that was not really something that could be programmed easily (ie, it was all or nothing, so all countries currently cost 5 to attack). Alternatively, I like the suggestion Harrybanana made to remove the Vichy units if Germany violates Spanish Neutrality.

Making the border cost 2 mps wouldnt really change much, but would be akin to simply raising the attack supply cost a bit. I still dont think it would be much of a deterrent in light of the benefits. I also think that changes like this were veto'ed because it would require substantial work to change the map artwork to reflect the double cost.

At any rate, I expect there to be some changes to the 'AV by Fa42' strat. I'm not sure if they will do anything to make Spain a less attractive target or not though. We can hope though! [;)]

[Maginot]

Pherhaps simply bumping up the Spanish garrison?

[JasonGT]

A lot of people are complaining about invading Spain here, but I have to say I don't really care for the suggested solutions. Basically, I'm hearing people say they would like the game changed so that invading Spain isn't a no-brainer move, just a possible strategy. However, all of the suggestions are nothing of the like. The suggestions simply revolve around making invading Spain so expensive/costly that Germany no longer wants to do it. The problem is that that just flips the problem around, then Germany won't ever do it, and the Allies always will.

Really I don't understand the complaint. The same thing could be said about invading France really. Its a no-brainer strategy as well, that just makes too much sense not to do. The whole historical aspect matters to some people I know, but for me, its a game, I couldn't care less. I just want the game to be fun Taking Spain just makes it possible to have a competitive game in my opinion, otherwise Germany has so much territory to defend that it isn't fun.

Just my 2c.
J.

[Uncle_Joe]

Basically I believe that the complaint is that the game almost forces you to take an a-historical track if you want to have the best possible chance to win as the Axis. For people who want to actually fight World War 2 instead of 'Germany beats up the Neutrals while the USA and Russia watch and laugh' dont want to see the game going so far off the historical on turn 2.

I think most people are OK with the occasionally 'what if'. I know I am. But there were serious reasons why this particular 'what if' was not undertaken by Germany. Those reasons are not present in the game. So, it becomes a rote strategy and prevents many of the otherwise historical events from ever really happening.

I dont think anyone wants to fight the historical WW2 over and over again. That would be dull after a few attempts. But I would think most people are more comfortable with 'what ifs' that were really considered or that have a cost that might be worth paying one game, but not the next.

There were many other actions the participants would have loved to taken, but the cost or potential cost was too high. Remove those costs and the historical format can become unhinged thus creating ripple effects that are undesirable (ie, we dont KNOW if the US and USSR would have sat it out as Germany spend almost two more YEARS raping neutrals. But the game forces it, so people exploit it).

At any rate, game like this should be about 'options'. If the same one is always desirable, then the game eventually becomes stale. Yes, France will always fall, but its VERY tough to simulate that type of victory in a game. So, its basically 'scripted' to happen. Same thing applies to Pearl Harbor and the Japanese 'Victory Disease' campaign in the early months of the Pacific War. Beyond that, the players are pretty much free to explore alternatives. I'd like to see alternatives exist, but not no-brainer that presumes that many historical events would still occur, even in the wake of majorly ahistorical actions.

In the short, the game is not set up to play the political permutations game. So, players should not be encouraged to constantly take actions that had their consequences in the political arena.

[Grifman]

I'd suggest this solution for a number of these non-historical scenarios (Germany invading Spain, Japan invading the USSR, Allies invading Portugal, etc.):

If the a non-historical move is made, then there is an "X" probability that another event will be triggered. If Germany invades Spain, then there's a possibility that the US or the USSR ramps up production early, you could even make the number of months variable. Same if Japan invades the USSR. And/or there is X probability that the US will enter the war early. If the Allies invade Portugal, there's X probability that Spain joins the Axis.

What this does is put some of the uncertainty back into the game. You can make unhistorical decisions, but you are risking other unhistorical events occurring that might hurt you.

[a511]

i agree. in fact, some ppl, incl myself has suggested similar things under the thread "Too deterministic".

the main idea is that instead of a fixed entry date of US's entry:

i think it will be nice to impose a certain threshold PP, of which when Axis achieved "X" amt of PP, there is a certain chance that the US (or even the Russia) will step in next turn. the more PP the Axis achieved, the more likely the frozen allies will step in.

under the same token, IMO, the attack of Spain (and Portugal) by the Axis also contributes certain probably for the US to enter the war (the pacific area can remain frozen, if possible). cos i think that make sense as while US might not really care about the ppl in Spain and Portugal but US did care about the strategic position of Spain and Gibraltar in the Med/ NA battle.

im not saying that attack Spain = immediate US entry, but IMO at least it create more pressure in the congress (but im no historian in this area, pls let me know if otherwise).

on the other hand, apart from the raise in supply cost to 25 as suggested by Harry, the invasion of neutral Spain and Portugal by the Allies should also lower the probability of US entry (same agreement of the congress/ US citizens pressue as the Allies are not liberating but conquering). of course, such penalty is N/A after US entered the war.

while i agree that sth not happen in history must got a reason and it will be great to incorp such factors in the game. but if such factors are just too diff to code, esp. w/o a diplomatic system, just leave it to probability. someone may agrue that, but unless he can give us some historic evidence to support as to when the US will enter the war if there is no Pearl Harbour, IMO its the most feasible solution.

i know its easier to talk than to code.
what do u think Joel?

AN

[lkendter]

The issue with Spain is the Germany wouldn't attack for political reasons. Attacking a fellow fascist country was simply unacceptable.


I also have complaints with the allies attacking any neutrals. Historically the allies showed much better respect for neutrals.