Yugoslovia coup

[havoc1371]

The Yugoslavian coup has become a nonevent in SC WatW. Most Axis players know it's coming and invade before it happens. Allies endorse the event automatically so Germany doesn't get a free minor ally. To reintroduce uncertainty and stem the unrealistic German preinvasion of an erstwhile ally, I suggest the following: 1) Introduce a percentage chance of failure into the event so there is a chance the coup fails and Yugoslavia immediately joins the Axis in response. 2) If Allies do not sponsor the coup, make the Axis spend the diplomacy to make Yugoslavia join the Axis, instead of it instantly joining. One may make the Allies hesitate to back the coup, and the other makes the Axis have to keep cajoling Yugoslavia to join, as they would've if there was no coup. Alternatively, put Yugoslavia on a small 5-10% increase each turn like the other minors if making Germany spend dip on Yugoslavia is too much (though I think this is more realistic to the King trying to delay committing). 3) Heavier penalty for Axis attacking a pro-Axis Yugoslavia; this should cause a slow down in Romania, Hungry, and Bulgaria mobilization to war.

[Umeu]

It’s a nonevent in many ways, but most events in this game are nonevents in the sense that there very clearly is a optimal and much less optimal choice. For almost all events it’s very clear that you should either always choose tes, or always no. There are few events where the choice really depend on your strategy or otherwise where they shape your strategy.

That said, I don’t think there’s much wrong with it. Axis players invading Yugo before the coup actually increases Russian mobilization by quite a lot. I have stopped doing it for that reason. Other players opt not to. That’s a valid strategic choice.

There is also some randomness, usually it happens in March or April I think? But I have seen it trigger as late as May iirc. In any case, I never had luck to have it trigger late… but my opponents have quite often. Meaning that if you choose not to invade, you might have units still tied up in Yugo while you also start the invasion of Russia. This randomness promotes enough difference in outcome to also force strategic considerations, such as which units do you leave behind to deal with a late Yugo coup?

The penalties you propose do not work. Since Hungary and Romania have already joined months before the coup, and afaik Bulgaria also joins before the coup, usually if not always. Hungary and Romania are always used for the Axis build up to invade Yugo anyway, so I don’t really see how it would work. A morale penalty might be ok, such as the one Germany and Italy get for attacking Spain, but I doubt the Arian and Italian fascists really held the Yugo people in high esteem. However, afaik, the British choosing to support the coup causes a small morale loss to Germany. A decent change could be to make it so that if the Germans attack preemptively before the coup happens, they don't get that morale back. However, I guess all it would do is cause the Germans to attack before the British even get the event... so idk. (Interesting fact is that if the Germans pull of a successful Sealion and take London before the date of the coup event, it never even happens. And I think it also means that then Yugoslavia doesn't join Germany either.)

I do agree with changing what happens to Yugo if Allies don’t support the coup. That would make it better. Instead of instantly joining guaranteed, it should swing to the Germans every turn within a random range of a few percent. This way it’s not sure how fast they’ll join the Axis. If the range is big, or if there is a chance for the mobilization not to trigger each turn, Yugo might join early or late depending on luck, which would add some strategic depth to it. It’s not super necessary to make this change, though.

Overall, I’d say it’s a pretty well designed event, considering the nature of the game and comparing it to other events. Like… taking Irish ports. That event just exists to troll new players. It’s so bad to say yes to it. And there are several more like that.

[havoc1371]

It’s a nonevent in many ways, but most events in this game are nonevents in the sense that there very clearly is a optimal and much less optimal choice. For almost all events it’s very clear that you should either always choose tes, or always no. There are few events where the choice really depend on your strategy or otherwise where they shape your strategy.

That said, I don’t think there’s much wrong with it. Axis players invading Yugo before the coup actually increases Russian mobilization by quite a lot. I have stopped doing it for that reason. Other players opt not to. That’s a valid strategic choice.

There is also some randomness, usually it happens in March or April I think? But I have seen it trigger as late as May iirc. In any case, I never had luck to have it trigger late… but my opponents have quite often. Meaning that if you choose not to invade, you might have units still tied up in Yugo while you also start the invasion of Russia. This randomness promotes enough difference in outcome to also force strategic considerations, such as which units do you leave behind to deal with a late Yugo coup?

The penalties you propose do not work. Since Hungary and Romania have already joined months before the coup, and afaik Bulgaria also joins before the coup, usually if not always. Hungary and Romania are always used for the Axis build up to invade Yugo anyway, so I don’t really see how it would work. A morale penalty might be ok, such as the one Germany and Italy get for attacking Spain, but I doubt the Arian and Italian fascists really held the Yugo people in high esteem. However, afaik, the British choosing to support the coup causes a small morale loss to Germany. A decent change could be to make it so that if the Germans attack preemptively before the coup happens, they don't get that morale back. However, I guess all it would do is cause the Germans to attack before the British even get the event... so idk. (Interesting fact is that if the Germans pull of a successful Sealion and take London before the date of the coup event, it never even happens. And I think it also means that then Yugoslavia doesn't join Germany either.)

I do agree with changing what happens to Yugo if Allies don’t support the coup. That would make it better. Instead of instantly joining guaranteed, it should swing to the Germans every turn within a random range of a few percent. This way it’s not sure how fast they’ll join the Axis. If the range is big, or if there is a chance for the mobilization not to trigger each turn, Yugo might join early or late depending on luck, which would add some strategic depth to it. It’s not super necessary to make this change, though.

Overall, I’d say it’s a pretty well designed event, considering the nature of the game and comparing it to other events. Like… taking Irish ports. That event just exists to troll new players. It’s so bad to say yes to it. And there are several more like that.

Many players invade Yugoslavia well in advance of the coup, usually in the fall of 40 when Italy declares war on Greece. So penalties would restrict that possibly by forcing the Axis player to at least wait until all the minors join. I don't invade Yugoslavia until it coups, mainly because I consider it "gamey" to invade because you know a coup is coming. The penalties accelerating Russian mobilization don't seem to be a deterrent for most players. So the only players penalized by a random coup date are those who adhere to waiting for the coup.

[Umeu]

I would love it if players did that in my games. Losing Yugo is a trade I would make any day for getting 10-15% Russin mobilization bonus in fall of 40. I don’t really see the issue.
Attacking Yugo early objectively gives Axis less benefit than the Allies, and it’s only maybe viable if going for a very early attack on Russia.

Also the Axis using gunpoint diplomacy in 1940 is really not that inconceivable. It’s not really something that needs to be deterred further. It would actually make the coup even less of a decision.

[havoc1371]

I would love it if players did that in my games. Losing Yugo is a trade I would make any day for getting 10-15% Russin mobilization bonus in fall of 40. I don’t really see the issue.
Attacking Yugo early objectively gives Axis less benefit than the Allies, and it’s only maybe viable if going for a very early attack on Russia.

Also the Axis using gunpoint diplomacy in 1940 is really not that inconceivable. It’s not really something that needs to be deterred further. It would actually make the coup even less of a decision.

In the past, every Axis player I faced invaded Yugoslavia early, because they plan to invade Russia early. The only time I've played an Axis player who waited for the coup was due to a house rule requiring it.

[Umeu]

I think the game has changed and early invasions of Russia are not that good anymore. But if it was prevalent, then yes I guess it would be a good idea to have an early Axis DoW on Yugo be penalized a bit more. But I think different strategies should be viable. If you both want a game railroaded by how things went in history, I think you can make house rules for it. Otherwise, more choices are better imo, as long as they aren't complete sci-fi or fantasy.

[wevilc]

Wait, what? Saying yes to the Irish ports is a bad idea? Why?

Yours

Easily trolled new player

[havoc1371]

I think the game has changed and early invasions of Russia are not that good anymore. But if it was prevalent, then yes I guess it would be a good idea to have an early Axis DoW on Yugo be penalized a bit more. But I think different strategies should be viable. If you both want a game railroaded by how things went in history, I think you can make house rules for it. Otherwise, more choices are better imo, as long as they aren't complete sci-fi or fantasy.

House rules I use are to keep players from ignoring what was possible/feasible at that time. I agree that if someone wants to totally ignore history, then why play a historical war game? I play as much for the history as for the game.

[Umeu]

Wait, what? Saying yes to the Irish ports is a bad idea? Why?

Yours

Easily trolled new player

you don't need them, they are only 5 strength max so you can't even fully repair a ship with it. But the main reason is that it pisses off the USA, so they have less income, which is very bad.

[Umeu]

I think the game has changed and early invasions of Russia are not that good anymore. But if it was prevalent, then yes I guess it would be a good idea to have an early Axis DoW on Yugo be penalized a bit more. But I think different strategies should be viable. If you both want a game railroaded by how things went in history, I think you can make house rules for it. Otherwise, more choices are better imo, as long as they aren't complete sci-fi or fantasy.

House rules I use are to keep players from ignoring what was possible/feasible at that time. I agree that if someone wants to totally ignore history, then why play a historical war game? I play as much for the history as for the game.

to alter history? If you want it all to be the same as how the real war went, just watch a documentary instead of playing a game? Idk. At least with flexible decisions and house rules, everyone can enjoy it. With your way, only die hard history fanatics can. There's Grigsby for that.

[Old_Shane]

Is US mobilisation affected by DofW on Yugoslavia?

[wevilc]

Wait, what? Saying yes to the Irish ports is a bad idea? Why?

Yours

Easily trolled new player

you don't need them, they are only 5 strength max so you can't even fully repair a ship with it. But the main reason is that it pisses off the USA, so they have less income, which is very bad.

Gee whiz. Thanks.

[petedalby]

Is US mobilisation affected by DofW on Yugoslavia?

No - not at all. Only Russia.

[havoc1371]

Wait, what? Saying yes to the Irish ports is a bad idea? Why?

Yours

Easily trolled new player

you don't need them, they are only 5 strength max so you can't even fully repair a ship with it. But the main reason is that it pisses off the USA, so they have less income, which is very bad.

How much American income is lost each turn for taking the ports? I've always taken them for the additional ports a little closer to the convoy routes and visibility on Axis subs lurking.

[Umeu]

Wait, what? Saying yes to the Irish ports is a bad idea? Why?

Yours

Easily trolled new player

you don't need them, they are only 5 strength max so you can't even fully repair a ship with it. But the main reason is that it pisses off the USA, so they have less income, which is very bad.

How much American income is lost each turn for taking the ports? I've always taken them for the additional ports a little closer to the convoy routes and visibility on Axis subs lurking.

US mobilization is at 22% in t1 = 105 mpp per turn
US mobilization after the event is at 18% in t3 = 86 mpp per turn
So 5% or 6% will probably be around 82 and 77 mpp per turn respectively.

So the event will mean 19-29 mpp less per turn for the US. Usually US doesn't join the war until December 1941, so there are about 26 turns between the event coming into effect and the US joining. So the basic calculation will be 19-29(26)=494-754

but that's only at lvl 1 industrial, and it doesn't account for the opportunity cost and delayed start up costs. By the time the US joins, they could be lvl 3 or 4 industrial depending on the breakthroughs and investment pattern. So realistically this event will cost the US between 750-1000mpp, which will slow down your entire tech progression and war readiness throughout the war.

For a few useless ports and 1000 extra UK morale (1%)...