Japanese adventures in viking land

[Marcinos1985]

A brand new strategy for you, if DOW on USSR in '40 wasn't enough [:)]

Just imagine situation like this:

1. Japan declares war on Denmark
2. Therefore Japan is at war with UK (but not France!)
3. India is tied to UK, so is at war with Japan too (but only if Viceroy declared war earlier I believe)
4. India gets invaded by Japan without any penalty, even on 3rd Axis turn (late November 1939)

Not a science-fiction, but a situation from a real game. Japan took Karachi, Madras, soon will take Calcutta, and India has whopping 3 garrisons to defend. And for some reason, even though GER didn't DOW Denmark, they can attack it.

I don't believe it works as intended, because if Japan DOW's India directly before Pearl Harbour, nearly all SE Asia mobilizes against it and convoys from DEI are cut - so there's some kind of punishment.

There's is also some inconsistency in invading Scandinavia generally. If Denmark and Norway get attacked directly, there's no mobilization jump for US and USSR. If NOR and DEN are taken via event in Spring 1940, there is a mobilization hit.

[Jackmck]

It is better that you become good enough to win as Axis without resorting to attempts to trick the system to give an unfair and unrealistic advantage. It is certainly an enjoyable and challenging game already.

Another problem is hyper-aggressive Axis play early in the game- if not successful, the Axis player simply quits and tries again. Very unfair for the Allied player.

Perhaps the best players can win without finding seams in the game or attempting high risk strategies relying on luck (i.e. diplomacy) or flaws in the game mechanics.

[EarlyDoors]

:scream

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985
There's is also some inconsistency in invading Scandinavia generally. If Denmark and Norway get attacked directly, there's no mobilization jump for US and USSR. If NOR and DEN are taken via event in Spring 1940, there is a mobilization hit.

Looking into this now, and just wanted to clarify this point first.

I have checked the scripts and the diplomatic response to a declaration of war against Denmark is exactly the same as if it is taken via DE 601, in that it will increase Soviet mobilization by 2-4%.

An Axis declaration of war against Norway will have the same effect as DE 613 or DE 614, in that Soviet mobilization will increase by 2-4% and (when Norway surrenders) of the US by 3-5%.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

3. India is tied to UK, so is at war with Japan too (but only if Viceroy declared war earlier I believe)

If the Viceroy says no to entering the war then Japan would have to declare war manually on India in order to be able to invade it.

[Marcinos1985]

Looking into this now, and just wanted to clarify this point first.

I have checked the scripts and the diplomatic response to a declaration of war against Denmark is exactly the same as if it is taken via DE 601, in that it will increase Soviet mobilization by 2-4%.

An Axis declaration of war against Norway will have the same effect as DE 613 or DE 614, in that Soviet mobilization will increase by 2-4% and (when Norway surrenders) of the US by 3-5%.

That's weird. I understand mobilization rises after DEN/NOR surrenders. I don't remember now, if Denmark has been taken already, maybe not. But I have screens, where US and USSR both sit at 22% at the beginning of 1940, where 2% hit was after Luxembourg was taken. If you wish, I will also provide game id.

That's a minor thing really. The real thing is that Japan circumvented all penalty for attacking India by declaring war on Denmark.

[Fafnir]

After the DOW of Japan to Denmark the USSR mobilization raised 2% (in line with the script)
I wonder why this results in a state or war with the UK, and if this is correct why are the results different that a DOW of Japan to UK directly?
The same goes for a DOW on Luxemburg with Japan. Here Japan is at war with France. Are both WAD?

[The Land]

So there are different ways to trigger diplomatic consequences. One trigger is based on a DOW occurring, another is based on countries being fully mobilised and on opposite sides. If you use the DOW trigger in scripting then you run the risk of events not firing when there is this kind of unanticipated situation, which is probably what's happened here.

If you use the mobilisation trigger then you run the risk of other unforeseen situations (should Japan be penalised with the loss of convoys if the UK Dows it early?)

[BillRunacre]

The reason in engine terms is because when the declaration of war is made the UK is at 100% mobilization, and so it automatically becomes at war with the Major that declared war against its Minor.

As to India, there is a Belligerence script setting it to be at war with Japan if it is fully mobilized and the UK and Japan are at war.

What I can do is change this to be if the US and Japan are at war. That will remove this exploit and whether or not Germany or Japan declare war against Denmark, the diplomatic effects will be the same.

[Marcinos1985]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

The reason in engine terms is because when the declaration of war is made the UK is at 100% mobilization, and so it automatically becomes at war with the Major that declared war against its Minor.

As to India, there is a Belligerence script setting it to be at war with Japan if it is fully mobilized and the UK and Japan are at war.

What I can do is change this to be if the US and Japan are at war. That will remove this exploit and whether or not Germany or Japan declare war against Denmark, the diplomatic effects will be the same.

Sounds good. [:)]

I have another case. In described situation, after Japan DOW'ed Denmark, it got to War with UK and India (then India was invaded). In other game India was DOW'ed normally in middle of 1940 (and then invaded). But at the same time, UK didn't enter war at its side, much to my astonishment. Is relation between them nonsymmetrical? If UK gets attacked, India enters, but no other way round?

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Sneaky Nips. the British can hide in India, but not be at war. Helps the life expectancy.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

The reason in engine terms is because when the declaration of war is made the UK is at 100% mobilization, and so it automatically becomes at war with the Major that declared war against its Minor.

As to India, there is a Belligerence script setting it to be at war with Japan if it is fully mobilized and the UK and Japan are at war.

What I can do is change this to be if the US and Japan are at war. That will remove this exploit and whether or not Germany or Japan declare war against Denmark, the diplomatic effects will be the same.

Sounds good. [:)]

I have another case. In described situation, after Japan DOW'ed Denmark, it got to War with UK and India (then India was invaded). In other game India was DOW'ed normally in middle of 1940 (and then invaded). But at the same time, UK didn't enter war at its side, much to my astonishment. Is relation between them nonsymmetrical? If UK gets attacked, India enters, but no other way round?

I see what you mean. That is a tricky one because while in reality the UK would have responded at least by declaring war, is it really beneficial for the UK to do so at that point while the US is neutral, and the UK is probably rather stretched in defending itself?

I'll give it some thought anyway.

[Marcinos1985]

is it really beneficial for the UK to do so at that point while the US is neutral, and the UK is probably rather stretched in defending itself?

You are obviously right in terms of gameplay. That's just a consistency issue, and a minor one.
It works in the same way when declaring on Italy - GER doesn't jump to the rescue automatically.