[WarInEur] Balkans Issues
Don Lazov
dlazov at comcast.net
Wed Jul 4 08:16:33 EDT 2007
John,
Your points are well written. I like your take on Yugoslavia. The
Historical outline (to one degree or another should be a model for the
political "table". After the FOF then Yugo is wide open.
I like your idea of a Political Cycle merged with the Strategic Cycle.
As Dunnigan always said "Borrow it from..", HOI has some Political ideas
where you spend points to "influence" minor nations, depending on your
and their political alignments, how the war is progressing, how much
major power points are spent for various political actions in each
nation (for example all three powers could spend political points in
Yugo, let's say the SU spends points to lean toward the communist and
send Yugo 2 Production points, the CW spends points for Yugo to lean
toward the Democrats and the Germans spend points and turn in one of
their panzer brigades and send the equpitment to the Yugo army...)
Buckley, John D (Dr) wrote:
> The point about the political issues in attacking the Balkans early for purely gaming advantages is crucial. I have listed a few possible points and solutions.
>
> 1. A German assault on Yugoslavia prior to the Fall of France may well have panicked the rest of the Balkans nations; Germany would have been viewed as an aggressor and a threat. Possile deterrent: If Germany invades Yugoslavia prior to the activation of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria as Axis nations, then they will not be activated at all, or only when the political point total reaches a much higher level. (70?) They would remain as pro-Axis neutrals but no more.
>
> 2. I recall someone touting the idea that as Yugoslavia initially joined the Axis and only withdrew following a British backed coup d'etat, Yugoslavia's position in the game could be variable. They might have joined the Axis, they might have rejected the idea (historical result), or they might have fragmented into different parts (as they sort of did after the 1941 invasion). Rules idea could be that from say 4/41 the German player could attempt to 'activate' Yugoslavia as an Axis power, assuming Italy, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria were also activated. On a 1 Yugoslavia becomes an Axis nation, 2-3 it fragments and all units in Croatia and Slovenia are removed from play (simulating the secession of those bits from Yugoslavia). The German player could then occupy the northern half and decide whether to bulldoze on into Serbia/Bosnia to 'restore order'. He might also be able to place a few 2-4s or similar as pro-Axis troops from Croatia/Slovenia. On a 4-6 (D6) Yugoslavia fight!
> s the Axis in the usual way.
>
> 3. All of the above could be modified by non-historical actions by the Soviet player. A oft employed gambit is for the Soviet player to invade Romania in the winter of 1939-40 and seize Ploesti to deny this to the German player. Currently, according to the rules as they stand, this also then causes Bulgaria to surrender and cuts Germany off from its supplies in Turkey too (if the Soviet player sees fit). You can rationalise Bulgaria's collapse as a pro-Soviet coup occurring in Sofia to placate Stalin and join the 'winning' side. However, it should not be certain. You could add that if Romania is conquered by the USSR prior to war between Germany and the Soviets, a die should be rolled and: 1-2 Bulgaria collapses and surrenders as per the current rules; 3-4 become a neutral nation no longer capable of being activated by the Axis; 5-6 Joins the Axis if Bucharest is liberated by the German player.
>
> 4. There is also the issue of how the other pro-Axis powers in the Balkans may have reacted if the Soviets invaded Romania (or indeed any of the others)in 1939-40. Currently if the Soviets invade Romania, the German player can't really intervene as Hungary remains neutral. Quite possibly a Soviet invasion may have driven Hungary and Bulgaria (even Yugoslavia) in a new direction - faster towards the Axis. This might act as a deterrent to Soviet activity in the Balkans. I suggest that if the Soviets violate the neutrality of Romania or Hungary prior to their activation as Axis powers, then there is 3 in 6 chance of Hungary automatically joining the Axis, a 2 in 6 chance of Romania joining the Axis, 1 in 6 Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.
>
> 5. As a final political point issue maybe there should be some political fall out to a German seizure of Denmark and Norway prior to April 1940. Such a move may have worried Finland or alerted the smaller powers to the likely actions of Hitler in the future. We could add that an invasion of Denmark and/or Norway prior to a winter war being fought between USSR and Finland creates a 2 in 6 chance of Finland remaining strictly neutral.
>
>
> It would ultimately be nice to have a political-diplomatic game played each strategic cycle whereby the big three attempt to twist arms of smaller powers - I know this is a pipe dream, but fixed actions at set times reduces the variability of the game. Nations might be activated vriably around political point totals being reached rather than automatically...
>
> Just some ideas to liven up the political aspects of the game.
>
> Dr John Buckley
> Reader in Military History
> University of Wolverhampton
> Tel: 0044 (0)1902 323388
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net
> [mailto:warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net]On Behalf Of
> warineur-request at mailman.halisp.net
> Sent: 03 July 2007 23:18
> To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net
> Subject: WarInEur Digest, Vol 36, Issue 5
>
>
> Send WarInEur mailing list submissions to
> warineur at mailman.halisp.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> warineur-request at mailman.halisp.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> warineur-owner at mailman.halisp.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WarInEur digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Realpolitik in WIE (Don Lazov)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:11:15 -0500
> From: Don Lazov <dlazov at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Realpolitik in WIE
> To: ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net
> Cc: warineur at mailman.halisp.net
> Message-ID: <468AC983.5010205 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Agreed, but I would not use the term "hamstring" because both sides are
> equally effected by attrition.
>
> Now for a "political" element then your right, we would have to design
> and develop some kind of political game. Some people don't fully grasp
> the Balkan Political elements, let alone some of the Geopolitical
> aspects of history during this time frame.
>
> dsl wrote:
>
>> As I said, attrition may change some of this, but it does not deal
>> with the political element. Going into Yugoslavia in '39 had a huge
>> political element that is not captured in the game. Attrition may make
>> you husband your forces (or hamstring the panzers), but that is
>> game/combat/movement mechanics limiting your possibilities.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Don Lazov [mailto:dlazov at comcast.net]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:38 PM
>> *To:* Hansen
>> *Cc:* warineur at mailman.halisp.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [WarInEur] Realpolitik in WIE
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/c03315c9/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>
>
> End of WarInEur Digest, Vol 36, Issue 5
> ***************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070704/b86a2230/attachment-0001.html
More information about the WarInEur
mailing list