political events in Global Glory

[WanderingHead]

Global Glory has a lot of political events. Some are for balance, some are for realism, some are for variability, some are to encourage some behavior. Some are to allow the Soviet and WA Players to surrender and refreeze.

Here's a list:

• Australia surrenders
• Finland border war
• Finnish Coup
• Greece border war
• Greece joins WA
• India surrenders (this will now set India Neutral, instead of giving the regions to the Japanese)
• Iraq Coup
• Italy joins Axis
• Netherlands and Belgium join WA
• Portugal leases Azores
• Rumania joins Axis
• Rumanian border war, Soviet occupation
• Rumanian territorial concessions
• Russian Caucasus border tensions
• Russia rearms
• Russia surrenders
• Spain Coup
• Spain responds to occupation
• Sweden Coup
• Syria coup
• US response to Japanese invasion of Russia
• US response to Japanese aggression in China
• USA embargos Japan
• Vichy joins Germany
• Western Allies rearm
• Western Allies surrender
• Yugoslavia pro-Axis coup
• Yugoslavia pro-Allied coup

There are some little things I'd like to change here.

[1] Remove [i]US response to Japanese invasion of Russia[/i]. This was originally placed there because with GG settings the hard coded WR bump for Japan invading Russia was too low. But I've made the WR bump mod-able, so I would remove the event and increase the bump. The current WR bump is +5, I propose changing it to +5+d(5) (which also increases the randomness). [2] Add a Rumanian surrender, similar to Italian. This would not actually be an "Event" seen on the event screen, but something similar to the Italian surrender. The Rumanian units would disappear. Now that players will be able to see unit nationalities, it will be very unnatural to see Rumanian troops defending France or Germany after Rumania has fallen (particularly since historically Rumania surrendered AND declared war on Germany). This would also tend to discourage unnatural late game builds of Rumanian infantry once they are allowed to build infantry. [3] The USA and Russia rearms events are hokey, I'm trying to think of a better way to implement some kind of post-surrender garrison requirement if I can do it quickly/easily. I don't know, maybe noone plays with or cares about the surrender events (which are not relevent if AV is used), so maybe it doesn't matter. [4] I've contemplated removing the [i]Australia surrenders[/i] event. It is less historically motivated than the India event. But I've found that an invasion of Australia generally requires a pretty thorough destruction of the infrastructure anyway, so the event's effect is not huge and it adds a little flavor. I'm inclined to keep it.

Comments on anything?

[Lucky1]

I am a big fan of the expanded array of political events offered by Global Glory. These, perhaps more than anything, introduce variety into the game. For example, I am playing a game against a wily opponent who (ARGH) has 20 armour by winter 1941. While I am still expecting a very hard run (esp. since Japan is poised to strike Russia from the East), my opponent has been somewhat stymied by a prolonged Yugoslavia neutrality. Indeed, she only fell in Winter 1941, buying me one, perhaps two, valuable turns to prepare the funeral pyres across the Russian steppes.
 
As I have raised privately, I would suggest that the timing of the Russian Caucasus border tensions event be made instantaneous. Currently, the event fires in-between the US and German turns. As a result, the event actually only provides relief on the second Russian turn immediately following the first violation (in terms of increased strat moves, with the milita being generated in-between). Or, this event might be tweaked to fire once, but provide greater initial benefit...
 
In terms of the four events specifically mentioned above, I would suggest:
 
1) leave the US responds to invasion of Russia event. Depending on the extent (if any) of changes made to address balance issues, I would suggest that this event is comparatively minor. The added milita adds some flavor and makes Manila less than a sure thing. The extra five-ten pp also have limited effect. But, this suggestion should be viewed in context of other changes affecting balance.
 
2) Good idea. At present, the impact would purely be symbolic. However, with changed production there will be a greater liklihood that units would be removed from the map. Good fun, in any event....
 
3) I generally play using the AV rules. These are usually a good indicator that the game has passed the point of no return. That said, the modified surrender rules can be fun and reasonably balanced -- if the game still falls within set timeframes. Without fixed end dates, as XiaNing's mod points out, it can be very difficult to win as Axis . I would suggest that a garrison requirement be relative to opposing Russian forces (rather than the absolute 3 unit garrison used with Manchuria) and that it always be possible to kick in, no matter what the Axis VP level (otherwise, what is the point?).
 
4) I would favor leaving the event - if only as a disincentive to WA players completely abandoning Australia. As you say, it is pretty difficult to pull off. For me, the fear of Japan picking up a handful of pristine resources is pretty worrisome. Too, with the Indian uprising event being modified, the 'easy' resources (counting to vp thresholds) available if India falls are diminished.

[Forwarn45]

As to the specific suggestions,

(1) I 'm neutral on whether to keep the event. But if you change it, I think your proposal is a bit much. If you implemented it, I'd say something more like 4+d(3).

(2) Good.

(3) No opinion.

(4) It's a close question, but I'd probably keep the event. It actually can have a small impact in getting a couple free resources, which provides a bit more encouragement for the Allies to worry about Australia.

[SGT Rice]

WH - I would encourage you to craft some political events to better represent the unique (and strange) political situation surrounding Finland joining the Axis. The historical reality is that Finland wasn’t a client state like the other German minors and the Finns desperately wanted to avoid alienating the Western Allies, so Finland’s superb army was employed almost exclusively on the defense.

Currently in AWD the most common way for Finland to join the war is for the Germans to take Leningrad; historically the Finns DOW’ed the Russians three days after the start of Barbarossa.

The strategic role that Finland actually played in the war was to act as a staging ground for limited German attacks on Karelia/Leningrad with even more limited Finnish support. But it was a VERY SECURE staging ground … the Russians tried to conquer Finland twice (in the Winter War and in 1944) and got bled dry both times.

Check out these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_h ... rld_War_II
http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/mirror ... /hist.html
http://www.kolumbus.fi/rastas/nyky/reasons_ww2.html

The Finns were seriously averse to pursuing aggressive military operations; they only left the prewar boundaries of Finland once (in late 1941). This prompted a DOW by the UK, followed by continued diplomatic pressure from Roosevelt & Churchill. From that point forward the Finns stood on the defensive for the rest of the war, refused to allow German bombing missions against Leningrad from Finnish airfields, engaging in repeated peace negotiations with the Allies, finally attacking the Germans and chasing them out of Finland in late ‘44.

I would recommend something like this:

1) Boost the Finnish on map units (post-Winter War) to 5 INF, 1 ART, 1 AA, 1 FTR.
2) Give the Finns a major defensive boost; i.e., some or all of the following: a +1 evasion modifier for ground units, make Finland a fortress, give Finland a population value of 2-4 (would it be possible for them to mobilize insta-infantry rather than insta-militia?).
3) Add a Finnish factory that only produces supplies.
4) Add these political events:

6.2.29 Finland joins the Axis.

This event simulates the fact that tensions between Russia and Finland remained high following the Winter War of 39-40; Russia launched air attacks against Finland immediately following Barbarossa and Finland declared war on June 25, 1941.

Requirement: Finland is Pro-Axis, Germany has declared war on Russia.
Probability: 1941 - 75%, 1942 -50%, 1943 -25%.
Effect: Finland offers to join the Axis.

6.2.30 Finland leaves the Axis.

This event simulates the fact that the Finnish government was not a puppet regime to the Nazis and did not share Hitler’s territorial ambitions; in late 1941 the Finns halted all offensive operations outside their pre-1940 borders in response to Western Allied political pressure, remaining in static defensive positions while negotiating with the Allies until signing an armistice in 1944 after bloodily repulsing another Soviet invasion.

Requirement: Finland is Axis.
Probability: -100%

+50% - each Finnish nationality unit in Karelia.
+100% - each Finnish nationality unit in Leningrad.
+200% - each Finnish nationality unit in any other region outside of Finland.
+5% - each Russian/WA non-militia ground unit adjacent to Finland.
+40% - each German land unit in Finland.
+150% - each German air unit in Finland
+45% - each Finnish unit damaged.
+75% - each Finnish unit destroyed.
+100% - each WA unit damaged by a Finnish unit during the German turn.
+200% - each WA unit destroyed by a Finnish unit during the German turn.

Effect: Finland becomes Pro-Allied, all Finnish units are returned to Finland, all German units in Finland are retreated to the closest German-controlled territory, or damaged if there is no retreat path.


The intent of these changes would be to allow Finland to only be used as the Germans used it historically … a place to launch a small-scale offensive against northern Russia with mostly German troops. The factory allows this base to be self-sustaining since the resource is colocated with it. The fact that Finnish forces stay home and are so formidable means that Finland will rarely be conquered – as it often is in the existing game. And the fact that Finland leaves the Axis to become Pro-Allied (with volatility of 7 they will likely join the Allies the next turn) means that the Germans will risk a severe penalty for using Finnish forces outside of Finland.

[runyan99]

I agree that the way Finland is currently implemented is a little off. Your proposal seems better than the current implementation. Not sure about adding a factory though.

[SGT Rice]

ORIGINAL: runyan99

I agree that the way Finland is currently implemented is a little off. Your proposal seems better than the current implementation. Not sure about adding a factory though.

You may be right ... just throwing out some ideas as a strawman. But I did have a rationale; I don't think the extra factory really boosts Germany's overall strength; in a typical game Germany usually becomes resource-constrained about three turns after she DOWs Russia, so that window (i.e., the period of time until Germany's production multiple of 3 exhausts her pooled resources) would be the only period in which a Finnish factory would increase overall German production ... and it would come at the expense of future production by exhausting the pooled resources that much faster.

The intended benefit is simply to make it harder to put the Finns out of supply; it assumes they had enough of a domestic arms industry to meet the basic supply needs of their army.

[Lucky1]

Hmmm. I am not sure where I sit with this one. Certainly, I have found it odd that there was no mechanism for Finland to join the war along historic timefrimes (apart from a chance if Norway falls, or the completely a-historic fall of Leningrad). But, the absence of specific diplomacy details is not specific to Finland and occurs with every other minor power that can join the game via special event or other means. 
 
One plus of the existing rules is that they provide the Axis with an actual incentive to even look at Leningrad. But, even then, I think this incentive is generally insufficient. Keeping in mind that there are virtually no resources in NW Soviet Union and comparing the vast number of important targets of striking distance from Kharkov (2 spaces from Rumania) with the options available to Leningrad (2 spaces from Prussia), Leningrad tends to get little attention as it is. Arguably, the addition of Finland might help draw some attention Northward. So this might be considered as being in favor of Sgt. Rice's proposal. That said, I fear adding any troops or factories that would make it  much easier to take Leningrad (unless Leningrad is also beefed-up). I guess, I am returning to my usual refrain of advocating that balance impact be also considered. Perhaps if Leningrad were strengthened somewhat and given an increased VP value (perhaps raise it by one and lower Moscow by one)..... Dunno. Thinking aloud I guess....

[SGT Rice]

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
the absence of specific diplomacy details is not specific to Finland and occurs with every other minor power that can join the game via special event or other means. 

Very true. I guess I'm looking at GG as WH describes it; a tournament/advanced version of AWD for players who want more depth. So why not have political events for all minor countries? We already have events specific to Finland, Rumania, Greece, Yugoslavia, TLC, Spain, Iraq, Syria and Siam and any Pro-Allied country after US entry occurs (did I miss any ?).

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
One plus of the existing rules is that they provide the Axis with an actual incentive to even look at Leningrad. But, even then, I think this incentive is generally insufficient. Keeping in mind that there are virtually no resources in NW Soviet Union and comparing the vast number of important targets of striking distance from Kharkov (2 spaces from Rumania) with the options available to Leningrad (2 spaces from Prussia), Leningrad tends to get little attention as it is.

Wouldn't you say that the main incentive for the Axis is to cut Russia off from Lend Lease?

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
That said, I fear adding any troops or factories that would make it much easier to take Leningrad (unless Leningrad is also beefed-up). I guess, I am returning to my usual refrain of advocating that balance impact be also considered.

I tried to outline the political events to avoid this; if the German player uses any Finnish units outside of Finland in excess of a single unit in Karelia then he risks Finland becoming Pro-Allied (i.e., caving into WA political pressure as they eventually did historically). My proposed change would definitely change the Russian approach to prepare for Barbarossa; it would no longer be wise to strip the Karelia garrison (something the Russians would never have done historically anyway). Rather, they would have to beef this frontier up if/when the Germans shipped German troops to Finland.

[WanderingHead]

So I've spent a bit of time thinking about this. I think that something a bit simpler is desirable.

At one extreme:
1) Finland starts with zero units.
2) Finland sprouts 4 insta-infantry whenever it is attacked as a neutral or as German friendly&controlled.
3) Finland is a fortress until captured.
4) event 1: Winter war - just fluff, I can't see any point in it with the design I am proposing. Or maybe give Finland a militia or two.
5) event 2: Finland joins Germany if Ger at war with Rus and USA not at war, 25% per turn.
6) event 3: (optional) if no units in Finland, revert to Neutral if USA at war, 25% per turn.

That's it. Finland never has any units (or very few, unless attacked), but it can provide its soil as a German staging area.

Regarding event 3 and the requirement for no units ... it is tricky to define revert-to-neutral if there are German units there. Specifically, what do you do with the German units? It could force the German units to retreat, in which case they would be damaged/destroyed if they have no where to retreat to.

I haven't yet come up with anything a little more complicated where Finland actually has units, not that I seem to really like or be 100% comfortable with.

[Lucky1]

I wish I could do the cut and past thing a bit more elegantly....

1) special rules for each country: I still am on the fence on this one. Given my lack of in-depth knowledge in this area, I am reticent to comment on the actual motives of Finland in engaging in diplomatic discussions. This may have been a hedging tactic, or it might have been genuine, especially as it became apparent that Russia would not be knocked out like France. I think that probably there was a bit of both (she did not declare a cease-fire etc. after retaking her prior possessions and it took until 1944 to act meaningfully against Germany). The lack of territorial aspirations might have been real; I cannot comment on how much further Finland could have projected her power had she tried. Similarly, I cannot speculate as to whether Germany would have used Finland more if she did not have the Baltics from which to pressure Leningrad. Similarly, once in the Axis orbit or under significant occupation, Finland's ability to expel German forces might have been limited (e.g., Northern Italy). Yes, this was possible in 1944, but by then Germany was hardly the force she once was.... Again, if this is to be modelled, I would suggest that it pay attention to the actual size of the German presence.

Whereas we have Finland's actual behaviour during the war to model one 'what if' - this game is about bounded 'what-ifs' it would seem to me -- we have nothing similar for countries like Spain. Would Franco's Spain have liked a mass German occupation of forces - even notionally allied?. Probably not, but we are prepared to suspend disbelief for gaming purposes. Perhaps this is desirable, perhaps not. I can see both sides of the coin.

Assuming that Brian is willing to implement the changes (it is his mod, after all) it is ultimately up to him to decide whether specific rules are desired for each major country. Ultimately, my concern about this rule is far more about balance....

2) Lend Lease: If only I could convince half my opponents to divert their forces to Leningrad to cut off Lend-Lease (that may or may not be planned)! To actually cut Russia off from lend-lease under the current system requires at three turns (assuming no naval presence from Germany to Murmansk). This alone buys significant valuable time and lessens the need for lend-lease in the first place. That said, I concede that lend lease may be very important in some games. The proposed changes will make it much easier for Germany to cut off lend lease with or without Leningrad. Yet another point of pressure on Russia.... This will have balance impact.

3) Balance, balance balance. Considering that in many, perhaps most, games Finland never joins the war, the new event would change the mix considerably. If, as you point out lend lease stands to play an important role in a given game, it is worth playing Finland aggressively to knock out these lines, even if this means losing Finland a turn or so later (three german land troops only bring the chance of drop-out to 20%). Or, as I think more likely, the Finland population would be used sacrificially as part of an attack against Leningrad. Cannon-fodder.

Please do not mistake my intent with this post: I am not predisposed against this change at all. Rather, I am concerned that it might be implemented without incorporating a counterweight for Russia. e.g. I would suggest that Leningrad's troop composition be improved / increased if Finland is being brought into the mix.

Stirring the pot.

[Lucky1]

Ugh. I did not see WanderingHead's Post....
 

[SGT Rice]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

So I've spent a bit of time thinking about this. I think that something a bit simpler is desirable.

At one extreme:
1) Finland starts with zero units.
2) Finland sprouts 4 insta-infantry whenever it is attacked as a neutral or as German friendly&controlled.
3) Finland is a fortress until captured.
4) event 1: Winter war - just fluff, I can't see any point in it with the design I am proposing. Or maybe give Finland a militia or two.
5) event 2: Finland joins Germany if Ger at war with Rus and USA not at war, 25% per turn.
6) event 3: (optional) if no units in Finland, revert to Neutral if USA at war, 25% per turn.

That's it. Finland never has any units (or very few, unless attacked), but it can provide its soil as a German staging area.

Regarding event 3 and the requirement for no units ... it is tricky to define revert-to-neutral if there are German units there. Specifically, what do you do with the German units? It could force the German units to retreat, in which case they would be damaged/destroyed if they have no where to retreat to.

I haven't yet come up with anything a little more complicated where Finland actually has units, not that I seem to really like or be 100% comfortable with.

Simpler is good. I wasn't sure if insta-infantry were possible, that does it make it a lot easier to model the Finns.

Referring to your 1-6 my response is:

1) AGREE
2) AGREE
3) AGREE

4) event 1: Winter war - just fluff, I can't see any point in it with the design I am proposing. Or maybe give Finland a militia or two.

Suggest creating 1 Finnish infantry; this becomes Finland's contribution to any extracurricular forays contemplated by the Germans.

5) event 2: Finland joins Germany if Ger at war with Rus and USA not at war, 25% per turn.

Still think this should be higher, at least 50% if not 75%.

6) event 3: (optional) if no units in Finland, revert to Neutral if USA at war, 25% per turn.

HMMM, basically this means that a single German militia could keep Finland in the Axis camp right up to the destruction of Germany. The Finns switched sides after a major Russian offensive was repulsed in 1944. If its possible to force a German garrison to simply retreat then I would suggest a formula geared to territorial control and Finnish casualties, i.e., base probability 0% with +20% for each damaged Finnish unit, +40% for each destroyed Finnish unit, +25% each for WA/Russian control of Baltic States, East Prussia, Western Poland, Eastern Germany, Norway, Sweden, -25% each for German control of Leningrad, Karelia, Norway, Sweden.

[WanderingHead]

Basing it on unit casualties by nationality would be a bit more difficult and esoteric. As it is, there would be some code changes to support the disappearing fort and insta-infantry, but those shouldn't be a problem. Also, note that with this configuration there actually wouldn't be a lot of Finnish units running around getting into trouble, so basing things on casualties inflicted or received by the Fins shouldn't really mean too much.

I'm still not comfortable retreating German units from Finland. It is doable, but sort of odd. The only other context where that is configured to happen today is surrenders (WA or Russia), where it makes sense. But the Germans are not surrendering, and perhaps would not choose to leave without a fight.

The practical effect of leaving Finland Axis unless ungarrisoned is not great. The conditions you suggest are such that they will occur near the end of the war. Finland contributes almost no units offensively. So not a whole lot is happening if Finland turns neutral. I agree it is cool gravy, so it is nice to have. But the restriction if there is a German unit there doesn't strike me as too bad.

I'm also inclined to reduce the insta-infantry a little, and limit how much it can happen (must be able to wear down the Fins somehow, and 4 units multiple times is a hell of a lot).

I haven't moved too far, but I propose this

1) Finland starts with zero units.
2) Finland sprouts 3 insta-infantry the first time it is attacked, 1 insta-infantry the second time it is attacked (this would be configured as a total limit and a per attack consumption, so 3,2,1,0 would not be possible, for example)
3) Finland is a fortress until captured.
4) event 1: Winter war - give Finland 1 infantry + 1 militia
5) event 2: Finland joins Germany if Ger at war with Rus and USA not at war, 50% the turn of war, 25%per turn thereafter.
6) event 3: Finland becomes neutral , if ungarrisoned and USA at war, 0% base, +25% for Allied control of Baltic States, +25% for Allied control of East Prussia, +25% for Allied control of Norway, +25% for Allied control of Sweden.

With 3 insta-infantry and 1 event infantry and 1 militia and fortress status, Finland would be quite hard to capture without dedicating a lot of resources in the wrong direction (away from Berlin), so this looks good to me. The fortress is an important part of making Finland defendable without being particularly offensively capable.

One further alternative which really depends on what I find when I try to code this is that Finland would receive 3 infantry the first time it is attacked only, plus 1 militia every time it is attacked. I like this because the 1 militia/attack is the same as all other neutrals, and the 3 infantry is special. I.e. it is just adding something special, it is not adding one special thing while removing 1 typical thing.

[Forwarn45]

The ideas about Finland are interesting, but I think I prefer the way it currently works. In most games that go on a fairly historical course, Finland will not "join" the Axis but will be pro-Axis. This probably best approximates the role of Finland in the actual war from 1942 on. In game terms, the German force that operated from Finland is very small - a unit or two at most. But there is also a chance Finland will "join" when Germany takes a pro-Allied Norway, Leningrad, or Karelia. I think this makes sense in that military success by the Axis in the north might (or might not - it's not a certainty they will join) have overcome their resistance or coerced them into more fully cooperating with Germany.

[Marshall Art]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

[2] Add a Rumanian surrender, similar to Italian. This would not actually be an "Event" seen on the event screen, but something similar to the Italian surrender. The Rumanian units would disappear. Now that players will be able to see unit nationalities, it will be very unnatural to see Rumanian troops defending France or Germany after Rumania has fallen (particularly since historically Rumania surrendered AND declared war on Germany). This would also tend to discourage unnatural late game builds of Rumanian infantry once they are allowed to build infantry.

Once you include Rumania (which I like) you might add Hungary, Spain, Turkey, and every other minor nation that can build own units. The Hungarians pretty much changed sides in 1944 much like the Romanians, why should Spain and Turkey (if Axis) be different after an Allied conquest?

[Marshall Art]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

[*] US response to Japanese invasion of Russia
[*] US response to Japanese aggression in China
[*] USA embargos Japan

It always bothers me that the Japanese player can bomb rails, resources at will while bombing of factories will raise the US response probability. If all Chinese resources are destroyed all Chinese factories are shut down, too. So for each resource damaged there should be an increase in US response probability as well, maybe just half due to a lot of resources available in China relative to the number of factories.

Also I find the USA embargo event problematic since the Chinese player can attack Indochine after 1940 without the Japanese being reasonably able to defend it, unless risking the loss of the US gift. The Japanese should be at least allowed to move some troops there without a penalty, e.g. 2 units.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45
The ideas about Finland are interesting, but I think I prefer the way it currently works.

Any other comments on this folks? I had already completed all the code work before Forwarn45 threw water on the party .

Personally, I like the idea a lot. I see play variability (maybe 50% of games have Finland, 50% don't) and a pretty good and simple mechanic for having Finland as a staging area, at least threatening Karelia which is perfectly historical, yet keep the Fins offensive potential down in keeping with their lack of overall enthusiasm (refusal to attack Leningrad, for example).

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

[*] US response to Japanese invasion of Russia
[*] US response to Japanese aggression in China
[*] USA embargos Japan

... the Japanese player can bomb rails, resources at will while bombing of factories will raise the US response probability. If all Chinese resources are destroyed all Chinese factories are shut down, too. So for each resource damaged there should be an increase in US response probability as well, maybe just half due to a lot of resources available in China relative to the number of factories.

In some sense, factories represent population zones ... e.g. nukes that hit factories also kill population, which is not true of nukes that hit resources. Hence, there is more outrage at damaged factories (i.e. civilians killed in air raids).

That's the intention.

As for bombing resources to kill Chinese production, have you ever tried it? The Chinese have several resources, and only produce every 3rd turn, so it is very easy for the Chinese player to keep his production going with a minimal amount of resource repair. It is tough for the Japanese to actually cut them off this way. If the Japanese succeeds, I've had the feeling of "more power to them", since it takes a pretty dedicated and thorough air campaign and a complete lack of lend lease to China for resource repair.

My preference would be to to leave this unchanged.

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
Also I find the USA embargo event problematic since the Chinese player can attack Indochine after 1940 without the Japanese being reasonably able to defend it, unless risking the loss of the US gift. The Japanese should be at least allowed to move some troops there without a penalty, e.g. 2 units.

This maybe needs some help. The balancing factor is supposed to be the USA responds to Japanese aggression in China event. If China takes Indochina, then Japan gets a freer hand in dealing with China (invading or bombing them). But it is still not a totally free hand (the +die(2) WR for taking a region still occurs).

The existing implementation of USA embargoes Japan allows Japan to move 1 unit to Indochina without risk, and a second unit with some risk (20% only on the turn of movement), and a third unit with a large risk (40% the turn of the movement, 20% thereafter).

This could perhaps be changed to make the 2nd unit risk free, and the 3rd unit small temporary risk, and the 4th unit have the large risk.

I'll open it up, like to hear what others think before changing it.

[Lucky1]

With regard to the two issues raised by Marshall Art, namely bombing resources and the US embargo from a large Japanese presence in Thailand, I actually have come around to liking the existing implementation.

As for bombing resources, this is indeed more difficult than it sounds - especially if Japan is looking to neuter China without invading. So, while I was initially puzzled why this loophole was left out, I have come around to thinking it is not much of a loophole at all.

In terms of China invading Thailand, I think this is counter-balanced by Japan subsequently being able to receive the US gift while attacking inland (although I think the US WR penalty is too high - I would suggest 1-2 for factory regions and 1 for all other inland regions. Too, even with a garrison of one or two Japanese units, Japan may easily repel a small Chinese invasion. If done in force (with some signficant supply cost for China), a massed group in Liuchow provides Japan with an opportunity to wipe out a large amount of the Chinese army without risking increasing Chinese production or losing the US gift. That said, this is an interesting pressure point against Japan. In a recent game against, I actually had a fair force in Liuchow threatening Thailand. My opponent called my bluff and did not reinforce. I did not invade because I did not wish to give him a free hand in China... So, I took out his port (the small territory to the right; I forget the name) to limit his transport movement in the region..... Too, I would suggest that an empty or weak Thailand constitutes a bit of a lure for China and provides China with at least one more meaningful choice (on a very small menu).  

[SGT Rice]

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45
The ideas about Finland are interesting, but I think I prefer the way it currently works. In most games that go on a fairly historical course, Finland will not "join" the Axis but will be pro-Axis. This probably best approximates the role of Finland in the actual war from 1942 on. In game terms, the German force that operated from Finland is very small - a unit or two at most. But there is also a chance Finland will "join" when Germany takes a pro-Allied Norway, Leningrad, or Karelia. I think this makes sense in that military success by the Axis in the north might (or might not - it's not a certainty they will join) have overcome their resistance or coerced them into more fully cooperating with Germany.

I agree that having Finland as pro-Axis for the entire game doesn't distort things too far from history. The problems begin when the Finns join the war in AWD. At that point a couple of things frequently happen in the game that are grossly at odds with history.

(1) Germany obtains "free" Finnish units that can be redeployed anywhere, for any purpose. In a game I currently have underway with Ning, I sent the Finnish ART to defend the French coast, then pulled the INF and a MIL down to West Germany to face a WA army in Belgium, then moved the remaining militia to Leningrad where they fought to the last man (after a heroic 3-turn stand) against advancing Russians.

This type of scenario simply wasn't in the realm of the possible; Finland was not a Nazi puppet state, period. Aside from a small foray into Karelia in late 41, the Finns stayed in Finland; there was no inducement or coercion available
to Hitler that could have drawn the balance of the Finnish military out onto foreign battlefields. The Finns were an aspiring Western nation; they made common cause with the Germans solely as a defensive move, assuming (correctly) that the Russians would use a wider war as a pretense to invade Finland again (perhaps the Russian air raids on June 23 were a clue).

(2) Finland becomes roadkill for a WA or Russian offensive intent on wiping out all the resources in Scandinavia and opening the Reich's northern flank to air attack and invasion. This often happens after (1) above, when Finland has been stripped of units (see the AAR of my game with Sandeman in the Lightning Tourney Round 1 for an example), but even if the Finns stay home, their paltry militia force is easy meat for a half dozen mid/late-war WA/Russian units.

Historically the Russians were bled dry trying to take Finland on two occasions; it makes no sense for Finland to be an easy highway for the Allies to conquer Scandinavia, with the bulk of their army represented as militia. Man-for-man the Finnish army was probably the best in the world at the time. Here's how the designers of Squad Leader described the Finns:

"Few nationalities can lay claim to having fought as valiant and skillful a defense of their homeland as the Finns of 1939-44. Extremely individualistic, patriotic, and ruthless, totally at ease in severe weather conditions; the Finnish soldier was tactically superior to his foe and fanatic in his determination to avoid the fate which befell the Baltic States before the Russian Bear ... the superiority of the Finnish soldier was based upon a deeply ingrained quality of "sissu" - determination and individuality. This trait was evidenced in combat where the Finnish soldier rallied quickly and often without the intervention of his leaders". Crescendo of Doom game manual, p75.

In Squad Leader game terms the Finns were rated equal to SS assault troops in terms of firepower and morale, with a squad self-rally capability given to no other nationality; even their 2nd line militia units were rated superior to ordinary German and Russian infantry.

(3) One final problem with the current AWD representation of Finland is the political volatility of 7. This was included solely to provide a mechanism for getting the Finns into the war, but the proposed political events would supersede this. I would recommend dropping Finnish volatility to 2; i.e., like Sweden. There should be little chance that Finland would join the Axis after a German conquest of Norway; this was a Nazi move aimed at the WA that the Finns would not have wanted to appear complicit in.