[WarInEur] RE: Political restrictions

[Wardall Clark]

The most aggravating rules in WIE are fortunately the easiest to enforce. I refer to cases where the 
movement and combat of a nation's units has to be limited to reflect the political decisions made
by the national leadership.  As Hitler and Stalin had something close to a free hand, which makes  
everyone else look like the exception when actually it is they who were anomalous. 
 
To take a simple example from outside WIE, in Victory in the Pacific, the British squadrons are 
restricted to 4 ports; Ceylon, Singapore, Saigon and Yokosuku Navy Yard.  This effectively keeps them 
stationed between India and the main Japanese Fleet in accordance with the instructions from London 
yet without completely hamstringing their VITP moves in conjunction with USN operations.  
 
The stacking rules about Romanians and Hungarians are a nuisance, as are the other limitations, yet there
is valid historical explanation involved.  ITRW the Brits and the French went to war with Germany worried 
that the other partner would look for a way to back out, this made a very substantial BEF commitment to France and 
Belgium the only way which that stage of the War could be fought.  Unfortunately, in WIE there is a single 
controlling player and the rules written to keep the Allies from making the best possible use of the British units
are so restrictive as to convince many WIE players that the best course of action is only a token commitment 
to buy a few weeks of time. A course of action which had been ruled out for geo-politcal reasons. In WIE the Brits and the Americans can jointly use port facilities, yet not MSUs, which generally prevents 
the Brits' divisions and brigades from becoming the bits and pieces of American corps. This is frankly 
a damn nuisance, but the result of the distinction between Allied MSUs is that WIE gets fought roughly
the way that WWII was fought in this respect.I support any rule based on Historical treaty restrictions. I also support the ability to turn such restrictions off provided 
that a suitable political cost is paid.  Instead what we have are a bunch of anomalies from standard procedure such as a 
Levant Invasion that does not constitute a declaration of war, and Soviets having nothing politically to lose in annexing the 
Baltic states or invading Poland.  
 
BOB



> > Message: 4> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:34:03 +0100> From: sgminfo <sgminfo at aol.com>> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] An awkward question> To: Kent & Sue Haunschild <kentsue at cox.net>> Cc: warineur at mailman.halisp.net> Message-ID: <471C607B.6080608 at aol.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > Kent & Sue Haunschild wrote:> > Steve, of course it's Allied bashing, but in a good way.> > > > The while mid-east political scene is underplayed in WiE. but you are > > right. At a minimum the Allied player should be prevented from:> > > > Entering Iraqi until after the uprising with either French or CW > > units. (Start the game with Iraq Neutral and it will take a DOW of a > > minor to enter it before the uprising.)> > > > Entering the Levant or other NA colonies with CW troops.> > > > Entering Egypt, Jordon, or Palestine with French troops.> > > > On the turn of the Iraq uprising:> > > > make both Iraq and the Levant Active Axis (All hexes convert to Axis > > control)> > > > the Axis are able to trace air power from mid-east hexes> > > > the Vichy divisions in the Levant become Axis> > > > the Iraq receive 2x1-4 divisions in Bagdad.> > > > This would more closely model the reality. The British did not have a > > military presence in Iraq and were afraid to station a division there > > for fear of provoking nationalist feelings into an open uprising. > > > > The arabs (used as a generic term) wanted the British to support their > > claim to a united arab country free of a British protectorate. In > > turn they would provide troops to help defend Egypt from the Italians > > and the Levant from Turkey. > > > > (Of course there were lots of desenting views within the arab > > community. The house of Saud wanted the Levant as a Princedom, Jordon > > wanted all of Palestine, Iraq wanted, the Levant and Kuwait, the > > Egyptians just wanted the British out.> > > > When they were rebuffed by the British, they offered their support to > > the Axis instead. The Germans refered them to the Italians as this had > > been agreed to be their sphere of operations. The Italians were hard > > pressed to offer much help, and wanted to take the whole region over > > under autonomous local governments, but under an Italian > > protectorate. Essentially out with the British and French an in with > > the Italians. Other than that, business as usual.> > > > When the Iraqi uprising did occur, the British had to send troops to > > quell it, which took several months and then maintain a garrison to > > prevent another. The French commanders in the Levant allowed the Axis > > to send planes and weapons through the Levant and into Iraq in support > > of the revolt. It was in retaliation for this that the British > > attacked the Levant. I think this is most easily modeled by just > > having the Levant become Axis on the turn the revolt occurs.> >> > Now i don't wish this to seem like 'allied bashing'#> > > > But as units gathered on the Egyptian frontier in May 1940,> > something kept nagging...> > > > The presence of 3rd republic troops in Egypt.> > > > Since the 1880's leading up to Fashoda and the incident there,> > British foreign policy was, and would be, extremely touchy about> > Egypt. Egypt was nominally an independent country, yet under> > oversight by the British, and part of the imperial family> > (willingly-or otherwise).> > > > Seeing as it a cornerstone of foreign policy pre WW1 not to allow> > any foreign troops on Egyptian soil, particularly French troops> > (who also maintained a claim to oversight of Egypt), It might not> > be unduly restrictive to ban the presence of 3rd Republic troops> > on egyptian soil. FF forces might not be an issue, being vewed> > almost as junior partners in the coalition and almost dependent on> > British goodwill.> > > > This , in turn, might serve to explain the makeup of allied> > forces defending the Frontiers of Egypt, both to the north West,> > and deep into the Sudan. And the ungamer like inactivity itrw.> > > > > > -|steve|-> >
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last.  Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071022/9f1d67a6/attachment.html