Ramifications for invading Spain

[stalins_organ]

Invading Spain is a pretty standard Axis action in all games of this genre - it gives the axis more production and the opportunity to take Gibralter, at the "expense" of providing more places for the allies to invade Europe - which is no great problem since they already have plenty of better places to do that anyway.

IMO it needs to be countered by some "real world" considerations. An ongoing guerilla war would be a good idea of course, but perhaps more importantly - there should be a cost in OIL.

Spain had to import virtually all of its oil, and in WW2 that meant from the USA. So for Germany to get any benefit from Spanish industries it would have to replace that oil supply with it's own, and hence take some sort of hit on aoil available for military purposes.

[sagji]

Part of the problem is that partisans stop after a country is conquered - whereas historically France and Yugoslavia suffered from partisans after conquest. Another is that Axis subs can't leave the Med to the Atlantic - whereas historically they did.

[stalins_organ]

Yes there are a number of ahistorical features that are common to all games of this nature - Gibralter preventing submarine movements is one (Italian subs weer based at Bordeaux for a couple of eyars, and 60-or so U-boats were sent to the Med - IIRC about 10 turned back and 9 were sunk trying to make the passage - not all of them near Gibralter)

Partisans is a well known issue - it took some "discussion" to get them included at all in the first place....

[Redpossum]

Hmm, when I play as Axis, I never feel I have the time to invade Spain.

It's usually Poland, Denmark, Norway, Benelux, France, Yugoslavia, USSR.

[davetheroad]

The game would benefit from some political options.
The axis take a oil stockpile reduction when Bucharest falls so the code to do it is in the game. How about a once hit on the stockpile when Spain is DOW'd
Theoretically this oil problem applies to a lot of neutrals who imported their oil from the USA.
Dave

[Samichlaus]

The biggest flaw of CEaW is the lack of consequences for what a player does or does not! This concerns the predictable and thus incredibly boring fixed entry dates of majors (Italy, Russia, USA) in the first place. But it also concerns other actions taken by the player, like invading Spain (or Norway, Sweden, Yugoslavia, Greece etc.). Therefore, and I will keep saying it on and on, there must be built in at least some probability checks into the game engine, like: IF Axis/Allies does X (for example: conquer or DOW country Y) THEN the probability of the opponent(s) doing Z (for example: enter war, DOW, getting oil or whatever) will raise or fall according to predifined values. Implementing these kind of probability checks would contribute a lot to the game, making it more dynamic. In the case of Spain, for example, the axis/allied player would know, that he takes a risk in DOWing Spain for it has possible CONSEQUENCES, which right now it has not (apart from Spain joining the opposite site). IMO implementing such a feature would improve the game by 50% right away. Allowing the modder to set the probabilities to his flavor would in excess increase the modabilty of the game by another 50%!

[syagrius]

Hmm, when I play as Axis, I never feel I have the time to invade Spain.

It's usually Poland, Denmark, Norway, Benelux, France, Yugoslavia, USSR.

Same for me. I dont have time to invade Spain or Greece before the invasion of USSR for summer 41

[VonManteuffel]

CONSEQUENCES

Agreed. At this point even the Allies can just crush any neutral country and there are no political ramifications. Imagine if the USA had just walked into Portugal in then invaded Spain in the war... It would have been a politcal disaster. But in the game, you can do it happily!

[Redpossum]

Hmm, when I play as Axis, I never feel I have the time to invade Spain.

It's usually Poland, Denmark, Norway, Benelux, France, Yugoslavia, USSR.

Same for me. I dont have time to invade Spain or Greece before the invasion of USSR for summer 41

Right, so the whole issue is moot.

[firepowerjohan]

Our idea was that the penalty for invading is first the losses you will take in production, manpower and oil. Secondly, that the enemy will get free production for a time (long time for Spain for example) while you have not defeated it. Thirdly that diverting forces will make you weak elsewhere.

In the games I seen so far, it plays quite historically even without penalties. Creating penalties would make it even tougher to attack for example Spain or Sweden. Does anyone think they are too easy to conquer currently?

A issue to consider also is that most countries will only give you extra production while they will not help you replacing the manpower and oil you lost taking them which can be a strain, especially for Axis, later on.

[stalins_organ]

Sweden is trivial to conquer - no more than 3 moves for me vs the AI at the highest difficulty level - it is an automatic move since there's nothing at all the Allies can do about it. I invade immediately after taking poland, usually the same turn I take Denmark and invade Holand.

that some (or even many) players do not attack spain or even Yugoslavia is irrelevant - each player is free to make their own decisions - if you decide not to attack them then that's fine, but plenty of players do.

[davetheroad]

Why during the war did Germany NOT invade Spain and Sweden etc?

If there is a logical reason because of the consequences then this should be reflected in the game, preferably as a option so the crazy german player can conquor europe without penalty.

Spain - Would not join the axis because the USA would cut the oil supply and Germany did not have the oil resources. This suggests that the Spanish production should be minimal or zero, but if Germany DOWes then the Spanish production continues?
Perhaps there should be few cities in Spain and of low value.

Sweden - ?????

Switzerland - ?????

[stalins_organ]

Sweden was considered by both sides!

Had the allies invaded Norway Germany would almost certainly have invaded Sweden since it was a logical next step for the alies and a handy base to bomb Germany from!

However with Finland and Norway firmly in Axis hands there was no need to risk the iron ore shipments by invasion - the Swedes may have destroyed the ballbearing plants, mines and infrastructure seriously interupting supplies for some considerable time. Pressure could be put on Sweden to accede to some German requirements - such as moving troops through to Norway and Finland.

The Swedes had also greatly expanded their home defence forces in 1940, thus making hte risk greater.

So as long as Germany got what it wanted an invasion would have been counter-productive.

Invasion of Switzerland was also considered by Germany - but again convenience and the potential cost made it not worth the effort.

The Swiss actually shot down a number of German a/c in 1940 tho - using the Me-109's of their airfoce!! However they changed that policy to "force down" soon after threats from germany.

Apparently relations with the allies were very poor in 1944 - especially with America, whose bombers occasionally bombed swiss territory and caused some casualties.

[Samichlaus]

Our idea was that the penalty for invading is first the losses you will take in production, manpower and oil. Secondly, that the enemy will get free production for a time (long time for Spain for example) while you have not defeated it. Thirdly that diverting forces will make you weak elsewhere.

In the games I seen so far, it plays quite historically even without penalties. Creating penalties would make it even tougher to attack for example Spain or Sweden. Does anyone think they are too easy to conquer currently?

A issue to consider also is that most countries will only give you extra production while they will not help you replacing the manpower and oil you lost taking them which can be a strain, especially for Axis, later on.

Johan, I see your point and I understand that you want to keep the game as simple as possible in order not to overwhelm the bigger audience with complexity. But I still insist on my point of view. Variable entry dates (a absolute MUST for future improvments) and more consequences IMO do not increase the complexity very much but add to a more realistic and more unpredictable game flow which definitely adds to the fun. Right now, the axis player can invade turkey and persia pre-barbarossa with no risk of Russia entering war earlier or any other reaction, same story with the example mentioned by VonManteuffel (USA invading Portugal and Spain). For this topic see also the game review by Out of 8 PC games review: "The politics of Commander: Europe at War are simple at best: you can declare war. There’s no preventing enemy nations from eventually declaring war on you, and all of the real world events will occur when they did in real life. So, you know when Russia will enter the war and you know when the United States will enter the war and there is nothing you can do about it. This removes any uncertainty that can make for good replay value and it is disappointing." So, at least for the fixed entry dates, I haven't seen a single comment anywhere, that appreciated it, but a lot of comments, critisizing it! Listen to the audience!

[Happycat]

Sweden was considered by both sides!

Had the allies invaded Norway Germany would almost certainly have invaded Sweden since it was a logical next step for the alies and a handy base to bomb Germany from!

However with Finland and Norway firmly in Axis hands there was no need to risk the iron ore shipments by invasion - the Swedes may have destroyed the ballbearing plants, mines and infrastructure seriously interupting supplies for some considerable time. Pressure could be put on Sweden to accede to some German requirements - such as moving troops through to Norway and Finland.

The Swedes had also greatly expanded their home defence forces in 1940, thus making hte risk greater.

So as long as Germany got what it wanted an invasion would have been counter-productive.

Invasion of Switzerland was also considered by Germany - but again convenience and the potential cost made it not worth the effort.

The Swiss actually shot down a number of German a/c in 1940 tho - using the Me-109's of their airfoce!! However they changed that policy to "force down" soon after threats from germany.

Apparently relations with the allies were very poor in 1944 - especially with America, whose bombers occasionally bombed swiss territory and caused some casualties.

As the allied player, I have just invaded Norway in a PBEM (a rematch with IDG). I am hoping for two things---the extra pp's from the iron ore route, and that it distracts IDG a wee bit. So far, neither wish has come true. I hold Bergen, and the iron ore route hex. It looks like I have to open up a land link from Bergen to the iron ore, which I am doing. In addition, I am mounting an attack against Oslo.

Now, if IDG would only invade Sweden and leave the French alone!