Yugoslavia question

[Numdydar]

Here is where this is a game verus a simulation and wondered if v8 of the rules addressed this or not? Or if v7 ignored this for some reason.

Regent Prince Paul signed the Tripartite Pact on 25 March 1941. Two days later he was overthrown with British help. These actions were the trigger that caused the Germans to invade in the real war. Greece had nothing to do with the invasion by Germany since Italy had been at war with Greece since 1940.

Before this, the Yugoslavian government had more in common with the Axis powers than France and the CW. At least that is how I understand of the situation from 1939-1941. Given this attitude, there is no justification for Italy or Germany to attack them until the coup since it was likely Yugoslavia would be allied with them anyway. Yet the game allows this, even in 1939 no less.

So WiF is allowing 'gamey' actions due to the hindsight we have versus having real world constraints on our actions. Since I have never played WiF nor Days of Decision, does the DoD expansion address these types of things better or are they just ignored so the game is more 'fun'?

I do not have any issue with making the game fun. So if that is the reason then so be it. I just would like to see a better thought out system that took into accout the thinking and fears at the time versus what we now know.

Comments are welcomed [:)]

[paulderynck]

Either side can DoW Yugo, and given the right circumstances, either side can align Yugo. And there's a wide range of possible time frames for these events to happen. You need to have the ability for "what-if" things to happen. If the game just replicated history, it wouldn't be much fun to play the Axis.

DoD does give far more possibilities for these sorts of things.

[warspite1]

Gamey? Not so. I'll need to do some digging around, but I am sure I have an article somewhere about (Plan Y?) the Italian plans for an invasion of Yugoslavia in early 1940.

Relations between the two states were "difficult" at best following the creation of Yugoslavia at the end of WWI. Mussolini had designs on chunks of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire (Dalmatia I think).

I will have a look at the weekend and see what I can dig up - but there is basis in fact for the approach used in the game.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Here is where this is a game verus a simulation and wondered if v8 of the rules addressed this or not? Or if v7 ignored this for some reason.

Regent Prince Paul signed the Tripartite Pact on 25 March 1941. Two days later he was overthrown with British help. These actions were the trigger that caused the Germans to invade in the real war. Greece had nothing to do with the invasion by Germany since Italy had been at war with Greece since 1940.

Before this, the Yugoslavian government had more in common with the Axis powers than France and the CW. At least that is how I understand of the situation from 1939-1941. Given this attitude, there is no justification for Italy or Germany to attack them until the coup since it was likely Yugoslavia would be allied with them anyway. Yet the game allows this, even in 1939 no less.

So WiF is allowing 'gamey' actions due to the hindsight we have versus having real world constraints on our actions. Since I have never played WiF nor Days of Decision, does the DoD expansion address these types of things better or are they just ignored so the game is more 'fun'?

I do not have any issue with making the game fun. So if that is the reason then so be it. I just would like to see a better thought out system that took into accout the thinking and fears at the time versus what we now know.

Comments are welcomed [:)]

[:D] 1939 ~ Germany fearing possible takeover of the lawful Yugoslavian government from Communist unions and outside covert operators declares war on Yugoslavia. This is done only to support the rightful government. Germany has no further land interests in this area at this time.

Rumania mobilizes on the Yugoslavian border. Hungary threatens mobilization.

Stalin cancels plans to claim Bessarabia from Rumania to be able to judge the abilities of the Rumanian armed forces.

Europe sees the first Phony War. [:D]

[brian brian]

I'm sure there is book length information on the situation, but it was a complicated one. Greece had a fair amount to do with it. Churchill had talked the Serbian officer corps into fighting together with the Greeks and the British....Germany did not want a British-led force in south-east Europe.

I don't think anyone would want to play a grand strategy game of WWII that didn't let the Axis do whatever it wanted. That's the whole point - exploring alternate decisions.

The coup by the Serbian officers had everything to do with why Germany might invade Yugoslavia whatever Prince Paul might have said to the Nazis. Yugoslavia was an artificial state, and the European major powers had differing views on differing parts of the area, based on the history of many conflicts in the area over the previous decades. On the part of the Nazis, they were keenly interested in any country that had a population of "Volksdeutsch", and Yugoslavia was one such country. It was probably only a matter of time until Hitler gave them an occupation ultimatum of some sort, which the Serbs at least would have likely rejected, even if the Slovenes and Croats did not. Instead, the Serbs launched a coup first.

I think the game does OK covering this in World in Flames' highly playable, only partially simplified manner. The Axis can't afford to leave Yugoslavia neutral into the middle of the war, or one Allied expedition into any neighboring country puts a major thorn in their side. They have to either attack it, or by conquering Greece, align it, which represents the Serbs losing an internal power struggle and acquiescing to a German alliance with no hope of connection to the distant Allies once Greece is in Axis hands.

[Numdydar]

But that is the point. Why let Germany overcome its historical fears of a two front war by attacking France, Poland, AND Yugoslovia but yet tie the Germans down to the MR pact, forcing a Russo-German war in 1942 or earlier, etc. What about letting Italy stay netural versus the Allies or Italy declaring war, etc. Why force the US into the war at all? After France, what if Germany made no further aggression and Japan appeased the US somehow? So in some areas of the game ahistorical behavior is encourged while in others historical things are fixed and cannot be changed. If you can change A then you should be able to change B too.

The game seems to allow flexibility in the things that most likely will not impact the overall course of the war, but the major things that could really make a difference forces the player to follow the WWII script with minor varations. Germany MUST fight Russia, US MUST enter the war, etc. Just seems to be throwing some morsals for the Axis to make up for the pounding that they will get later becuse nothing they do with this ahistorical behavior is going to change that [:(].

While I do not expect an exact replica of WWII in a game, I do expect if ahistorical behavior that is plasible, then every choice from the historical record ahould be allowed to be changed, with the approriate pros and cons applied of course. As an example, If Germany had the chops to attack three different areas at the same time in '39, then why sign the MR pact at all? So get a trade treaty which is much easier to break. Or agree to help Russia to go after the Middle East, etc. This is no more far fetched than Germany attacking three fronts in '39. But the later is ok but the other is not? It just does not make sense to me.

[warspite1]

Numdydar

World In Flames is what it is. One of the great things about it is the fact that no two games are necessarily alike. Within a well worked framework, each game has a WWII feel, but is by no means an historical simulation.

Apologies if I have misunderstood what you are trying to say, but I think it boils down to either; let only historically plausible situations occur or allow an anything goes approach.

I think the problem is that the game would either get straight-jacketed – if indeed an appropriate formula could be worked out for what is plausible - or become a fantasy free-for-all if you take away certain restrictions.

1. In the case of limiting actions to plausibility, in trying to work out such a formula, who is to say what is plausible and/or what needs to happen to make something plausible and thus allowed? For example, a seemingly well-trodden path is for Germany to invade Denmark in 1939. But in reality – in terms of plausibility – this should never be allowed without an Allied threat to Norwegian neutrality. Denmark was invaded to allow Weserubung, there was no need or wish for Hitler to invade this “Germanic” state otherwise. (A possible exception to this could be late war when Hitler needed to ensure defences against invasion were in his control).

2. Coming back to Yugoslavia, first off, there is absolutely no reason – in terms of plausibility – why Mussolini should not have looked east instead of southeast at Greece. For reasons I stated in a previous post, Italy harboured designs on Dalmatia and could just as easily have chosen Yugoslavia as his target. Historically, he didn’t of course, but it is plausible.

3. What about Germany? Balkan politics were a powderkeg – there had been so many wars in the preceding years, and the rivalries were just as keen in 1939 as they had been pre the First World War. In fact these competing claims for territories actually worked to Hitler’s advantage in most cases as he could play mediator, keeping everyone happy and thus luring them into the Nazi fold. But it would not take a great leap of imagination to imagine a situation where Yugoslavia, for example, sought to take action that would upset the apple cart (an early overthrow of the Government for example) – leading Hitler to launch Operation Punishment ahead of its actual launch in April 1941.

4. In your second paragraph you state that “Germany MUST fight Russia, US MUST enter the war”. I don’t know if you are suggesting that these should not necessarily happen, but yes, they ABSOLUTELY should. ANY World War II game that does not involve war in the east is just fantasy. Lebensraum was Hitler’s raison d’etre. Full stop.

5. For fantasy scenarios (and nothing wrong with that for those that want to explore) that is what Days of Decision is about – and maybe one day this will also be available on computer. I will certainly want to give this a try. But until then, for World In Flames to work the way it does so brilliantly, the historical building blocks are required: Hitler wants Lebensraum; geography means he must grab Poland first; Poland is the line in the sand for the CW and France; Hitler suspects that will be the case after he took the mickey at Munich and so comes to an agreement to keep Stalin happy until he is able to attend to matters in the east. In signing any Pact, there has to be something in it for both parties – for Hitler it’s a quiet USSR, for Stalin its access to half of Poland and other border areas he covets (not to mention time to re-arm). Finally Italy, thanks to Mussolini’s character and personality is only interested in one thing – A new Roman Empire. He knows he cannot achieve this by siding with the CW and French (most of what he wants are possessions of France and the UK!). He must therefore join with his ideological soulmate. When? That depends on when it’s best for Italy. Voila, we now have the necessary framework for the European war, while still allowing players to pursue a whole variety of strategies and options.

6. As for the US, does the US have to come into the war? Well yes – have you played CTGW? In that game there is a guaranteed way to ensure the US never come in, and frankly, from a realistic point of view that is a really disappointing feature of the game. But in WIF how do you bring the US in and when? Well this is where ADG have done superbly in my opinion. Because the arrival of the US is largely dependent upon the actions that each side takes - which is absolutely realistic of course – because the US are coming in to fight Germany in Europe rather than on America’s doorstep if they were to win the war. Brilliant! Germany seizing Denmark is good for game reasons as stated above – but there is a cost in terms of earlier US involvement – as there is for every aggressive act.

As for trying to make sense of the rules, think about history. How much sense does some of WWII make? Why didn’t Hitler read a history book? I know, says Hitler, I’ll (Napoleon) go after the Soviet Union (Russia) before defeating the Commonwealth (British) and while there is still a theatre open in North Africa (Spain) that allows the small Commonwealth Army (British Army) to drain my limited resources. Yep, all he had to do was learn from Napoleon…[;)]

While we are at it, and the subject of plausibility, if Gamelin had had his way, Allied bombers would have bombed Soviet oilfields in the Caucasus in 1939/40! If Churchill had had his way, the Allies would have effectively invaded a neutral Norway and then occupied part of neutral Sweden!

If some of the rules really irritate, I guess you can always employ house rules to stop certain invasions.

[brian brian]

Norway could have easily ended up in the Axis camp but for a decision by ... Adolf Hitler. Allied troops and mine-layers were already assembling in Scottish ports for an Allied 'intervention' when Hitler's troops landed first, though Hitler had no knowledge of that, only a fear of it.

Days of Decision is definitely the game to explore some of these questions. A game without a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is definitely possible, among many other alternatives. Russia does not have to do the Purge, for just one example. Even with that, taking charge of a 1930s Major Power at some point before the Axis alliance was formed and allowing anything to happen diplomatically would simply have to be a different game altogether, starting first with - what would be the "victory" conditions? Uncoupling countries from the results of their rulers' ideology is far beyond the scope of this game, and few would be interested in doing that.

But we aren't playing a power struggle game amongst African kingdoms of the 15th century that few know anything about. We all know the results and details of WWII, that is an inescapable part of historical gaming. We know how powerful a Panzer division proved to be, which was an unknown in 1939.

I would not say anyone in Germany would view many Balkan entanglements as a possible dreaded two-front war. Somewhat the opposite actually; German decisions were more driven by a desire to pre-empt an extra front there, and more like sealing a flank. And as it proved, Yugoslavia collapsed in a week with barely 500 German casualties.

There is a mechanism in the game to constrain the Germans and Russians in what choices they can make - the rules for breaking the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Even dictators had limits on what they could decide. Hitler maximized his commitment to the decision for the most part, stuffing Poland with troops and doing well in his relations with his General Staff (good chits); Stalin dithered some, with most of his troops forward but a good amount of troops still in Siberia and the Kiev Military District and mysterious relations with his Generals after the Purge (bad chits perhaps). But many players don't like that rule. They want to game ... let's see what these Panzers can do for me.

The game has to be able to handle the results of alternative decision making, and on a much bigger scope than an operational game, where it is easy to discover what would have happened if the historical courier on his way to order the left wing to advance immediately hadn't broken his horse's leg crossing a stream during the actual battle. WiF has to handle a whole lot of varying decisions at varying points in the game, simultaneously, and I think it handles that very well.

And if Germany declares war on Poland, Yugoslavia, AND some of the Low Countries in the fall of 1939, they could quite easily bog down in any or all of the 3 areas. The game lets you find out.

[warspite1]

Double Post

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Norway could have easily ended up in the Axis camp but for a decision by ... Adolf Hitler. Allied troops and mine-layers were already assembling in Scottish ports for an Allied 'intervention' when Hitler's troops landed first, though Hitler had no knowledge of that, only a fear of it.

warspite1

Yes, as per my last paragraph. For all his faults as a war leader, Chamberlain was a sensible restraining voice on that occasion... but the point of it is - what is plausible and what is not is not always clear-cut, and that's without the added complication of what becomes plausible had something else happened.

[Hokum]

While I do not expect an exact replica of WWII in a game, I do expect if ahistorical behavior that is plasible, then every choice from the historical record ahould be allowed to be changed, with the approriate pros and cons applied of course. As an example, If Germany had the chops to attack three different areas at the same time in '39, then why sign the MR pact at all? So get a trade treaty which is much easier to break. Or agree to help Russia to go after the Middle East, etc. This is no more far fetched than Germany attacking three fronts in '39. But the later is ok but the other is not? It just does not make sense to me.

The beauty of the board game is that you can have lots of house rules dealing with those "Dammit Turner, it just doesn't make sense!" situation. For example, we had an house rule where Belgium would let the allies move in the country if Germany dowed the Netherlands. But well... limiting options just isn't as fun, and it was a game designed to be fun.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

But that is the point. Why let Germany overcome its historical fears of a two front war by attacking France, Poland, AND Yugoslavia but yet tie the Germans down to the MR pact, forcing a Russo-German war in 1942 or earlier, etc. What about letting Italy stay neutral versus the Allies or Italy declaring war, etc. Why force the US into the war at all? After France, what if Germany made no further aggression and Japan appeased the US somehow? So in some areas of the game ahistorical behavior is encouraged while in others historical things are fixed and cannot be changed. If you can change A then you should be able to change B too.

The game seems to allow flexibility in the things that most likely will not impact the overall course of the war, but the major things that could really make a difference forces the player to follow the WWII script with minor variations. Germany MUST fight Russia, US MUST enter the war, etc. Just seems to be throwing some morsels for the Axis to make up for the pounding that they will get later because nothing they do with this ahistorical behavior is going to change that [:(].

While I do not expect an exact replica of WWII in a game, I do expect if ahistorical behavior that is plausible, then every choice from the historical record should be allowed to be changed, with the appropriate pros and cons applied of course. As an example, If Germany had the chops to attack three different areas at the same time in '39, then why sign the MR pact at all? So get a trade treaty that is much easier to break. Or agree to help Russia to go after the Middle East, etc. This is no more far-fetched than Germany attacking three fronts in '39. But the later is ok but the other is not? It just does not make sense to me.

The only things required to occur in the Global War scenario are:
Sep/Oct 1939 The Axis are the first players and Germany must make a DoW on Poland.
Sep/Oct 1939 The Allies are the second players and the Commonwealth and France must make a DoW on Germany.
The Trade agreements are in effect.
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (signed on August 23, 1939) is in effect. Which established spheres of influence for Germany and the USSR in Central Europe.

After that it is all at the Allied and Axis players discression as to what options they choose. This is when the true course of the game begins to unfold.



As for the USSR going after the Middle east that has been discussed and in 1939 Persia is not that hard for the USSR to take out. I worked that one out a long time ago.

The Allies stopping the Japanese from taking Saudi Arabia is one that is hard to do.

[Numdydar]

Thanks for the thoughts everyone.

Like I said there were political considerations in RL that effected the behaviors of the major powers in the war. Some of these behaviors were set long before the war started. While others were decided just before war occured, like the MR pact and the Allies garrentee of Poland. So I am just trying to understand why some ahidtorical behavior is acceptable while other behavior has to follow the historical pattern. It does seem that DoD will help in that regard, just like HoI III allows similar changes since you can start in 1936.

The point I was trying to make (and may not be too successful lol) is that if ahistorical behavior is allowed that is too far from historical plasuability for September 1939 then why not allow the full range of ahistorical behavior than just a few parts? It just seems that a lot of the historical pros and cons of doing things too differently were not addressed, like the Allies delcaring on Belgium versus Germany. Nothing in the game will prevent this other than a small chance of a delay in US entry. This seems like just a small price to pay for such a huge deviation from history. Yet the US will enter the war no matter what the Axis do. So if the Allies can deviate this far from historical considerations with such a small cost, should there not be some way to prevent US entry by the Axis?

I hope this makes things clearier [:)]

[Centuur]

A full turn delay of US entry in the war might mean the difference between loosing or winning...

I have seen the Axis loosing the objective cities in the last turn of the game. So it really differs, how US entry is evolving. Are you willing to take the risk of DoW'ing Belgium with the Allies and upset the US entry? Or not?

I think it is exactly the way US entry is shaped, that make the game as good as it is, together with the Nazi-Soviet pact. Now, to some remarks about Belgium and the Netherlands...

Would the Belgians align to the Allies if the Netherlands was DoW'ed on by Germany, or would in that case German diplomacy make sure that the Belgians could get a chunk of the Netherlands too (don't forget that in the 1920's it looked like that the Netherlands and Belgium would go to war over the area south of the waterway to Antwerp).

It is difficult to assess what would be the downside of another action taken than the action which was taken historically. Maybe the Belgians would have invited the Germans in, if they could get the Dutch Province of Zeeland in return for this...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Thanks for the thoughts everyone.

Like I said there were political considerations in RL that effected the behaviors of the major powers in the war. Some of these behaviors were set long before the war started. While others were decided just before war occured, like the MR pact and the Allies garrentee of Poland. So I am just trying to understand why some ahidtorical behavior is acceptable while other behavior has to follow the historical pattern. It does seem that DoD will help in that regard, just like HoI III allows similar changes since you can start in 1936.

The point I was trying to make (and may not be too successful lol) is that if ahistorical behavior is allowed that is too far from historical plasuability for September 1939 then why not allow the full range of ahistorical behavior than just a few parts? It just seems that a lot of the historical pros and cons of doing things too differently were not addressed, like the Allies delcaring on Belgium versus Germany. Nothing in the game will prevent this other than a small chance of a delay in US entry. This seems like just a small price to pay for such a huge deviation from history. Yet the US will enter the war no matter what the Axis do. So if the Allies can deviate this far from historical considerations with such a small cost, should there not be some way to prevent US entry by the Axis?

I hope this makes things clearier [:)]

warspite1

Apologies too from me if I have not made myself clear, but I thought I answered the question! I'll try again:

So I am just trying to understand why some ahidtorical behavior is acceptable while other behavior has to follow the historical pattern.

The historical behaviour in 1939 is required to make a World War II game that does not border on fantasy - the latter is what DoD is for. A framework is therefore needed to stop that happening.

if ahistorical behavior is allowed that is too far from historical plasuability for September 1939 then why not allow the full range of ahistorical behavior than just a few parts?

Because this is what the game is about. ADG give each player an outline of WWII - then as the German, Commonwealth, French, American player or whoever, you have to go out and beat your opponents. Eggs will get broken in this omelette, but the omelette will be different at the end - not same old, same old.... its the replayability/fun factor.


As I said in my post, there is stuff that came close to happening that the average person in the street would not believe; Norway/Sweden being prime examples. Given we know how things ended up, the thought of the British and French fighting the Soviets seems preposterous, but it was not far off happening.

As for Belgium. Given a more ruthless and clued up French commander, could a march into Belgium be totally ruled out? Maybe, but probably not - the Americans would not have been amused that's for certain.

But we know that the Belgians were so scared of risking their neutral status they would not even hold defence planning talks with Allies for fear of upsetting the Germans. Maybe a frustrated Gamelin would think holding the line in Belgium is better than France - with or without Belgian approval!

I come back again too to how making only "plausible" actions allowable would quadruple the rule book. E.g. Germany cannot invade Denmark unless x,y, or z happens, or r, s or t has happened and one of x.y or Z and only if its after 1943 when x and s no longer apply - unless Germany owns u or v [;)][X(]

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So if the Allies can deviate this far from historical considerations with such a small cost, should there not be some way to prevent US entry by the Axis?

simply put, - No. One shouldn't forget the thoroughly evil ideologies at work in WWII. Both the Germans and the Japanese felt themselves superior to their neighbors. This is perfectly normal on say the soccer pitch. But the Axis countries took this to the level of declaring they could expand their political control of areas of land via extreme violence and outright extermination of the inhabitants, who were judged to be less human than the Germans or Japanese, and not entitled to further life and using of resources that the Germans and Japanese wanted for themselves. You can't just whisk that under the rug and play a game based on let's-pretend-the-Axis-were-actually-nice-guys-after-all. Just, NO.

The underlying ideology at work in the Axis countries would continue to expose itself until the USA realized it had no choice but to act.

A great question of history is what if Hitler had left the new states of Central Europe alone enough that the West hadn't drawn a line on German expansion and guaranteed the right of Poland to exist. i.e. he had just pointed the Panzers east in the fall of 39 and never stopped. I don't think it is an answerable one for two reasons. Nazi ideology would not allow them to leave any German speaking population to exist independently....so they were going to irrevocably demand large areas controlled by the Czechs and Poles one way or another. And the West felt these states had a right to exist independently after centuries of being parts of various empires.

But let's say Hitler maneuvered more deftly and did not bring war with the West down upon his head in 1939. I don't think he could have invaded the Soviet Union before 1941. Only his string of diplomatic and military victories over a steady stream of increasingly larger states gave him the internal political capital to proceed, as the Army only slowly became his instrument with 100% loyalty. But staying counter-factual, let's say he did end up at war with the Russians and not the West. This is something that can be explored in a 3-sided, 1936-1950 game of Days of Decision by the way. I think in real life, the true horrors of the Nazis would have become known to the West, and they would have had no choice but to reluctantly put aside their own very real reluctances to go back to war a mere 20some years after a previous cataclysmic war. There was no love lost between them and the Soviets and they considered war with them if necessary. But the French had a relationship of a more realpolitik type with the Russians in the more classic enemy-of-my-enemy sort. They would not have just sat still while Germany grew so powerful it could then start dictating things to their neighbors in western Europe. In a 3-sided game of such, I think that is the conclusion the side not under attack by the Axis reaches every time. Let either of the other two powers become too successful, and you risk your own future.



As for Allied DOWs being unrealistic, I disagree. The UK (not the Commonwealth) came within perhaps a week of going to war with Norway. The CW also basically invaded and conquered Iraq, and in conjunction with the Russians, invaded and conquered Persia during the war, all before Pearl Harbor. A pre-emptive move into Belgium in 39/40 was certainly on the table as well, though that trigger was not pulled.

[paulderynck]

The design is faithful to the boardgame. With respect, if you want "anything goes" then maybe HOI is a better choice.

I have seen the US not be able to get into the war until ND42. I have seen Germany do a "Sitzkreig" strategy and try to maintain the garrison such that the Soviets can't attack her until 1944 !

The Axis can try widely varying strategies that are quite plausible historically. Sea Lion, Close the Med, Italy maintains neutrality, Japan goes North, Japan concentrates on China only, Japan invades Saudi Arabia and Persia, etc. Likewise the Allied side can be very aggressive or very passive.

[Numdydar]

I agree that the political nature of the Axis would more than likely been exposed and 'something must be done' took over the Allies. But we are discussing a game that, like all the rest, ignore that part as we just want to concentrate on the what if military versus the what if political.

Also since I have never played WiF until now, I was definately not aware of the US being delayed so long, Germany waiting on Russia, etc. So this does put things in a better light than I first thought.

Also very ture Warsprite is that restricting actions would have increased the complexity of the board game to where it might actually be unplayable.

After reading some of the startegies, I just wanted complete and utter freedom to do anything I wanted versus just some things. So no MR pact, keeping the US pacificed, etc. But as I said before, the game is the way it is and before I continue to beat this dead horse [:)], I should just play the game a few times first lol.

Thanks again for all the responses very thoughtful and appriciated [:)]

[Dabrion]

There is an interesting middleground in between DOD and WiF with the PoliF extension. It allows you to accumulate political points, that can be converted into influence levels with the minors countries on a scale from 0-15 (15 being alignment). There is a cost matrix so that some countries are easier/harder to influence for some MP. We almost always play it. You produce political points with bp, so that you can basically choose if you want to charm or batter into submission

[SerbiaStrong]

REMOVE KEBAB remove kebab
you are worst turk. you are the turk idiot you are the turk smell. return to croatioa. to our croatia cousins you may come our contry. you may live in the zoo….ahahahaha ,bosnia we will never forgeve you. cetnik rascal FUck but fuck asshole turk stink bosnia sqhipere shqipare..turk genocide best day of my life. take a bath of dead turk..ahahahahahBOSNIA WE WILL GET YOU!! do not forget ww2 .albiania we kill the king , albania return to your precious mongolia….hahahahaha idiot turk and bosnian smell so bad..wow i can smell it. REMOVE KEBAB FROM THE PREMISES. you will get caught. russia+usa+croatia+slovak=kill bosnia…you will ww2/ tupac alive in serbia, tupac making album of serbia . fast rap tupac serbia. we are rich and have gold now hahahaha ha because of tupac… you are ppoor stink turk… you live in a hovel hahahaha, you live in a yurt

tupac alive numbr one #1 in serbia ….fuck the croatia ,..FUCKk ashol turks no good i spit in the mouth eye of ur flag and contry. 2pac aliv and real strong wizard kill all the turk farm aminal with rap magic now we the serba rule .ape of the zoo presidant georg bush fukc the great satan and lay egg this egg hatch and bosnia wa;s born. stupid baby form the eggn give bak our clay we will crush u lik a skull of pig. serbia greattst countrey