Proposal - British Morale penalty and Spanish activation

zechi · Post by **zechi** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:29 pm

We already discussed the Spanish activation requirements in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=26492

It took some time, but I found an interesting article about the "Myth of Spanish neutrality" in WW2 http://artsci.drake.edu/dussj/stantonsean.pdf , which I think answers several questions raised initially in this thread. For example there are indications about the price Franco asked for entering the war:

Spain requested 400,000 tons of gasoline and 200,000 tons of fuel oil, along with 600,000 tons of wheat, 200,000 tons of coal, and substantial quantities of other raw materials, including cotton, rubber, wood pulp, hemp, and jute.66 Spain mistakenly believed Germany to possess a large supply of such items, but in reality, Germany was experiencing shortages herself and could not oblige Spain’s
request.

The author also concludes:

Spain used its illusory neutrality to continue making gains before entering the war on the side of the Axis, which it planned on doing after the fall of Britain.

I think we should reconsider if we do not allow the option that Spain joins the Axis if Britain is invaded by the Germans before the US enters the war. From my point of view it seems still a little weird that Spain will join the Axis if German/Italian units conquer North Africa, but will refrain from doing so, if Britain is captured. If Spain joins the Axis if Sealion is successful, we would perhaps not need the “moral penalty” Britain suffers if there are not enough British Units in Britain. I do not really like this new “penalty”, as you get the message every turn and the penalty can quickly be nullified with a few partisan units popping up in Britain. I also do not think that the penalty is very realistic. Of course British morale would suffer significantly after Sealion, but I think it would get better after the initial shock. The morale loss should be similar as the Soviet morale loss and the British units should regain effiency.

So I propose the following changes (if the developers agree):

1. The British do not suffer a permanent morale loss, but instead a morale loss similar to the Soviet morale loss when Barbarossa is launched in 1941.

2..
a) Spain joins the Axis for free if the Axis capture London and Liverpool before the US enters the war.

or

b). Spain joins the Axis if the Axis capture London and Liverpool for a sum of 100 PP (or another balanced sum).

Schnurri · Post by **Schnurri** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:01 pm

I like that proposal but it spells disaster for the Allies if there is a successful Sea Lion - which most people agree is pretty certain to succeed if the Axis wants it bad enough. And with the new transport rules a successful Sea Lion means less pp's for garrisons, etc. If we adopt this should we do something to cripple Sea Lion a bit as most scholars agree Sea Lion was certainly not a realistic option in 1940 at least.

Plaid · Post by **Plaid** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:22 pm

I'd say that permament morale loss for UK troops is much harder penalty, then bunch of low tech spanish units and +15 or so income for axis.
So this change makes succesful Sealion LESS disaster, then it is.
Under current rules after Sealion you can rally reasonable army in Canada, as convoys now travel shorter\safer ways etc, but this units will have very low combat value, as their effectiveness will be extremely low permament. So large ammount of UK PPs can't be spend effectively.

P.S. I don't understand why Sealion 1940 considered unrealistic. British had very few troops and even less heavy equipment after France and Norway. For example Montgomery writes in his book, that combat value of british troops after Dunkirk was close to 1 division.

pk867 · Post by **pk867** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:42 pm

One reason why Sealion in 1940 is unreasonable, because the Germans were going to use river barges and not invasion craft (ie they had none at that time in the war) They were going to require DD and other craft to tow the barges to the coast to invade.

We are allowing Sealion to at least be attempted and keeping the US out of the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor. Would the US just sit there if invasion troops actually landed anywhere on the British Isles. I believe not. If we did no one would attempt Sealion because of having America activate early.

If you are going to throw in Spain with the capture of London then I am against that notion. The writer is making his assumptions as we do with the game

I still do not think Franco wanted to join. The writer even says that America did its best to keep Spain neutral which benefited Franco better than going to war. He made more profit that way according to the pdf.

gerones · Post by **gerones** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:02 pm

After the Kriegsmarine disaster in Norway, nobody really could reasonably believe in a possible successful Sea lion keeping in mind that this time the german landing forces would have had to face a much more stronger navy as the Royal Navy was. Let´s also thing in how, afterwards, the allies were preparing a landing operation in northern France for years so it was actually impossible for the germans to properly prepare a landing in England only in 15 days.

In CEAW-GS as in other wargames Sea lion is allowed as an operation with reasonable chances of success for the germans but this is because they are only that: games.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:14 pm

There are many indications that Franco didn't want to join the Axis in 1940, but he also didn't want to alienate Hitler. So Franco was so clever that he made demands that he knew Hitler would turn down. Franco also had to take into consideration that Germany could invade Spain so it was important to be on friendly terms with Hitler. Hitler and Franco actually had a meeting where Franco offered his terms. Hitler rejected it as Franco had anticipated and Hitler discarded the idea of having Spain on the Axis side. He was furious with Franco, but what could he do. Franco hadn't said no to joining. He had just been too "greedy".

Sweden was another country that needed to be on good terms with Germany, but at the same time did all they could to stay out of the war. So they caved in to German demands and allowed troop movement through Sweden to Norway and Finland. Officially these soldiers onboard the trains were on the way to vacation it was said.

Spain didn't have that much to gain with Vichy France as a neighbour both in Europe and in North Africa. Gibraltar was out of the question in 1940 because Hitler didn't have it to offer.

I agree that the fall of Britain could maybe have altered the situation, but it would depend on when it happened. If USA was about to join the Allies then they would probably have still remained neutral.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:22 pm

We also have to be careful about not making Sealion too lucrative. They gain a lot by taking London and Liverpool. If they would get Spain as well then you could see more and more players going for the ahistorical Sealion.

With the current rules the Axis player will try to engage the French in North Africa (no Vichy France) after the fall of Paris and then sway Spain to join the Axis. At the same time they could invade Britain and move towards Egypt. That would cripple Britain, but make Russia very strong due to a weak Barbarossa.

Finding the right balance is the key to Axis success and Supermax is now trying that against Morris. He didn't do Sealion and his Barbarossa was therefore stronger.

One reason to have Spain as a chance to join the Axis is to give the Germans a reason to reject the French armistice offer. Now it's at least tempting to do so and it has caused the Allied player to not squander the French units before the fall of Paris.

If the Germans accept the French armistice offer and then invades Britain then there is not so much to gain for Spain. They can only hope to get Gibraltar. Remember that the ultimate goal for Franco was to expand Spanish Morocco to include French Morocco. With a neutral Vichy France then Germany couldn't offer him that. So the most likely reason for Spain to join the Axis would be if the French armistice offer was rejected. Then the Axis would fight in north Africa and could actually offer Spain the territory they wanted after it was conquered from the French.

We have to remember that Franco was no fool. He knew the risks of getting involved so he would have needed a very lucrative prize to be persuaded, i. e. meaning that the terms for joining were something that Germany could accept.

zechi · Post by **zechi** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:53 am

Stauffenberg wrote: If the Germans accept the French armistice offer and then invades Britain then there is not so much to gain for Spain. They can only hope to get Gibraltar. Remember that the ultimate goal for Franco was to expand Spanish Morocco to include French Morocco. With a neutral Vichy France then Germany couldn't offer him that. So the most likely reason for Spain to join the Axis would be if the French armistice offer was rejected. Then the Axis would fight in north Africa and could actually offer Spain the territory they wanted after it was conquered from the French.

That may be true, but I think if the Axis would have rejected the armistice offer and France would have continued to fight from its colonies, then Franco would perhaps already have joined the Axis for "easy" spoils of war in North Africa. At least from my point of view it would be more believable if the Germans/Italians would offer Spain to join the Axis in exchange for French colonies, i.e. French Morocco.

Currently we have a different situation. Spain will only join the Axis if North Africa has been conquered by German/Italian forces. This does not seem right, because I doubt that the Germans/Italians would have offered Spain any territory that Germans/Italians had occupied themselves. This is especially true for Italy, as the Italians saw North Africa as their sphere of interest. We should also remember that in 1940 the Italian were not considered as German puppet yet, but stilll as a major power. Therefore, it would not have been easy to convince Mussolini to give away North African territory the Italians fought for, for an entry of war of Spain. It is also doubtful that Franco would have joined the war, as he feared the British. Only if Britain would have been "finished" off, i.e. Britain has been occupied, he would have joined the Axis from my point of view.

I'm also aware that the current permanent penalty system for the British is more severe then a penalty similar to the Soviet penalty at the start of Barbarossa. Therefore, I would suggest to give the Axis Spain for free, to compensate the lesser penalty.

In such a scenario the Axis would get half production from Britain + full production from Spain if they do Sealion. That would be a nice PP boost. In addition they would get the Spanish Army, which I think is not as bad as Plaid claimed. The Spanish even have air and naval units, which will boost the Axis forces. Ground units can be used for anti-partisan activities or as meatshields against the Soviet horde. They should also be useful against any early invasion by the western Allies. Of course the drawback of the Sealion operation would still be a rather weak Barbarossa.

Last but not least I think that the British player will then also have to play more carefully and really try to defend Britain at all costs. I think that a British player will then be forces to horde PP in 1940 to be able to at least hold Britain for a while should the Axis go for Sealion.

What do you think?

metolius · Post by **metolius** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:24 am

A lot is made of the fact that German did not have the landing capacity to capture England in 1940. Probably true.

All the same, I think it is worth considering the fact that Germany COULD have had that capacity, had they started working on it in 1937-8. Actually, even if they had gone for a crash program of construction starting in 1939, they could have put a lot of people on the beaches in 1940.

Obviously, the game starts in 1939. It's a war game, after all, and it doesn't address the events before the Polish invasion. All the same, I think it is worth giving ourselves some historical leeway on the issue of invasion capacity, so that the game can explore the 'what if' possibilities here.

If a substantial group feels otherwise, then perhaps a 'checkbox' option to drastically curtain Germany's landing capacity is in order, which would essentially eliminate Sea Lion as an option. That would be historically accurate, starting from 1939 assumptions.