Invading allied minors

Moderator: Hubert Cater

Post Reply
User avatar
havoc1371
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:44 pm

Invading allied minors

Post by havoc1371 »

Many players invade countries that are pro their side, because they expect the other player to invade eventually. It makes the coup in Yugoslavia pointless as the Axis player knows its coming, so invades it when its still 45% Axis. Allied player invades countries in the South Pacific to preempt the Japanese sweep coming with Pearl Harbor. Maybe a rule that DOW is disabled for countries at least 1% or more pro that side. This would make the Axis have to wait till the actual coup happens, and prevent Axis from conquering Vichy territories. If there is a historical precedence, then have that possible DOW appear as a decision event, like Norway.

If not, at least have a diplomatic penalty for invading a country that is pro your side.
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 4802
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by BillRunacre »

Which countries in the South Pacific are being invaded by the Allies, and which Allied power is normally responsible for this?
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
taffjones
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:19 pm

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by taffjones »

Hi Bill

I am playing a game, where the UK DoW'ed the minor countries in Africa including Nigeria.

When the USA mobilised they did the same in Central & South America.

Not sure if its a way of boosting MPP's and/ or Morale.

Would Russia morale be boosted by the USA invading minor countries?
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 4802
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by BillRunacre »

Declaring war is not really going to help the Allies a great deal unless they also conquer these places.

Admittedly it does prevent the Axis gaining plunder and morale bonuses (and penalties to the Allies) but on the other hand the Axis immediately gain extra troops, income and places they can operate their aircraft to, if desired.

I'd like to learn more about why players do it, with perhaps specific examples, e.g. if the reasoning for some differs from others.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
taffjones
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:19 pm

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by taffjones »

Hi Bill

Yes he followed up the DoW with invading the countries, Not sure on his reasoning but assume its to gain the plunder and additional MPP's from the resources. He also has a lot more ports to use.

The game certainly hasn't followed the normal path, with lots of surprises but it's a great game (even better when it goes off script like this [:)])

It didn't seem to slow down USA or Russian mobilisation.

What are the penalties for the Allies in using this tactic?
User avatar
Elessar2
Posts: 905
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:35 am

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by Elessar2 »

Maybe some National Morale penalties would be in order?
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 4802
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by BillRunacre »

Such activity should penalise US mobilization, although of course that is irrelevant if the US has already entered the war.

The reason for asking for more details is that I can script for more NM penalties for ahistoric invasion, or increase the penalties further if they already exist, but to do so I need to know who is invading whom.

The frequency with which this happens, as well as the overall benefit to the Allies are also factors for consideration, i.e. does their doing so imbalance the game? If so, by how much.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
ElvisJJonesRambo
Posts: 1391
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:48 pm

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by ElvisJJonesRambo »

Turkey/Finland are the big Diplo plays.

Far as Afrika and Afghanistan, nobody cares then/now
Elvis is scheduled to be released in the United States on June 24, 2022. Popcorn, butter, salt & Pepsi.
User avatar
havoc1371
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:44 pm

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by havoc1371 »

Player invaded Sarawak after having India declare war, landing an infantry corps. No dialog box announcing any "outrage" or penalty, nothing reflected in the turn review, probably because he used India, rather than Britain. Almost all Axis players invade Yugoslavia before the coup, even though reality dictates that the Germans expected Yugoslavia to join the Axis prior to the coup. Disabling the ability to DOW countries that are pro your side (i.e. more than 0%) prevents anticipating the coup with a preemptive invasion, stops players from invading friendly countries for mpp's or to preempt expected enemy invasions, such as the Allies invading Burma, Sarawak, Solomon's, or New Guinea, to preempt Japanese "Pearl Harbor" invasions.

If players are going to completely ignore history and the political situation of WW2, why bother playing a historical wargame?

If too many folks object, can it be made a check box option like removing diplomacy spending?
Chernobyl
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:51 am

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by Chernobyl »

For me ideally the Allies should not be able to invade neutral countries ahistorically to gain an advantage. Well, I know they actually did invade Iran and Iceland, and pressured Portugal to grant bases in the Azores, and pressured a whole bunch of neutral countries to stop being neutral... okay actually the Allies did a lot of bad diplomatic things :D

But I don't want the allied player to be able to gain a morale swing advantage by declaring war and conquering random minors like the Solomons or whatever. I would prefer if there were a significant penalty which hurts always (even after the USSR and USA are in the war).

I actually don't like the idea of a checkbox preventing DOW on friendly neutrals. The main reason being that sometimes you need to conquer or ally with a nation and you choose the diplomacy route first, they become friendly, and then your opponent counters with their own diplo chits and now you're stuck in perpetual limbo. With declaring war disallowed, it would be too risky to even attempt to diplo-ally say Turkey if the allies can keep you stuck at 80% relations forever and now you can never travel thru asia minor.
User avatar
OldCrowBalthazor
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:42 am
Location: Republic of Cascadia

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by OldCrowBalthazor »

This stuff is so ahistorical that NM penalties are warranted....imo
KorutZelva
Posts: 1492
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by KorutZelva »

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

For me ideally the Allies should not be able to invade neutral countries ahistorically to gain an advantage. Well, I know they actually did invade Iran and Iceland, and pressured Portugal to grant bases in the Azores, and pressured a whole bunch of neutral countries to stop being neutral... okay actually the Allies did a lot of bad diplomatic things :D

But I don't want the allied player to be able to gain a morale swing advantage by declaring war and conquering random minors like the Solomons or whatever. I would prefer if there were a significant penalty which hurts always (even after the USSR and USA are in the war).

I actually don't like the idea of a checkbox preventing DOW on friendly neutrals. The main reason being that sometimes you need to conquer or ally with a nation and you choose the diplomacy route first, they become friendly, and then your opponent counters with their own diplo chits and now you're stuck in perpetual limbo. With declaring war disallowed, it would be too risky to even attempt to diplo-ally say Turkey if the allies can keep you stuck at 80% relations forever and now you can never travel thru asia minor.

Have the conquered minor moral penalty only apply to allies because the axis is evil and has no empathy.

They can still get the moral penalty for countries that get liberated from them... moral loss from losing face. [:'(]
Captjohn757
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:17 pm

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by Captjohn757 »

Not a particularly big fan of modifying the game to accommodate every little nuance or ahistorical exploit a player may attempt to employ. That said, it may be worthwhile exploring a modest change to the diplomacy mechanics, invoking something of a rewards vs. penalty scenario in which the allies (or axis, as the case may be) receive a small remuneration in MPPs for pro-allied/pro-axis leaning until such point a country mobilizes. This would encourage diplomatic investment and negate (and perhaps penalize) invading said country. The number of MPPs could increase as the mobilization level increases, further negating the inclination to invade. The reward concept isn't new to Strategic Command --- Germany already receives MPPs from Spain and Russia, orchestrated through favorable diplomatic overtures (scripts).
User avatar
ElvisJJonesRambo
Posts: 1391
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:48 pm

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by ElvisJJonesRambo »

Not enough specific details here, what are Allies invading, Norway the turn after the Gerries get them in April?
Elvis is scheduled to be released in the United States on June 24, 2022. Popcorn, butter, salt & Pepsi.
smckechnie
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:09 am

RE: Invading allied minors

Post by smckechnie »

Comments below:

1. The Yugoslavia minor situation should be left alone. If the axis attack Yugoslavia early, then they mobilize Russia 7-10%. This is not unsignificant number. In my opinion, big mistake for Axis to attack Yugoslavia early as the cost is too high in terms of the increase in Russian mobilization, especially if done in the summer of 1940 or earlier.
2. If Sea Lion takes place and London is captured, Yugoslavia does not have any coup in the winter of 1941.
3. I once had an opponent have the US attack all the minor countries in South America after the US mobilized. Yes, he got the plunder, but US national morale plummeted. All the forces sucked when they went to fight later, as US national morale was in the 60’s. So obviously there is a penalty for the US attacking certain minor countries.
4. There is a very gamey situation where the British can and maybe should attack and take New Guinea and the Solomon Islands before the Japanese. I have never quite understood the whole set up in regards to those two countries as I thought they were part of the British Empire and should be at war with the Axis anyway. The problem is that it does not appear to be a bad move to do attacks on those islands before the Japs take them.
5. Once all countries are at war, there is a problem in that the allies can pick up extra resources by attacking Yemen, Afghanistan, Nepal, Ireland, and some South American countries without much of a consequence to them.

I do not think that anything should be changed in the game currently.

Scott
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII: World at War”