41 Scenario

[Barthheart]

Finland starts as a neutral in this scenario and the German AI never tries to bring it into the war.

Should probably start as an Axis member.

[comrade]

That's right. Finland will start as axis member in 1.20 (official release).

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: comrade

That's right. Finland will start as axis member in 1.20 (official release).

Also there aren’t enough Political points to get Finland into the axis in 1.20 beta by the time 22 June 41 arrives. I got Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria, but Finland was still quite a ways off from getting into the game. Historically all these 4 minors should be in game by no later than July 1941.

And if the allies spend points to prevent them entering, the axis gets screwed out of minors for quite some time. Granted the AI doesn't do this, but in a PBEM game, the allies can keep Germany from getting more than just a couple historical minors if they play reactively.

Jim

[doomtrader]

Did in real life allies play reactivly with german minors?

[Twotribes]

From my game with 1.20 you can not get Italy in either, it costs to much for Italy alone to join and in my case France never went Vichy at all. had to conquer her completely.

[Erik Rutins]

Odd, in my v1.20 game Italy joined on her own and actually helped pressure one of the other minor allies to join so that I didn't have to pressure them as Germany. France went Vichy for me after I'd just conquered the Low Countries and Paris.

[karloskar]

Vichy contributes some very strong naval reinforcements when pressured to join axis, to bad for the british in my current game [:D]

[PDiFolco]

Not very realistic, the Vichy govt took care from 41 on not to contribute any military directly to Germany. Eventually Germany tried to seize the French Fleet at Toulon but the French scuttled the ships.

Re Finland, it should be German aligned without any pressure and no possibility for the Allies to pressure it, it sided with the Germans because  it was invaded by the USSR in '40 (Winter War)!

[Hanal]

Personally, I like the fact that you may not get all the Axis minors to join in each game...I do not want cookie cutter, predictable WWII strategic games and want a bit of variety, even if it detours a bit from history...

[SeaMonkey]

I here ya JP. Maybe in a couple of years when they get this game polished a bit, they'll see the light and start the game in 1936 when Germany first reoccupied the Rhineland.

It'll need some better diplomacy, research variations, etc, but they could get close to a model of WiF's Days of Decision.

Maybe...just ....maybe....in about ...X years.

I see what happened to CEaW...flash in the pan! Glad I didn't invest.

Will RtV follow the same path?

Well...as one of my favorite Stones iterated......"Time...Time...Time....is on my side.....yes it is".

[PDiFolco]

I'm not against alternative histories, but a normally historical game should  primarily simulates ... err history !
There's not much more rationale for an Allied Hungary than for an Axis USA, to be a bit provocative ! [:'(]

[SeaMonkey]

Ok Folco, I'll bite, a bit hesitantly as you did use the [:'(] icon.
 
Fact of the matter is there was a large community of German-Americans that kind of liked what ole Adolf was up to until the atrocities/aggression became so apparent.  Germany had some advocates in Congress early.
 
USA wasn't so thrilled with UK's seemingly infatuation for continuing their "Commonwealth Empire".  Do not forget that it was Japan that finally interrupted USA neutrality....how long would it have continued without PH?
 
And after all that, who was it that declared war on the USA, ......ole dumbass himself, Adolf.  Now think about all this and realize you are now thrust into the decision making role of Mr Paperhanger.
 
So you would have attacked USSR before subduing UK?  UK didn't have such a gleeming attitude of USSR as an ally, brother Stalin being of the so reputable type.
 
I won't mention the many disagreements between UK high command and USA joint chiefs on prosecuting strategy.
 
In short...there was a lot of variations that could have been viable, given a different leader's decisions(you).
 
I'll give you there should be some boundaries for pursuit of alternative histories, like research accomplishments, weaponry, etc. and loose diplomatic relations, but how much is restricted to historical occurrences given some minute variations here or there is subject to much conjecture.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Ok Folco, I'll bite, a bit hesitantly as you did use the [:'(] icon.

Fact of the matter is there was a large community of German-Americans that kind of liked what ole Adolf was up to until the atrocities/aggression became so apparent. Germany had some advocates in Congress early.

USA wasn't so thrilled with UK's seemingly infatuation for continuing their "Commonwealth Empire". Do not forget that it was Japan that finally interrupted USA neutrality....how long would it have continued without PH?

And after all that, who was it that declared war on the USA, ......ole dumbass himself, Adolf. Now think about all this and realize you are now thrust into the decision making role of Mr Paperhanger.

So you would have attacked USSR before subduing UK? UK didn't have such a gleeming attitude of USSR as an ally, brother Stalin being of the so reputable type.

I won't mention the many disagreements between UK high command and USA joint chiefs on prosecuting strategy.

In short...there was a lot of variations that could have been viable, given a different leader's decisions(you).

I'll give you there should be some boundaries for pursuit of alternative histories, like research accomplishments, weaponry, etc. and loose diplomatic relations, but how much is restricted to historical occurrences given some minute variations here or there is subject to much conjecture.

FDR was working to declare war on Germany. We were actually already in a shooting war with them by the summer of 41, WE provided all escort duty through OUR half of the Atlantic. And we put Marines on Iceland to free up British Combat troops as well.

FDR gave Britain 50 older Destroyers for basing rights in the Carribean and we were providing a lot Britain's war materials by 41. We were at war in all but the sending of troops.

There is a reason we adopted a Europe First approach, it had been decided long before we got in the war. FDR wanted us in in 39, he just did not have the political capital to pull it off.

There is absolutely NO way we would have ever supported Germany or the Axis. We may have stayed out of it with troops but we were bankrolling England by 41.

[SeaMonkey]

Never meant to infer we would, just showing the premise for continued neutrality as far as troop deployments are concerned.  A simple basis to examine a different unfolding of events.
 
I'm in the camp that USA would have never been a belligerent to the Allies.  I understand the "Arsenal of Democracy" is the only path of USA commitment, but if you begin a game in 1936 with quarterly turns of research, military expansion and diplomacy, the timelines will be different.
 
Perhaps some of the minor nation alignments also.  It was a time of influence where Spain could have gone here, Turkey there, USA in perpetual isolation, an unbroken Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, a decision to not allow Vichy.....need I go on?
 
 

[Twotribes]

Stalin had every intention of breaking his deal with Germany. It was simply in his best interest to have such a deal till he was ready. Not sure when he would have struck, but he would have if Germany never came after him. He had to rebuild a loyal Officer Corps , his purges had destroyed it pretty badly.

[winky51]

Here is my suggestion for all of you that would like political leverage and historical possibilities...
 
Lay out history then examine how many political points each country needed to pull off history.  Now average in the influence gained by political pressure.  Modify the game's politicals so each country will have X policital points to do exactly what history said it should do... of course randombess comes into play.  Now you have a guideline that they can stray away from.
 
Some of the classic what ifs...
Spain was going to join the axis but Franco saw that Hitler was not going to defeat Britain and he wasn't trying.  So he decided NOT to join.  He did ask for a lot from Hitler but in truth he didn't want the brits down his back.
 
Yugoslavia was going to go axis, they had an facist leader till he got killed by english backed rebels who installed a different govt.
 
Hungary and Bulgary only entered with Germany out of fear, if I remembered right.  Romania was the only country who entered because they wanted to.
 
Finland came in because of the USSR invasion otherwise they wouldnt.
 
Norway wanted everyone to stay away. 
 
Sweden didn't want to join anyone but felt pressured to give iron ore to germany because of their position.
 
Turkey: simply wanted to avoid war.  I think the germans would have had to take a lot of the middle east, hold it, and offer them a chunk so large they couldnt refuse.

[geozero]

Interesting discussion... I'll put in my 2 cents. 
 
By December 1941, Hitler/Germany had taken huge part of Soviet Union, and captured hundreds of thousands of Soviet's front line troops. Up to that point, with the exception of destroying England with the Luftwaffe, Germany was the undisputed champion of Europe.  So it goes to good reason that when Japan attacked PH (without consulting Germany/Italy), it seemed like a logical thing for Germany to declare war on the USA.  For one thing Uboats could now sink the very ships that were supplying Britain, again a renewed hope to destroy The Brits. 
 
While in hindsight Hitlers DOW on the USA seems like a strategic error, in late December 1941 it seemed like the right thing to do.  In addition, there was always a possibility that Spain could join the Axis, or that even south American countries might support Germany. 
 
So I concur that a game of this level should benefit from decision making "alternate histories" as one possible campaign mode, while possibly leaving a straight historical model or even a straight "open" campaign model. 
 
The imoprtant thing is to provide a level of replayability to the game, proper attention to terrain, units and most of all AI. 

[doomtrader]

proper attention to terrain, units and most of all AI

We are going to focus over this issue now.