Malta & Decision Events Ideas

[EdwinP]

Map: 1939 Far East - Siberia

Compare the rail lines within Manchuko to those in the Soviet Union. Soviet forces are likely stationed in the West because the Eastern theater is indefensible and forces would be isolated if the single rail line was cut.

[EdwinP]

Image showing Japanese plans for attack on Soviet Union. Source: Wikipedia - The maps were created by the United States Military Academy?fs Department of History and are the digital versions from the atlases printed by the United States Defense Printing Agency




"The "Northern Expansion Doctrine" (–k?i˜_?, Hokushin-ron or Northern Road) was a pre-World War II political doctrine of the Empire of Japan which stated that Manchuria and Siberia were Japan's sphere of interest and that the potential value to Japan for economic and territorial expansion in those areas was greater than elsewhere. Its supporters were sometimes called the Strike North Group. It enjoyed wide support within the Imperial Japanese Army during the interwar period, but was abandoned in 1939 after military defeat on the Mongolian front at the Battles of Khalkhin Gol (known in Japan as the Nomonhan incident). It was superseded by the diametrically-opposite rival policy, the "Southern Expansion Doctrine" (“ì?i˜_?, Nanshin-ron or Southern Road), which regarded Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands as Japan's political end economic sphere of influence and aimed to acquire the resources of European colonies while neutralizing the threat of Western military forces in the Pacific." Wikipedia

[James Taylor]

I'm speechless Edwin![;)] Excellent portrayal of the possibilities that existed in the USSR - Japanese sphere of influence.

This is exactly the kind of options that should be available in the SC3 model and somehow ... I know Hubert and Bill are contemplating.[8D]

[EdwinP]

James, the more that I researched this area the more that it became a realistic alternative history scenario. Why the Japanese did not attack Russia was due in part to decsions made by Germay. Germany did not inform Japan that the non-aggression pact that they signed with Russia was a mere ploy nor did they share with Japan their plans for Barbarossa for security reasons. This lead Japan to sign their own non-aggression pact with Russia and abandon their northern strategy.

A move north against Russia by Japan, instead of south would have avoided war with the US and delayed US entry into the war in Europe.

In military terms a conflict between the two in Siberia would have been interesting as the armies had different styles. Russia had more mechanized units, Japan had developed stronger anti-tanks units to compensate, Japan had a stronger air force (in terms of skilled pilots and better fighter aircraft) and Russia had a greater quantity of aircraft. Russia had better command at the operational level, while Japan had better trained and motiviated soldiers. In Manchuko; Manchuria, Japan had interior lines of communication, rail lines linked the varios fronts, a better road system, and better supply lines. Japan also had access to the IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy) and troops trained in amphibious operations that could be used to support actions along the Pacific coast of Siberia. Russia's supply all came via a single rail line - the Trans-Siberian.

World at War Magazine #35; By Strategy & Tactics Press, included an article and game on this topic.

At a simple level, this could be recreated in SC3 with the following Decision Event trees:

First Turn: GERMAN NAVAL Units GV(1-70) Historical Surface fleet strategy, GV (71-00) Non-historical U-Boat Strategy (i.e. 30% that Germany starts with a U-Boat oriented navy instead of a surface fleet oriented navy)
First Turn: GER Decision Event: Station U-boat Fleets in the Mediterrean.
------ Yes: Send 2 U-Boats packs to the Med
------ No: Retain all U-Boat packs in Germany
1. UK Decision Event: Does UK and France DOW Germany for attack on Poland? (1940)
2. Yes - Historical
3. No - Kingdom of Yugoslavia more pro-Axis, Bulgaria, Romania join Axis, US War mobilization growth slows, Russia mobilization increases. Potential for GER-RUSSIA Only war.
4. IF Kingdom of Yugoslavia joins Axis - 50% Anti-Axis Coup - Yugoslavia joins Allies
5. GER Decision Event: Triparte Alliance with Italy (Sept 27, 1940)
---YES - Italy Joins Triparte Alliance
---No - Italy Remains neutral (Italy related decision events do not occur)
---------- NEW AI Scripts - Italy Spends MPPS on Diplomacy vs USA
6. GER Decision Event: Triparte Alliance with Japan (Sept 27, 1940)
--- Yes - Japan joins Triparte Alliance
--- No - Japan does not join Triparte.(Japan related decision events do not occur)(Can delay US entry into war)
7. GER - Decision Event: Accept Triparte Treaty with Russia - Potential for GER Sealion
Historical note: USSR inquired about joining the Triparte Agreement, but their overtures were rejected as Germany was already planning to invade the USSR.
--- Yes - Russia provides MPP to GER,
--- Yes - Russia Mobilization increase slows unless Axis has more than 4 Units in Poland.
--- No
7. GER Decision Event: Does Germany Share Information about Barbarossa with Japan (Jan 1941)
8. Yes - Japan Plans for Northern Strategy, Japan Attacks Russia (When German DOWs Russia), Siberian Reinforcements delayed & reduced, US MPPs increases by 50%, Part of US Pacific Fleet transferred to Atlantic
9. Yes - 50% that Russia confirms German invasion plans, Russia mobilization for war increases faster, Russia may attack Germany first.
10. Yes > UK Decision Event - Order Pacific Fleet to Egypt or England (When Germany and Japan DOW Russia)
11. No - Historical: Japan Plans for Southern Strategy > Japan conquers Southern French Indochina
12. ------------- US Decision Event: Does US Embargo Oil Sales to Japan (July 1941)
13. ------------- Yes - Japan Attacks Pearl Harbor > GER Decision Event > DOW US or not? (Dec 1941)
14. -------------------------------YES - Germany DOW vs US, US Enters War
15. -------------------------------No - US War entry delayed, US Convoy Max to UK/USSR increased, US has access to Pacific Fleet after Japan is defeated (7 Carrier units)
16. ------------- No - US MPPs increase by 50% as resources are not diverted to conflict with Japan, US convoy max increases, US entry into war delayed by a year, UK Convoy MPPs from Dutch West Indies Increase
17. ------------- No - UK Decision Event - Order Pacific Fleet to Egypt or England

[James Taylor]

Now we need to see some cooperation between Italy and Germany. This is why.

In order to make a game of WW2 possibilities that has any chance of being balanced, we'll need to limit the early effect of the USA.

Once the USA enters, the "gorilla of doom" will inhabit the game as slowly but surely the Allies take control. It may take till 1948 or further to finally realize victory but the inevitabilty exists.

The only chance the Axis really have is some sort of interaction over and above what was historical, understanding that things will have to align almost perfectly for the Axis victory.

The real test for the Axis player(s) is how long can they survive and the victory conditions would revolve around that precept.

Its actually the same as the historical version although the "what-if" has many more tangled webs as the game goes off in a variety of directions not to be preceived by the players.

[EdwinP]

What suggestions do you have for cooperation between Italy and Germany?

Historically, Italy was an unreliable partner for Germany. The Italian invasion of Italy forced Germany to devote troops to the Balkans. The Italians did not seize Malta when it was undefended. Their performance in North Africa was abysmal. The questions arises, would Germany have done better if Italy remained neutral? The forces Germany lost in the Med could could have been deployed to the Russian front and the Allies would not have invaded Europe via Italy. Should Italy have prepared to invade Egypt before joining the war?

Devious Italian AI Strategy if Italy does not join Triparte Pact:

If Italy Does not join the Tripartite Pact:
Italian AI uses MPP to influence USA to remain neutral. If UK or France attack Italy, US war mobilization declines. After Italy has purchased the max amount of diplomacy chits it builds its army to defend Italy.

If Italy and Japan remain neutral; not part of the Tripartite Pact, and if Japan does not attack Pearl Harbor the US may not go to war if Italian diplomacy is successful.

---------------------------

German Decision Event (after Poland surrenders)

The Italian government is open to signing a mutual defense pact with the German Reich.

This pact will provide the German Reich with access to the Mediterranean from which we can launch operations to seize Egypt and the oil rich Middle East from the British. More importantly, if our actions cause England and France to declare war upon the Reich the Italian front will force France to divide its forces. This will weaken French forces deployed along the France-German border. England will be forces to garrison the Egypt with land and naval forces. This will weaken the forces available to defend Britain from invasion.

If Italy were to remain neutral all our armed forces could be concentrated for the invasion of the Soviet Union. More importantly, Italian diplomats could use their influence to counter the pro-British sentiment in the United States.

Should we ally Germany with Italy (YES) or suggest that they remained Neutral (No)?

[Birdw]

This request is not so much a decision event but it does concern Malta. I'd propose that whenever Malta's port has been reduced to 1 point, at the start of the Allied turn,that there is no chance for the Malta effect. Historically when the Axis turned their attention to Malta (like we do when trying to capture it in the game)they forced the RN to leave the island and supplies to Africa suffered very little losses during that time. It takes a significant concentration of power for the Axis to achieve this. So they could continue applying that power to keep Malta neutralized instead of taking it. It would allow an offense in N.Africa to continue due to Malta being neutralized and the continued flow of supplies.

[James Taylor]

I agree with birde as far as Malta effect being neutralized.

Ideas of German-Italian cooperation, it could be just that, aid in the form of MPPs or weapons could be sent to Italy.

I would also suggest some sharing of research could be of benefit, always at some cost of MPPs for retooling, etc.

The idea of Italian involvement in East Africa has got absolutely no game significance. Perhaps with more thought that area could become more important or forgotten about entirely and the use of the resources having greater merit in North Africa. As it stands, it is a diversion of which most Axis players ignore.

[EdwinP]

I agree, the Axis should be able to neutralize Malta, by bringing its port to zero.

If there is a Decision event for Crete in the game consideration should be given to revising it to give the Axis player a choice of which island to take: Crete or Malta.

[bcg]

From what I have read from Hubert, decision events will play a major part in the new game. And I think these decision events really add to the game, they are great in SC2.

I do have an idea for these decision events though. When playing SC2, I noticed that I pretty much always answered them the same way. It would be cool if you have a choice of "computer random". If the player picks this choice, the computer randomly picks the choice. Thus the player will have to adjust his strategy accordingly, to what the computer picks. It is a way to keep the player off balance, throughout the game.

Please remember, the player can also choose to pick the events also. This idea just adds a different wrinkle to the game, that would not be that hard to program.

[Numdydar]

Or you could have the 'Hitler Option' where all decisions are randomized at the start. [:D] So the player would not know what decision was made until it popped up. This way the player could have the same experience the real generals had working under him [:D]

[taffjones]

Hi EdwwinP
You have some great idea's for decision events and their impact/changes they would have had on the course and possible outcome of the war.
If they are added into the game the potential outcomes will be endless and keep me entertained for years to come.

[Keenan]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Or you could have the 'Hitler Option' where all decisions are randomized at the start. [:D] So the player would not know what decision was made until it popped up. This way the player could have the same experience the real generals had working under him [:D]

Nice idea. Especially if you hit the wall when increasing the AI bonuses. But if you own a coin or a die, you can simulate this quite easily [:D]

You might want to grant yourself a "Mulligan" or two per game, to avoid things get too frustrating. [8D]

[stockwellpete]

I shall be buying this game on the strength of their SC WW1 game "Breakthrough" which I think is an absolutely fabulous rendition of WW1. One of the best features for me is the scripting of historical decisions that need to be taken throughout the game. These add greatly to the excitement and atmosphere of the game. I haven't been involved with the beta process for this latest release so I do not know which scripted events are included, but I have been reading a lot about WW2 recently and there are a number of decision dilemmas (mainly concerning Nazi Germany) that might be worth considering for the game (if they have not been already). I am actually starting to think that the Nazis had great opportunities to knock Britain and then the Soviet Union out of the war - I hadn't fully understood this before.

Anyway, the various dilemmas are . . .

i) the Germans could have trapped the British army on the beaches at Dunkirk if Hitler had not interfered and prevented German armour from attacking them. What if Hitler had not interfered?
ii) the Luftwaffe could have won the Battle of Britain if Hitler had not interfered and shifted the focus of German aerial attacks onto English cities. What if the Luftwaffe had kept the pressure up on the RAF instead of attacking the cities?
iii) the attack on the Soviet Union was handicapped by disagreements between Hitler and his leading generals over the priorities for Operation Barbarossa. Hitler prioritised the capture of Ukraine ("lebensraum" from Mein Kampf) while many generals wanted to capture Moscow as quickly as possible. Hitler diverted much of the armour (southwards towards Kiev) from the thrust towards Smolensk and Moscow and lost valuable time before it was returned. What if the Germans had prioritised an attack on Moscow instead?
iv) initially the Ukrainians largely welcomed the Nazis as liberators because they had suffered so badly under Stalin, but when the Nazis introduced grain requisitioning and the death squads the Ukrainians started to form partisan groups. What would have happened if the Nazis had set up a puppet state in the Ukraine?
v) Hitler declared war on the USA after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. What if he hadn't done this?
vi) the Germans had developed a jet fighter by 1941, the Messerschmit ME262, but did not mass produce this aircraft. Instead the focus was mainly on V1 and V2 rockets later in the war. What if the Germans had mass produced a fighter plane that was around 150mph faster than the fastest Allied plane?

I wonder if any of these "historical dilemmas" for Nazi Germany might enhance the game?