[WarInEur] Realpolitik in WIE

[Don Lazov]

There is a fix to this. It's called Attrition. If you go for Yugo too 
early or too late (same with Norway) your screwed for the French 
Campaign. To me the Attrition Option is a perfect protection against the 
Yugo/Norway 39 Blitz. With Attrition you really have to think when and 
where you want to strike.

If you go for both Yugo and Norway with Attrition on the French will be 
able to withstand your 40 attack and perhaps break the German line. Or 
worse the French will hold out till 9 or 10 / 40. Where as if you 
"husband" your forces for the French Campaign you can strike a decisive 
blow against France (and the low countries) and knock them out of the 
war by 7 or 8 40 and then you can go for England or strike North or South.

Attrition is the fix.


Hansen wrote:
> I think the 'realpolitik' view is a key element for the political game.
> Taking it a step further, the cost to declare war on a country should be a
> variable. 
>
> As an example, in CWIE, I would often declare war on Yugoslavia as I am
> wrapping up the Polish campaign. In game turns, this makes sense. 
>
> 1) After one turn to shatter the Polish front lines, the German has lots of
> unit who are idle.
> 2) I am likely to take out Yugoslavia anyway, so why not do it now and
> collect the loot points longer.
> 3) If I decide to take out Greece (a big if), taking out Yugoslavia in fall
> of '39 means I can repair the rail to more efficiently get the troops from
> the fall of France to Greece.
> 4) It also provides me with the opportunity to do some partisan hunting.
>
> Now the unit attrition in CWIEII may change some of these calculations, but
> the essence is the same.
>
> But think about it from a political standpoint. Would the little three
> (Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria) have happily smiled while Germany took over
> a neighbor who was no threat to them?
>
> Yugoslavia was invaded (if I remember correctly) because of internal
> politics/coup within Yugoslavia. So the timing was not for Germany's
> benefit, but events outside of their control.
>
> Prior to the fall of France, the prevailing view was that France and England
> would be able to fight Germany to a stalemate (ala WWI). Bloody, but
> balanced. With the fall of France, the prevailing view was that Germany had
> an unstoppable army and you had best not mess with them.
>
> So having the same political costs and the same political interactions for
> invading Yugoslavia in Fall of '39 and Summer of '40 doesn't make sense.
>
> How to fix this without even more fun and games in regards to the code is
> beyond me.
>
> Terry Shaw wrote:
>   
>>>> / Has anybody ideas on the Balkans issues I raised a while ago? This 
>>>>         
>> was Bulgaria surrendering if the Soviets conquer Romania and occupy 
>> Bucharest in say 1940. Should this occur and does it impact on the 
>> political point level i.e. a violation of Bulgaria by the Soviet 
>> player?.../
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>
> About the only way to approach this is from a rrealpolitik standpoint, 
> and then see if we can arrive at a realistic emulation of this.
>
> How one might givern Bulgarian and Rumanian behaviour?
>
> Effectively, from a political point of view this is governed by two things.
>     1.How bad a juggernought the Red army would appear to be
> and
>     2.What are the prospects of immediate succour for the defenders.
>
> In 1940-41, the Soviets were an unknown quantity, a threat certainly, 
> but not an insurmountable one. Conversely the Germans were at the height 
> of their game, knocking off whole countries in a matter of days.
>
> In addition the Reich was casting a spell of protection over the balkan 
> peoples, covering them against the dark ambitions of the Soviet state.
>
> Logically we want to simulate relatively well equipped (in the style of 
> 1940) armies defending with a friendly disposed power at their backs.
>
> A not unreasonable assumption at this time is that they would fight 
> tooth and nail.
>
> 1944. The same armies with mostly the same , now outdated equipment, 
> face a battle hardened behemoth not known for its leniency, terrifyingly 
> up to date equipment and seemingly in limitless volume, whilst the 
> defenders are looking at a German Ally that is not only unstable, but 
> being gored to death at the same time. The political ball game now has 
> the defenders almost as the flotsam and loose change in the balance of 
> power....more to the point, they are all too painfully aware of it. They 
> must look to arrange their own salvation, whilst at the same time 
> preventing the germans from turning on them and occupying them with all 
> the desasters that this might entail for their countries. 1.Occupied and 
> looted by the germans, then two, occupied and THEN looted , laid waste, 
> as collaborators by the vengeful soviets.
>
> Neither a very entertaining prospect.
>
> The political game being set needs to cater for these two positions and 
> circumstances...
>
>
> -|steve|-
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>
>
> End of WarInEur Digest, Vol 36, Issue 3
> ***************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20070703/886706c5/attachment.html