USSR - Invasion of Poland in 1939 - game heuristics need changing

[leci]

The game does not currently allow you to declare war on your 'allies'.

BUT: when the USSR invaded eastern Poland in 1939 and then further attacked Finland (in order protect Leningrad) and negotiated the seizure of Baltic states with the Germans, they i.e. the USSR was an enemy of the GB and France. On that basis the two Allies had an obligation to declare war on the USSR. Of course, both dictators knew that the two allies were not capable and or willing to actually fulfill their treaties.

Of course, Stalin was playing the 'longer' game and wanted to seize as much of Europe as possible early in the political game - and indeed within the following war years, hence the 'iron curtain' and the subsequent Cold War. Many voices within the two principle Allies and in the USA (although not yet an active Ally) as did European communists wanted war declared on the USSR in 1939. The game should therefore allow you the option for 'allies' to declare war on the USSR.

It should be also remembered that various voices (not just Patton and Churchill) recognised and wanted to continue the war into the USSR as they the USSR (ie Stalin) strategy. In terms of 'what if' the game heuristics should allow war to be declared on an ally i.e. in this the USSR!

To further support my request for a game change, is the acquiesce i.e. 'roll over' of Roosevelt and Churchill to Stalin's demands is a matter of puplic record.

Gilles

[Bmorgan077]

I agree, this would be a nice option. You could have the USSR as a third side, 3 player hot seat, played by whoever they are allied to, or played by AI and the other two could use diplomacy on them.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: leci

The game does not currently allow you to declare war on your 'allies'.

BUT: when the USSR invaded eastern Poland in 1939 and then further attacked Finland (in order protect Leningrad) and negotiated the seizure of Baltic states with the Germans, they i.e. the USSR was an enemy of the GB and France. On that basis the two Allies had an obligation to declare war on the USSR. Of course, both dictators knew that the two allies were not capable and or willing to actually fulfill their treaties.

Of course, Stalin was playing the 'longer' game and wanted to seize as much of Europe as possible early in the political game - and indeed within the following war years, hence the 'iron curtain' and the subsequent Cold War. Many voices within the two principle Allies and in the USA (although not yet an active Ally) as did European communists wanted war declared on the USSR in 1939. The game should therefore allow you the option for 'allies' to declare war on the USSR.

It should be also remembered that various voices (not just Patton and Churchill) recognised and wanted to continue the war into the USSR as they the USSR (ie Stalin) strategy. In terms of 'what if' the game heuristics should allow war to be declared on an ally i.e. in this the USSR!

To further support my request for a game change, is the acquiesce i.e. 'roll over' of Roosevelt and Churchill to Stalin's demands is a matter of puplic record.

Gilles

warspite1

I'm not sure what you would achieve though.

So we assume that someone was mad enough to listen to Gamelin and the French bombed the Caucasian oil fields or if we completely remove ourselves from reality we could assume that not only did Churchill get his way on Norway but that in so doing he didn't effectively declare war on Norway or Sweden and he actually sent help to Finland (yeah right....).

So now the Soviets can invade Norway or Syria/Iraq/Persia and so threaten Egypt and then what?

Where is the fun in that?

[leci]

The point in 1939 was that both Hitler and Stalin were convinced, on their own empirical evidence (from 1938 and indeed even earlier), that the two Allies would not make a move etc., for political reasons. Any even token movement for example regarding Finland where USSR casualties were 1:2 in favour of Finland, would have made Stalin pause for thought. However, the USSR invasion of Poland (and subsequent Polish genocide) reinforced the notion of the USSR as an Allied enemy. Although of course the USSR manpower sacrifice suited the USSR allies - but if course Stalin saw the wider 'end game'.

I am sure that the ability for the Allies to declare war on an Ally is just a simple code amendment. But would make for a more credible 'what if' game.

Again, let us remember that the USA had problems with Britain's colonial stance - true of the French as well re Indo China. The USA had its own agenda.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: leci

The point in 1939 was that both Hitler and Stalin were convinced, on their own empirical evidence (from 1938 and indeed even earlier), that the two Allies would not make a move etc., for political reasons. Any even token movement for example regarding Finland where USSR casualties were 1:2 in favour of Finland, would have made Stalin pause for thought. However, the USSR invasion of Poland (and subsequent Polish genocide) reinforced the notion of the USSR as an Allied enemy. Although of course the USSR manpower sacrifice suited the USSR allies - but if course Stalin saw the wider 'end game'.

I am sure that the ability for the Allies to declare war on an Ally is just a simple code amendment. But would make for a more credible 'what if' game.

Again, let us remember that the USA had problems with Britain's colonial stance - true of the French as well re Indo China. The USA had its own agenda.

warspite1

Fair enough, if you think that would make an interesting WWII game then that is your opinion. I'll pass [;)]

[xwormwood]

WW2 had three different major powers.
The Western Allies, the Axis, and the USSR.
It would be of course the best idea to give all of them different war goals.
I guess this idea is on the (probably pretty long) list of ideas the developers will try to offer with future releases, as the question has been raised several times within the last years.
For now we have SC as it is, and as it is is the best SC ever released.
Just wait and continue to support Fury Software, and you will get everything, at least in the long run.
Hubert and Bill never disappoint, and always improve the game. Often enought with free patches, sometimes with add-ons, and every now and than with a complete new release.

[James Taylor]

Amen to that Xwood, Hubert & Bill can be counted on to make improvements in the future, been that way since 2002.

I'm licking my chops just thinking about the Pacific theater and the new naval rules, which I'm sure will be enhanced.

We're just waiting on ideas from forum to tweak this naval model, so come on guys put your thinking caps on.

[sPzAbt653]

SC3 Major Powers must be either Axis or Allies. No switching. This is a code limitation that would require a lot of work to change. To some of us it certainly is worth the coding time. But coding time ... it's like watching an hourglass, what is there must be maximized because eventually it runs out [:)]

[aaatoysandmore]

One thing about Making History is it allows for that. It allows for all types of alliances in fact. It's what I like about the game 2nd best the AI being first and foremost. When they say hard or harder they mean hard or harder. The US creamed me up the boot of Italy when I played the Italians on just hard.

[James Taylor]

I think we'll eventually get a "sandbox", it'll take an imaginative scenario designer, and many DEs will have to be modified.

I don't think the code is the problem, there was a WW3 custom with numerous sides, I think 4, all starting with the same elements, in SC2.

[Fintilgin]

I'd definitely like to see a scenario where the Allies could break apart after Germany surrenders. Like, you choose your side (West/Soviets) and the other side becomes the 'Axis' in the internal game code and the war continues.

[Goodmongo]

Is this a WW2 game or a war game set in the time period of 1939-1948? The answer to that question dictates how the game plays out. And both is not a realistic option.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Is this a WW2 game or a war game set in the time period of 1939-1948? The answer to that question dictates how the game plays out. And both is not a realistic option.

This is actually a good observation. Some people want to play WW2 and would be put off by too many derailments from the storyboard. But a free diplomacy sandbox beginning in 1939 or earlier would be an interesting scenario as well, as some new board wargames postulate.

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Is this a WW2 game or a war game set in the time period of 1939-1948? The answer to that question dictates how the game plays out. And both is not a realistic option.

Agreed. I want this to be first and foremost a WW2 game, with first a Pacific version and then a global version to follow. After that's done, then and only then go all Harry Turtledove/alternate history and do Patton Drives East or whatever.

[Mountaineer]

A good future scenario will be Operation Unthinkable.