Japan DOW Rhodesia and its aftermath

[Cpuncher]

In my recent game, my opponent—Japan—DOW on Rhodesia in late 1940 (though this could conceivably be done even earlier), promptly invaded Australia, and conquered it with relative ease in just a couple of turns. He then went on to capture most of the British holdings in the Pacific.

Apparently, there was no penalty for declaring war on Rhodesia. Realistically, no one—not even Japan—would care about Rhodesia at this stage of the war. But in the game, it serves as a loophole for Japan to avoid the usual penalty for declaring war on the Western Allies.

I wonder if a rule could be added to prevent players from declaring war on an already-mobilized minor (they can't diplo them anyway)—limiting DOW to their parent major instead. I understand that in real history, such actions are possible, but in-game, the effect is the same as declaring war on the major. The only real purpose is to avoid or reduce diplomatic penalties. Instead of writing scripts for every possible country, a simple rule like this would save players the effort of testing which minor yields the least penalty.

The second issue is that Australia is far too easy to conquer. In my experience playing against competent opponents, unless the Axis seriously messes up, Australia is almost always taken—and fairly quickly too—as both Canberra and Melbourne are near the coast and easily reachable. Historically, Australia considered various contingency plans, including relocating inland to continue resistance. They mostly expected Japan to invade from the north. I imagine any Aussie would laugh at the idea that their entire nation would surrender just because Canberra and Melbourne fell.

Countries surrender when they lack strategic depth to continue the fight. Australia is a huge place. I’d suggest adding several more alternate capital locations, including some deep inland. Australia should only surrender when the majority of the country is under enemy control—similar to the China mechanic—or unless the UK itself has surrendered.

There are other issues as well, the most significant being the UK navy still can’t show aggression against Japan (e.g., by crossing the hashed line), or else the U.S. will demobilize hugely. That’s right—Japan has effectively declared war on the UK, taken Hong Kong, Australia, Port Moresby, Kukum, and is about to take Singapore—all of which should raise serious alarm for the U.S.—but sadly, there’s no reaction (other than to Fiji). Yet, but if the UK moves its navy remotely close to Japan (a country they are at war with), the U.S. gets hugely upset.

[ThunderLizard11]

This should be fixed.

[Patrat]

Agreed, it needs to be fixed.

However , I disagree that Australia would surrender if the UK surrendered. They would look to the USA for assistance if the UK surrenders. In real life, after the Singapore fiasco, the Australian prime minister John Curtain said in a rado broadcast, that Australia should look to the USA and not rely solely on Britain.

[Umeu]

However , I disagree that Australia would surrender if the UK surrendered. They would look to the USA for assistance if the UK surrenders. In real life, after the Singapore fiasco, the Australian prime minister John Curtain said in a rado broadcast, that Australia should look to the USA and not rely solely on Britain.

They essentially already do anyway, since their troops always continue if outside of Australia and UK doesn’t surrender if Britain isles fall.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

The classic "Rhodesia Jap Gambit" !!!!!!!!!!
An oldie, but goldie.

When Exploiters, get exploited.
How fitting, on the week of the Coldplay cheating scandal.
I don't need to bother to ask who's playing.

Take your loss like a Man,
-Legend

[Umeu]

Surprised you didn’t houserule it…

Most of what you say makes sense, but you do present a one-sided case. The issue with many of these rules/fixes/suggestions is that players make many strategical choices to optimise their path to victory that are completely ahistorical and also because they know what each side can or can’t do around what time. They give up huge parts of China or Russia without a fight, send the entire world to fight in France, leave the French coast empty after it surrendered because they know that the UK can’t land anyway. These choices facilitate or make those loopholes possible in the first place. Imo, it’s a bit hypocritical to then complain about it.

Allies often empty the pacific and India in order to attack Axis, and completely focus on the West to win. If it is realistically made harder to conquer Australia, then there should be consequences to leaving it empty, as they were quite scared of being invaded. Historically, relatively few Australians fought in the West in ww2, but in this game, allied player almost always bring all Aussies west or at least into the middle east, navy included. Same for India, which is also a huge place, but often easy to take with para troopers or mobility on your SF because most of the Allies focus on the west. It would be much harder to mount an attack on Australia if allies immediately counter attack Japan after Pearl Harbor.

The fairest would be to include another demarcation line for the UK such as the Japanese and US have to show their turf at sea. It always jars me to see amphibious units off the coast of Burma or whatever, and it’s not considered an act of war. So, If any axis units show up in within this line, there should be serious mobilization consequences, mostly for the US.

I wouldn’t railroad the game more, unless you’d like it to be similar to TRP. If people want to empty Australia or India to fight in Egypt etc, that should be possible. And it should be possible to punish them for it as well. Lots of things in the game are ahistorical or impossible/non-sensical in reality, but they can be countered within the framework of the game. which is more important.

Like, while it’s indeed ahistorical that Australia would fall so easily and surrender just because a political capital fell, it’s not that relevant because Aussie troops just continue to fight anyway if they’re outside of Australia, which most usually are. And Japan can’t defend this position anyway.

Tldr
Fix backdoor DoW loophole
Add UK naval zone of dominion in the Pacific (though Taifun mentioned to me once that the Indian ocean was actually hotly contested, with Japanese naval exercises happening regularly, so idk if this fix would be historical, though imo it would improve the game)
Changing Australian surrender isn’t really necessary. But if it is made harder, then there should be penalties to leaving certain spots empty of units until at war with Japan, similar to Manchukao situation.

[Umeu]

I don't need to bother to ask who's playing.

Who’s playing?

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

It's upto to Player's to decide their House rules.
The entire planet is on tilt, fighting.
Until the Lion lays down with the Lamb.

Rules/Strategies/Reload evolve.
Like the rules to the NBA
ELO is ELO.

-Legend

[BillRunacre]

Is Rhodesia the only loophole in this regard that needs fixing?

A simply fix being to make an Axis declaration of war on the country immediately bring the USA into the war.

[Patrat]

However , I disagree that Australia would surrender if the UK surrendered. They would look to the USA for assistance if the UK surrenders. In real life, after the Singapore fiasco, the Australian prime minister John Curtain said in a rado broadcast, that Australia should look to the USA and not rely solely on Britain.

They essentially already do anyway, since their troops always continue if outside of Australia and UK doesn’t surrender if Britain isles fall.

Even so, I think this loophole should be closed.

I might be mistaken, but didn't you post about there being a difference between ahistorical exploits and gamey exploits.

IMO, this falls under the gamey category.


Note: I have been using the tips you gave me in the other thread, and so far everything is going well for the allies. Its October of 41 and the Germans haven't even reached my lines in Russia. So thanks again for your insights.

While falling back in Russia may be ahistorical, it was also a traditional Russian strategy. Stalin was a fool for not using it from the beginning.

[Umeu]

However , I disagree that Australia would surrender if the UK surrendered. They would look to the USA for assistance if the UK surrenders. In real life, after the Singapore fiasco, the Australian prime minister John Curtain said in a rado broadcast, that Australia should look to the USA and not rely solely on Britain.

They essentially already do anyway, since their troops always continue if outside of Australia and UK doesn’t surrender if Britain isles fall.

Even so, I think this loophole should be closed.

I might be mistaken, but didn't you post about there being a difference between ahistorical exploits and gamey exploits.

IMO, this falls under the gamey category.


Note: I have been using the tips you gave me in the other thread, and so far everything is going well for the allies. Its October of 41 and the Germans haven't even reached my lines in Russia. So thanks again for your insights.

While falling back in Russia may be ahistorical, it was also a traditional Russian strategy. Stalin was a fool for not using it from the beginning.

Yeah I did, and I agree the DoW loophole is gamey and should be closed. But the Australia surrender is a separate issue. And I don’t think it’s a problem, but if you want to change it for historical purposes then you should also address the other ahistorical corners being cut by allies as explained in my post.

And, happy to hear it’s working out for you. I wonder if China can do the same, but I think they don’t have enough income

[Patrat]

I see your point. As you say it's a separate issue from the DOW exploit. Its just that I don't see Australia surrendering under any circumstances barring being almost completely occupied.

If the allies don't defend Australia they deserve to lose it. But Australia surrendering because 2 city's are occupied, is a little too ahistorical for my taste.

Its like saying the USA would surrender if New York and DC were occupied by the Germans. Fat chance of that happening. Same goes for India.

IIRC, the devs have added alternate capitals to other countries before, because they were being conquered to easily.



Yeah China is holding out, but slowly losing ground.

[petedalby]

Is Rhodesia the only loophole in this regard that needs fixing?

A simply fix being to make an Axis declaration of war on the country immediately bring the USA into the war.

If Japan DoW on many countries, there is a mobilisation shift for the USA & USSR. These appear to vary by country? So attacking the DEI has a much more severe penalty than say New Guinea.

Rhodesia, and any other countries which are in a similar position, need to have an appropriate mobilisation penalty to ensure this becomes an unattractive option for Japan - especially so early in a game.

[calcwerc]

Wow, that must be one of the most cheesy strategies i have heard of so far. If the axis had known about it back in the day, they might even have won the war.

[Umeu]

I see your point. As you say it's a separate issue from the DOW exploit. Its just that I don't see Australia surrendering under any circumstances barring being almost completely occupied.

If the allies don't defend Australia they deserve to lose it. But Australia surrendering because 2 city's are occupied, is a little too ahistorical for my taste.

Its like saying the USA would surrender if New York and DC were occupied by the Germans. Fat chance of that happening. Same goes for India.

IIRC, the devs have added alternate capitals to other countries before, because they were being conquered to easily.



Yeah China is holding out, but slowly losing ground.

I'm fine with making those changes, they won't really change much though. The reason to do that move as Axis is not really to knock out Australia, that's just a minor bonus. The main reason is to 1) occupy a victory condition city, 2) stop the convoy to Britain. Neither of these need Australia to surrender. But realistically, while Australia would not surrender when losing the south, it would be a severe blow. They would basically be hard pressed to mount anything other than a guerilla campaign in the interior, which would succeed, but mostly because they know the terrain in a very hostile environment. So perhaps the best way to portray this is by having Australia surrender as it does now, but add more partisan points, which would likely all spawn before Japan reaches these positions.

I mean ultimately, the reason why all these things are possible and problematic is actually Long Range Amphibious Transports lol. Without those, mounting an effective invasion of Australia would be nearly impossible without basically already having won the war in the pacific.

I would still really like to play a WaW game without LRATS being allowed, but this would be so much in favor of Axis that I don't think it'll be balanced, since Russia is maybe no strong enough then, and China is definitely took weak. Maybe with a few more houserules to balance China & Russia it could be fun.

[Patrat]

Agreed about Australia not being able to do much if they lose the south. That would be realistic. Though I doubt their Army units that were still in Australia and intact would just surrender. Perhaps Australian supply could be severely curtailed or the remaining army units get a large morale and readiness drop.

I totally agree about the LRATS. I'm so glad War in the Pacific doesn't have them. It makes for a more realistic campaign.

[Cpuncher]

Is Rhodesia the only loophole in this regard that needs fixing?

A simply fix being to make an Axis declaration of war on the country immediately bring the USA into the war.

That would be too harsh and unnecessary—not to mention very unhistorical. Simply applying the same penalty as a DOW on the UK itself should suffice.

That’s why I proposed a rule: “No DOW on an already mobilized minor—only on its parent major.” Assuming this can be enforced by the game engine. Otherwise, it just becomes yet another specific rule that players have to remember, rather than a universal rule.

One of the biggest problems with the game, I’m afraid to say, is that it has far too many rules. Despite having clocked over 4,000 hours in this game (according to Steam), I still find myself discovering new rules every few days...

[Cpuncher]

A funny thing about the Aussie situation: knowing that Australians continue to fight when they’re not on their home soil (one of the rules I remember), I rushed every Aussie unit to be transported away—anticipating that the country couldn’t be defended and would soon surrender. I wasn’t sure if being in a transport counted as being on foreign soil, and since it’s a bit difficult to test in hotseat, I landed them in New Zealand.

So here’s a weird phenomenon: instead of staying to fight the invaders, the Aussies flee abroad—a byproduct of the current rule set.

I think a better fix would be to add more alternate capitals. Simply adding partisans won’t address this odd behavior.

[Cpuncher]

Sorry I failed to clarify this post is for information only, there is absolutely nothing against my opponent for doing this. Anything that's not specified is fair game. In fact, I appreciate him for doing this. Learned a lot of things that I would otherwise never know.

Japan eventually paid a hefty price for this strategy, even though her initial gains were significant.

[Cpuncher]

There are quite a few other things for everyone to consider in this scenario (Japan at war with UK early):

UK would immediately send most of the RN to the Indian Ocean and the waters west of Singapore (but not beyond, which would trigger a huge US upset), along with her experienced air force to Ledo.

One problem: India isn’t at war with Japan. This leads to some interesting behavior with the UK air force in Ledo. Flying from India, UK fighters can intercept Japanese bombers and escorts attacking Chinese defenders near Kunming—but can’t attack any Jap units directly. Bombers can hit Japanese resources in China, as long as there are no Jap units on them—either due to FOW or otherwise. I don’t think this needs to be fixed, but it’s an interesting quirk of the current rules.

There’s a huge penalty for India to DOW Japan. Looking for a workaround: India couldn’t DOW Nanjing (button grayed out), and I couldn’t find Manchukuo on the War Maps—even though it exists on the world map. So apparently it's possible to prevent countries from DOWing specific targets. Maybe the same can be done to stop Japan from DOWing Rhodesia?

Also, could India auto-DOW Japan if Japan is already at war with UK—or at least be given the option, like DE 111?

Anyway, India ended up DOWing Nepal just to go to war with Japan, which only triggered a modest US reaction.