Holland DOW - no side affects?

[AdmiralSarek]

Just looking for ideas / comments, about some possible side affects to the early dow on Holland by the axis having no bad side affects.

This is rather a-historic as it would quite possibly made Belgium join the allies as it would have confirmed that Germany was going to attack them.

[gerones]

Just looking for ideas / comments, about some possible side affects to the early dow on Holland by the axis having no bad side affects.

This is rather a-historic as it would quite possibly made Belgium join the allies as it would have confirmed that Germany was going to attack them.

This have been discussed here in the forum. There were two options:

-A separate DOW in Holland don´t make Belgium joins the allies
-A separate DOW in Holland makes Belgium joins the allies

There was a vote to choose between these two options and finally the first option was included.

Certainly, in the real war a separate DOW in Holland by Germany would have resulted in a Belgium entry at war with the allies or at least in a full mobilization in Belgium.
So, I have suggested here in the forums that the blitzkrieg penalty of 20 should be applied only for DOW´s made to both Belgium and Holland. Or, at least, when Germany makes DOW´s separately in Holland this contry would suffer the blitzkrieg penalty but when afterwards Germany had finished the dutchs and goes for Belgium it shouldn´t be applied the blitzkrieg penalty of 20 because Belgium would have been mobilizated its forces and would be prepared for war. So my suggestion is that Germany only would have to be favoured with the blitzkrieg penalty of 20 in case of a both Belgium and Holland DOW. And, as a result of this in case of a separate DOW in Holland would be only the dutchs the ones that would suffer the blitzkrieg penalty and there would be no blitzkrieg penalty for the belgium nor the french.

[rkr1958]

Just looking for ideas / comments, about some possible side affects to the early dow on Holland by the axis having no bad side affects.

This is rather a-historic as it would quite possibly made Belgium join the allies as it would have confirmed that Germany was going to attack them.

This have been discussed here in the forum. There were two options:

-A separate DOW in Holland don´t make Belgium joins the allies
-A separate DOW in Holland makes Belgium joins the allies

There was a vote to choose between these two options and finally the first option was included.

Certainly, in the real war a separate DOW in Holland by Germany would have resulted in a Belgium entry at war with the allies or at least in a full mobilization in Belgium.

If I remember correctly I think we even had a difference of opinion between the various participants in that discussion on that point. In the climate of 1939 and with the British PM Chamberlain I'm not so sure.

[gerones]

Just looking for ideas / comments, about some possible side affects to the early dow on Holland by the axis having no bad side affects.

This is rather a-historic as it would quite possibly made Belgium join the allies as it would have confirmed that Germany was going to attack them.

This have been discussed here in the forum. There were two options:

-A separate DOW in Holland don´t make Belgium joins the allies
-A separate DOW in Holland makes Belgium joins the allies

There was a vote to choose between these two options and finally the first option was included.

Certainly, in the real war a separate DOW in Holland by Germany would have resulted in a Belgium entry at war with the allies or at least in a full mobilization in Belgium.

If I remember correctly I think we even had a difference of opinion between the various participants in that discussion on that point. In the climate of 1939 and with the British PM Chamberlain I'm not so sure.

I only mean that AdmiralSarek is right in terms of a logical reaction of a nation (in this case Belgium) that is severely threatened by an invasion of a neighboring country (in this case Holland). Let´s think that an upgrade was made as a result of the supermax-panzergeneral game from which all the axis invasions of Canada now
result in an automatically USA entry at war joining the allies. If this is so, then same could be applied to Low Countries-Belgium case.

I´m more and more in favor of the sitzkrieg strategy for Germany instead of the Holland DOW on the second turn for several reasons. May be it´s more comfortable for the germans to DOW Holland in the second turn but because the game engine favours this when you invade Holland and "nothing" happens (I mean you have your Belgium roadblock to prevent french counterattacks). But if we favour the sitzkrieg strategy denying the blitzkrieg penalty for France and Belgium when a separate DOW in Holland is done, then the players won´t find comfortable nor worthwhile to invade Holland in the second turn and probably the players will wait until fair weather in february-march 1940, with a rested and upgraded army ready to overrun both Belgium and Holland, knowing that they will have "fresh" the blitzkrieg penalty of 20 on the alllied forces. This change in my opinion would give the game more historical and political accuracy and don´t think it would unbalance the game for the reasons pointed above.

[AdmiralSarek]

or maybee the British and French could get a small war effort change, or some more manpower to represent dutch people escaping to England (or from the dutch east indies)

[schwerpunkt]

An alternative would be to weaken the Dutch (to 1 garrison) and Belgians (to 2 garrison) but have a Dutch DOW trigger a DOW on Belgium. One of the reasons things were left as they are is that it takes the Germans too long (compared to historical) to force Holland and Belgium to surrender. If the Dutch and Belgians are both weakened then a strong German offensive should then be able to knock them out in a more historical time frame.

[gerones]

An alternative would be to weaken the Dutch (to 1 garrison) and Belgians (to 2 garrison) but have a Dutch DOW trigger a DOW on Belgium. One of the reasons things were left as they are is that it takes the Germans too long (compared to historical) to force Holland and Belgium to surrender. If the Dutch and Belgians are both weakened then a strong German offensive should then be able to knock them out in a more historical time frame.

I think that here we are not talking about accuracy in terms of historical time frame to conquest Holland since when the axis player DOW´s Holland on second turn he/she could get mud weather on turn 3 and then the conquest of Holland can easily last 2 or even 3 turns. This would mean 40 or 60 days so here also there is not historical time accuracy.

I think that we are talking about here is that a separate german invasion in Holland would have crumbled all the belgian defensive system based on a line of fortifications (Eben-Emael, etc) that much depends on a neutrality of Holland in case of war with Germany. So a separate german invasion would have made sound all the alarms in Belgium and the natural reaction would have been joining the allies or at least be prepared for war ordering a full mobilization of its forces so no blitzkrieg penalty should be applied to a country that is fairly threatened. No sense has a blitzkrieg penalty for Belgium when is this way threatened.

So my final suggestion could be to deny blitzkrieg penalty in case of a german separate DOW of Holland but to increase to 25 the blitzkrieg penalty for both Belgium and Holland DOW, so the germans would find even more less resistance in these countries when invading them. I suggest this increase because if there´s a campaign where the germans intended to interrupt communications and to cause the more absolute chaos in the enemy this was in the Fall Weiss or Battle of France started in 10 may 1940 with the invasion of Belgium and Holland.

[AdmiralSarek]

I agree with what leridano said.
Having reviewed the time frame of the actuall invasion the germans should basicaly have got rid (in a fighting sense if not a surrendering sense) of Belgium & Holland in one turn (20days). It just needs to be handled better.

[joerock22]

I voted against this change before because you get into predicting what historical nations would have done in certain situations, and that's often a crapshoot. You can make a good case for either side, and what one person views as the "logical" outcome may not be logical to someone else. Case in point: I disagree about what Belgium would have done. I think they would have exhausted every possible diplomatic option before going to war with Germany. I don't think they would have joined the Allies, because what Belgian in the right mind wanted to have World War II fought on their soil? With all the concessions Britain and France gave to Hitler in the years preceding 1939, I think the Belgians would have hoped that Holland would finally satisfy his appetite, however hopeless that prospect was. The alternative was going to war with the military machine of Germany, and I think they would have avoided this at all costs, maintaining their neutrality to the very last minute.

[rkr1958]

I voted against this change before because you get into predicting what historical nations would have done in certain situations, and that's often a crapshoot. You can make a good case for either side, and what one person views as the "logical" outcome may not be logical to someone else. Case in point: I disagree about what Belgium would have done. I think they would have exhausted every possible diplomatic option before going to war with Germany. I don't think they would have joined the Allies, because what Belgian in the right mind wanted to have World War II fought on their soil? With all the concessions Britain and France gave to Hitler in the years preceding 1939, I think the Belgians would have hoped that Holland would finally satisfy his appetite, however hopeless that prospect was. The alternative was going to war with the military machine of Germany, and I think they would have avoided this at all costs, maintaining their neutrality to the very last minute.

I agree.

I've relayed the following account in another thread but I think it's appropriate here to. When we look at WW-II history we have 65 to 70 years of historical hindsight and the foreknowledge during the game of the actual historical timeline. I have the BBC World at War Series (1974) on DVD and watched all of the episodes a year or so ago. Also, they're currently running this series on the Military Channel and I will catch part of an episode here and now. What I find extremely valuable for an historical perspective from this series is that the interviews included are from people who were actual participants in WW-II. Many of them are from people directly involved in the persecution of the war. For example, General O'Conner, Lord Mountbatten, Albert Speer, Luftwaffe wing commanders, U-boat flotilla commanders, Hitler's Secretary (she was in the bunker when Hitler killed himself), Lord Chamberlain's Private Secretary and many other.

For me seeing an interview with Lord chamberlain's Private Secretary was very revealing and helped me understand better the climate in the fall and winter of 1939 after war had broken out. The British and even French still viewed WW-II as a distant war and hoped that it would stay that way. Britain was saved the label of aggressor in Norway only because Germany beat them to the punch. Their plans were to conquer Norway and use Norway as a base to support Finland against Russia. As an aside can you image if this had come to pass and Britain had been at war with both Germany and Russia? Anyway, Chamberlain's Private Secretary was making the point that the British government was hoping to fight the war in places like Norway and Finland. The last thing they really wanted to do was to fight another sustained war against Germany in France and Belgium. You also have to realize that in the winter of 1939 no one in France, Britain and Belgium thought Germany could defeat France and Belgium in a month.

I guess in summary what I'm trying to say is that I agree with Joe.

[gerones]

I voted against this change before because you get into predicting what historical nations would have done in certain situations, and that's often a crapshoot.

If this is so the same should be applied to the recently updated USA entry at war after an axis invasion of Canada. Why are we predicting that the USA predominant isolationism by 1940 would have changed by an axis invasion of Canada? Certainly, an axis invasion of Canada would be a serious threaten for USA but it wouldn´t necessarily mean the automatically USA entry at war.

I think they would have exhausted every possible diplomatic option before going to war with Germany. I don't think they would have joined the Allies, because what Belgian in the right mind wanted to have World War II fought on their soil?

These are also predictions...

[joerock22]

I voted against this change before because you get into predicting what historical nations would have done in certain situations, and that's often a crapshoot.

If this is so the same should be applied to the recently updated USA entry at war after an axis invasion of Canada. Why are we predicting that the USA predominant isolationism by 1940 would have changed by an axis invasion of Canada? Certainly, an axis invasion of Canada would be a serious threaten for USA but it wouldn´t necessarily mean the automatically USA entry at war.

I think they would have exhausted every possible diplomatic option before going to war with Germany. I don't think they would have joined the Allies, because what Belgian in the right mind wanted to have World War II fought on their soil?

These are also predictions...

I had to fight predictions with predictions.

Anyway, I never said I was in favor of USA entering the war if Canada is invaded. Presumably the U.S. would have felt strong enough to not fear a German invasion of the U.S., but maybe not. Would the Monroe Doctrine have affected their thinking at all? My point is that we don't really know. Personally, I had no problem leaving U.S. entry the way it was.

But I think you can make a much stronger argument for U.S. activation than you can for Belgium. The U.S. was not a tiny country sitting in between European superpowers. Compared to America, Germany was the tiny country! The U.S. certainly wouldn’t have been afraid to go war with the Axis, as history shows. They stayed neutral because they didn’t want to get involved in another costly “European war,” not because they were afraid Germany would conquer them if they declared war on it. They also had enough problems at home with the Great Depression. Also, 20th century U.S. foreign policy shows that the U.S. viewed the Americas as its neck of the woods. They might have seen Germany invading Canada as an unfriendly European nation trespassing on their turf. Combine the traditional U.S. friendship with Britain ever since before World War I, and you have some strong evidence that the U.S. would not have sat idly by while Canada became part of Germany.

By contrast, I don’t see any evidence that Belgium would have declared war on Germany if Holland was invaded.

[shawkhan]

Based upon what is known of Belgium's King Leopold, and his all-too apt comparison to Neville Chamberlain, I doubt there is ANY possibility of Belgium ever declaring war upon Germany no matter the provocation. People do remember, I hope, that Belgium steadfastly refused to allow British and French entry into Belgium until after German invasion when it was too late, and indeed, directly led to the Allies' subsequent disaster when they belatedly tried to advance to the Dyle River.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The activation of USA if the Axis land in Canada is to simulate the mobilization that USA would have done if the war game to their doorsteps. They might not have DoW'ed Germany, but would certainly have mobilized and made it very hard for the Germans to enter US soil.

The biggest weakness with GS is that only a very small part of USA is on the map. USA produced more alone than Russia and Britain combined, but in GS most of this production is off-map. Supermax managed to defeat USA in his game against Panzergeneral because there were too few hexes in USA on the map NOT because he had superior force. Panzergeneral simply didn't have enough hexes to put reinforcements and at the same time have some airpower to strike back.

So USA is not simulated as well as it should. If the Germans had invaded USA then you can be assured that USA would mobilize and send hordes of units from western and central USA to crush the Germans in the east. This is not possible in GS.

With the original GS rules the Germans could simply send transports directly to the US coastal hexes and make a surprise landing totally crippling the US mobility due to the thin coast line shown on the map. They could have cut the country on the map in two (thus denying rail movement north of this division). By landing like this the US wouldn't even have room to place reinforcements despite most of USA being off map with plenty of room for reinforcements.

This can't be solved without increasing the map size. So the next best solution was to let USA moblize when Canada is invaded so they can get a better production and a chance to move units to make room for more units. Even after a DoW you need time to increase production to full production. It can take many months. So USA is at a disadvantage because they can't use production in western and central USA to survive.

Belgium and USA are two completely different situations. With the current setup it's very hard for the Germans to take out both Holland and Belgiu in one turn as they did historically. The combat engine makes that impossible. So the alternative would be to make belgium and Holland weaker than historically, but that would open up new problems with early invasions.

You can make a lot of rules to prevent things from happening, but people will always exploit the rules you make. E. g. Supermax showed that if you ignore Poland you can attack in the west on turn 2 and knock France out in February. This was even easier in the vanilla game without weather rules. But if make rules to hunt down every exploit of the rules then we will make a really messy game. The Fall of France stats show that the average time for France to fall is the historical one. That's not so easy to accomplish and I'm sceptical to alter anything to disrupt that.