"Phoney Wars" and diplomacy
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 6:31 pm
As I have outlined earlier, I feel that it is important to have a "no Phoney wars" house rule, in place when playing GD 1938. Especially if one player is playing more than 1 nation.
Chuck has come up with a good example of a phoney war: The USSR declaring war on USA on the first turn of the game, with the intent of breaking US isolationism, and no intent on following through on the course of war. This is a "phoney war", as it would not be fought in ernest. However, if the USSR really had an itch in the late game, to conquer some of the territory that the USA had liberated, then a war between USA and USSR would be perfectly legal.
Hence, it is hard to predetermine what a "phoney war" is just by looking at the nations participating.
An oft tried thing, most often out of error than really ill will I feel, is when a nation, say Germany, declares war on another nation, say Yugoslavia, and a country that would otherwise be a friend of Germany, gets control of said country. Say Italy. For it not to be a phoney war, Italy would have to fight Germany, in earnest. Often however what happens is this, peace on the very next turn. And the result is a country that has been taken over, cheaply, with no swords play.
I think this often happens cause people do not look at who the best friend of said country is. When they then declare war, it will result in a shock, when they see it is a friend they are now at war with. The peace, then is something that was not thought out, but a result of not knowing or not really taking the time to look who is the best friend of the country you are attacking.
The current system is made to allow maximum flexibility. Honestly I have yet to see Italy and Germany go to war for real, but it COULD happen. Thus I am inclined not to fix the system, and instead have players reminded that there is this house rule.
I COULD put it in the briefing, or even more prominent, as a pop-up on the first turn of the game... What are your feelings, if you played the scenario?
Chuck has come up with a good example of a phoney war: The USSR declaring war on USA on the first turn of the game, with the intent of breaking US isolationism, and no intent on following through on the course of war. This is a "phoney war", as it would not be fought in ernest. However, if the USSR really had an itch in the late game, to conquer some of the territory that the USA had liberated, then a war between USA and USSR would be perfectly legal.
Hence, it is hard to predetermine what a "phoney war" is just by looking at the nations participating.
An oft tried thing, most often out of error than really ill will I feel, is when a nation, say Germany, declares war on another nation, say Yugoslavia, and a country that would otherwise be a friend of Germany, gets control of said country. Say Italy. For it not to be a phoney war, Italy would have to fight Germany, in earnest. Often however what happens is this, peace on the very next turn. And the result is a country that has been taken over, cheaply, with no swords play.
I think this often happens cause people do not look at who the best friend of said country is. When they then declare war, it will result in a shock, when they see it is a friend they are now at war with. The peace, then is something that was not thought out, but a result of not knowing or not really taking the time to look who is the best friend of the country you are attacking.
The current system is made to allow maximum flexibility. Honestly I have yet to see Italy and Germany go to war for real, but it COULD happen. Thus I am inclined not to fix the system, and instead have players reminded that there is this house rule.
I COULD put it in the briefing, or even more prominent, as a pop-up on the first turn of the game... What are your feelings, if you played the scenario?