GD1938 Game 25 old VC

[RufusTFirefly]

Game 25 started. Version GD1938 v221y, with players requested to choose old (historical) victory conditions.

Germany, Italy, Japan: RufusTFirefly
USSR: tortugapower
GB, France, USA, China: cpdeyoung

Played the first turn for Axis and Japan.

Axis will have to fight in east and west. As USA is too powerful, I expect Axis and Japan to loose the war. My aim is to survive til the end of 1944, maybe longer. Axis only will have a chance to survive that long if it is able to increase its power quickly in the beginning and take a lot of cities to have a high output of units. This might give Axis the strength to hold fronts for some time before being outnumbered by the extremly high production capacity of USA and the increasing power of SU.

So I have decided to try to get much as possible before GB and France become too powerful and stop the advance of Axis. France has a lot of units. Too many in my eyes. It will slow down German advance. But this advance is vital. Being stopped in the Pyrennees, like it happened in another game, where Ironduke managed to hold front, would cause an early defeat of Axis. I have to look for a strategy that enables me to defeat France quickly.

Therefore I already started war and took Luxembourg. First attacks on Maginot line have been performed by artillery and air force. In the east Axis declared war on Lithuania and took Klaipeda. First artillery and air attacks on Vilnius were ordered. Vilnius might fall next turn.

Italy stays neutral at first turn.

It is too early to talk about Japan, that is at war with China. Dont want to give to much information here. But report will follow.

[cpdeyoung]

10 January 1938
French Command

January 1938, and somehow France is at war with Germany. The Germans brutally attacked two small nations, Lithuania and Luxembourg. The French retook Luxembourg, with French cavalry marching in fine order through the Duchy, with no Germans to be found. The city appeared to be a trap, so the cavalry troop was ordered to break up into small bands and train partizans. Poor Lithuania is too far for French troops to reach, but advisors are working with the Lithuanian troops in Kaunas.

What can the Germans be thinking? Why have a war at all? There was no need to rush into bloody warfare. In any case the French intend to defeat the Germans.

The Maginot has been reinforced. Troops are being rushed to the borders of Belgium and the Netherlands in case the Germans exercise their propensity for attacking small neutral countries again. France hopes Stalin will see the attack on Lithuania as an assault on the Soviet Union. If the whole world arose against the aggressor Hitler would be quickly be put in his place. France hopes Mussolini takes a vigorous stance against the folly of this aggressive foray.

[cpdeyoung]

10 January 1938
British Command

Germany has attacked France. We have offered our support, short of warfare. Public opinion is not ready for war now, and we hope to provide diplomatic services to end this conflict.

If Germany attacks one of the countries we have treaty obligations to - we will go to war.

The war on the continent has found us unprepared. We have heard the French Navy sunk a couple of U-boats in the Channel. We do not want submarine warfare so close to home. This war must end and soon.

[tortugapower]

January, 1938.

Russian diplomats have expressed their deep surprise at the German violation of sovereign borders; however, despite condemning the actions, an internally-focused leadership prefers not to rush to any decisions on the "right or wrong" of the developing situation.

A rather tentative Stalin would like to begin discussions with the British and Americans regarding international intentions to this aggressive action. There are concerns of strained relations after a recent purge of British influence from the ranks.

There has been little movement on the front, despite a very aggressive move on Lithuania, which has long been under Stalin's gaze. An emissary shall be sent to the Germans; perhaps a quid-pro-quo can be setup to satisfy all parties.



-----
"Out-of-character" questions:

1) PACIFIC THEATER & JAPAN.
I read the house rule that Japan and Russia can't go to war. I have considered withdrawing some of the forces from the Pacific, as it seems impossible that they could be of any use there. I prefer to leave some soldiers there for roleplaying and to satisfy my own sense of realism. My question: what are both your objective thoughts on this, is it fair for me to pull out some soldiers?

Alternatively, instead of pulling them out, I saw Chuck mention that Russian forces might covertly be sent to aid the Chinese ... how would this work within the game, and is this considered fair play? Rufus may have an opinion, I imagine [;)]

2) WINTER WAR.
I don't know how to go to war with Finland without going to war with the USA. I was thinking of beginning the roleplay "Stalin contacts FDR" stuff to feel out how the Americans feel about this, but really this is all so far-fetched from history (that the Americans would care about Finland) that I don't know what actually to do. Same kind of question: what are both your thoughts about Finland? If I go to war, I imagine it could disrupt the U.S. isolationism, and that could unbalance the game...

3) DIPLOMACY.
What's the usual manner of undertaking diplomacy. Messaging in-game can only happen at the beginning of your turn, so that would kill a lot of secret arrangements or at least make the matter a lot more complicated. Do players usually message on this forum or just write in the AAR (here) to hint at their intentions?

(More questions to come, and I'll continue the news from Russia as soon as I know what's fair play.)

[tortugapower]

One other quick question: do either of you have concerns if I play out the AAR on my YouTube channel, recording my turns? Of course, I'd ask that you not watch them, at least until the series finishes.

[cpdeyoung]

No problem at all. I will not look till you tell me I can.

1. Yes you can pull some out, but if you pull out too many then I would not say Rufus would be wrong to attack the USSR with Japan. These house rules are to enhance the simulation. As soon as they go the other way we can abandon them. Fair enough guys?

2 . The USA has already used its turn one diplomatic points to influence Finland. The Winter War is hard to simulate in GD1938 as some major will have to play the Finns at war. Finland cannot be the nation they were after the Winter War ends as they will have been defeated, conquered. This is a quirk of ATG, and Ernie would have to do the Winter War with a card, which would be fun if he has time to do it. Finland is useless to the USA, but it can build PP. Sorry.

3. The in-game message is the usual mechanism for diplomatic dialog, but with such a small set of players we could try other means. I live in South Carolina, Rufus is in Germany, and I do not know your location but already we have time zone issues. Still email would probably work.

Chuck

[cpdeyoung]

10 January 1938
USA National Command

The Europeans have found their way to another war. They can fight it without the USA!

We have imposed a moral embargo on Japanese oil purchase due to their war with China. Public opinion is very unhappy with Germany for starting the war, but this nation is not ready for intervention.

President Roosevelt will do what he can to aid France, but it can not be much.

[cpdeyoung]

10 January 1938
China Joint Command

The Japanese have intensified their war making.

We are inflicting losses, but taking many at the same time. The war in Europe may draw attention from our struggle.

[ernieschwitz]

2 . The USA has already used its turn one diplomatic points to influence Finland. The Winter War is hard to simulate in GD1938 as some major will have to play the Finns at war. Finland cannot be the nation they were after the Winter War ends as they will have been defeated, conquered. This is a quirk of ATG, and Ernie would have to do the Winter War with a card, which would be fun if he has time to do it. Finland is useless to the USA, but it can build PP. Sorry.

Actually you could discord Finland in and USA would suffer. If successful. You could use all of your nations to do this, and you might get another major to be Finlands protector. I have no idea how I would model the Winter war. It would require some way a major could deny helping a minor under its protection, and that would mean I'd have to have an AI run it, at some point, before the Major took over, if they wanted to, and if not make the AI play it. But if I did that, one the major RAM saving points, the non-use of AI and many regimes would be gone... and it may cause all sorts of crashes as ATG runs out of allocated memory. Sorry.

[ernieschwitz]

Alternatively, instead of pulling them out, I saw Chuck mention that Russian forces might covertly be sent to aid the Chinese ... how would this work within the game, and is this considered fair play? Rufus may have an opinion, I imagine

Covertly is the wrong word for this. But how it's done is like this. The USSR allies with China, and then sends Soviet troops into China, and when they are near the frontline, perhaps before, they "Gift them" to China. Hence they seem Chinese to you, save one feature, they are still Russian peopled.

[ironduke1955]

And of course once the USA has influenced Finland and the USSR declares war on the USA, US neutrality is broken in 1938 as it was in game 23 with the same gambit, and of course the USSR then makes peace with the US, and the US hands Finland over to the USSR. And now the USA is a free agent none of this is in keeping with the spirit of GD1938 where none of the above would have washed with the US public of the period, who would have impeached any president that used such a device to get them into a war, and would still have been unwilling to get involved in any other global conflicts.

[cpdeyoung]

@Ironduke1955,

1. I did not modify GD1938 to make the USA the most favored nation in Finland.

2. Germany could have taken the initiative in game 23 and "Finland" post German conquest would have been an Axis threat on Soviet borders. I did not choose which nation got the Finnish territory, the USSR and the German player did.

3. The "spirit" of GD1938 in new victory condition games is all over the place. Neither nation had to bring the USA into the war. One chose to, good, I hoped and schemed that one would. I played this gambit because I thought it would work.

4. The USA does NOT expect the USSR to attack the USA in Game 25. It is not in the "spirit" of the old VC game we are playing in Game 25. I said the USA wanted some PP from Finland and that is what I am there for. It will also give me a "bargaining chip" with the USSR later. Your interpretation of my motives is interesting but incorrect. This is Game 25, not 23.

5. In Game 23 Great Britain attacked the Germans. Germany "gave" all European assets she obtained by conquest to Japan, nothing like this was really possible. Japan attacked the Western Powers which opened a theater in Argentina, and before 1940! ... You are chiding me for tempting you or Larry to grab Finland, and you are saying it is not in the spirit of GD1938. There is a big difference between a New and Old VC game. You described a wild game you participated in with a different group. Game 23 is very mild in comparison, and the USA play is very much in keeping with a new VC game. Your liking the results was not very important in my calculus - you are playing your nation your way - I will play mine as I see best.

For my two fellow game 25 players : Historically the USA had a internal struggle with isolationism which made supporting the British difficult. My USA is fully bound by this restriction, and I will spend the 60 PPs to reduce isolationist sentiment as needed. If Rufus decides to attack the USA it will "simplify" matters, but I expect him to only do so if it is in his interest. TotrtugaPower should not have any thoughts of attacking the USA, or helping the USA into the war.

[cpdeyoung]

@Ernie,

When I mentioned a card for the Winter war it would be an event purchased by the Soviets. The war not be fought is ATG style, but a result would be computed based on the Soviet presence on the border with Finland. Losses would be determined by your code, and hexes given or taken be determined by the code too. Perhaps you could let the Soviets initiate the war, check each turn for Soviet strength, compute some "combat result" each turn and "apply" it to forces "engaged". When a trigger point for the Finns or USSR was met the war would end, and borders would be rearranged.

Other cards might allow "interested" nations to send "troops, supplies, weapons, etc."

What do you think?

Chuck

[ernieschwitz]

My first thought is: Sounds like alot of coding. My second thought is, that it is not really in the spirit of things that i like. I like that all nations basically can do the same things, with a twist maybe. Making a special event for Russia, sort of removes that from the equation... But I can always think it over...

[ironduke1955]

1) Never implied that you did and as Finland joined the axis eventually, I am not sure why the Finnish start the game favouring the USA, but you must as the USA actively expend influence to win the Finnish over to the US camp, not with the intention of having Finland as part of the western alliance, but for the sole purpose of sacrificing Finland to the Soviets considering the historical context this is a fairly perfidious act.

2) I assume by taking the initiative you mean declaring war on the USA in 1938, well apart from that being a insane option from a German point of view, the USA I am sure would fight the Germans along with any allies it could glean, as opposed to surrendering the Finish Army to the Soviets. And even if the same arrangement could be made we have the breaking of the neutrality of the USA a device put in place for a specific reason.

3) Game 23 of GD1938 has followed a fairly traditional pattern Germany Italy and Japan have lined up against the UK and France, in the case of Germany and Italy because they were attacked by the UK and France who chose to start the war preemptively. The only difference is as stated that the USA are now free to act as they wish from 1938 onwards.

4) If that is the case then I am pleased I only hope that if the USSR does attack Finland now a US minor ally that the war will be long and protracted and not a phoney war.

5) this statement is flat wrong Germany built huge forces on the Dutch border and intimidated Holland into surrender, you will note the term surrender, Holland was never a German minor ally. And as a war started by the British has put thousands of miles of hostile water between Germany and these far flung colonies giving them to a ally Japan, was a elegant solution and perfectly logical in a historical context.

Point is the USA using political influence to lure a European minor power to become a minor ally of the USA. With sole intention of sacrificing that minor power, to obtain a break in US neutrality is so clearly anachronistic and out of the normal channel of diplomacy for the period and comes under the category of wars of convenience that we already have a house rule to prevent.

[cpdeyoung]

1. In Game 23 we are playing "Risk". No historical context at all.

2. We did not surrender the Finish Army to the Soviets. Germany and the USSR were clearly offered a chance to enter an UNDEFENDED Finland. Either of you could have taken the opportunity. It would not have been any more insane for you to have taken it than for you to let the Soviets take it. Either way the "Risk" nation that looks like the USA would be in the war.

3. The USA was attacked by Japan. It is not at war with you, and we may be allies eventually. Old habits die hard, and I expect that accounts for the pattern in Game 23.

4.

If that is the case

There isn't really a question. The actual players of game 25 signed on for a game closer to actual WW2 - not "Risk".

5. No, we disagree. Germany did not control the Dutch overseas possessions after conquest and they would have not done so after "surrender". The idea of these possessions submitting to Japanese rule because Germany wanted them to do so is in no way likely. Do you really believe the European residents of these colonies would have gone into Japanese control willingly. I do not want to discuss the un-politically correct reasons, but your "elegant", "perfectly logical" play was "so clearly anachronistic" as anything else we are discussing.

Your opinions are noted, and in my opinion you think you have played well, and in the spirit of the game. I think I have done so.

I like what I did. You like what you did.

Chuck

PS: This thread is for Game 25. I apologize to my two fellow players for getting into topics best addressed in other threads.

[cpdeyoung]

@Ernie,

Yes, indeed it would be a lot of work. I just wanted to clarify what I was thinking of.

GD1938 is your (Ernie and Bombur) baby and you are well aware of how grateful I am for all your hard work. You have put together a wonderful game that I love to play.

With "Strategic Command 3" coming out I am looking at what they do with cards a bit. On that subject, I think your simulation of the whole world war is very comparable to what they have done with Europe, only your wonderful product comes free with ATG! ATG is an incredible bargain, becoming more so as new "user derived" content enriches it. More power to all our modders and developers.

Chuck

[ironduke1955]

1) In Game 23 we have Germany Japan and Italy in a Axis against, at the moment UK France and the US with the Soviets in the wings. So My memory of Risk somewhat differs from yours but that sounds something like the 2nd World War. Except of course the US seems to have escaped the constraints of neutrality.

2) With respect when you say enter undefended, that still requires a DOW on the USA releasing the US from neutrality. In the case of the Soviets it was a faux war, such wars are against house rules.

3) That may well be the case, after all Germany did not start the war.

4)I refer you to 1) game 23 is a lot closer to the actual sides of WW2 then some of the previous games of GD1938 the end game may differ, but at least it will be a war to the bitter end, rather than one nation achieving a fairly shallow geographic victory, and everyone else packing up and going home in 1942.

5) There is a enormous difference between Germany giving away two colonial colonies that it has obtained due to Dutch surrender, and the USA circumventing its neutrality with a false war against another major power. Unless you feel that the USA should not be burdened with neutrality and I am quite happy to consider a game without such constraints, the Politics have been fun in GD1938 but if you were honest then you would admit that it has always been the players that have dictated the twists and turns in game, the few scripted events having little or no impact on the course of some games, there are a myriad of events that made up WW2 its futile to script a game to get a re run where is the fun in that.

[cpdeyoung]

See my post in the game 23 thread. This is a Game 25 thread.

Chuck

[tortugapower]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

For my two fellow game 25 players : Historically the USA had a internal struggle with isolationism which made supporting the British difficult. My USA is fully bound by this restriction, and I will spend the 60 PPs to reduce isolationist sentiment as needed. If Rufus decides to attack the USA it will "simplify" matters, but I expect him to only do so if it is in his interest. TotrtugaPower should not have any thoughts of attacking the USA, or helping the USA into the war.

Am I to interpret this as meaning that Finland is forbidden from me? I'm guessing I'm interpreting this incorrectly, as it's pretty far from historical for the Russians to be forbidden from Finland. Do you mean instead that someone else should assume control of Finland (e.g. Britain?). Perhaps a gentleman's agreement that whoever else gets diplomatic alliance with Finland, they will fight 100% against Russia should an invasion occur, but not treat it as an act of war between the majors? Open to thoughts on this. [edited for tone and clarification]

As a suggestion for ernie, do you think it's worth putting Finland under Germany's influence at game start? Although that's not necessarily the historical state of diplomacy in 1938, it better reflects the reality of what would happen if Finland were actually attacked.