Separate DOW on Holland and Belgium

[BenTaylor]

I'm not really sure that DOW on Holland by Germany is OK with no concurrent DOW Belgium

It is too easy for Germany with this and highly unrealistic to think that Belgium would remain neutral in these circumstances. It secures the flank with Belgium for German forces in Holland which would otherwise be open to initiative from any BEF and French forces.

I suppose it is possible that historically there would have been inactivity for at least the first turn a sort of politcal paralysis but I would be interested to hear what other players think. I think Belgium would DOW to allow allied forces in to their territory at least in these circumstances.

Should this be dealt with with coded rules or house rules?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

It's possible to hardcode in the BJR-mod that a DoW upon Holland will activate Belgium as well.

So I would like as many as possible to make a vote for the following questions.

1. Should a DoW upon Holland activate Belgium as well? Yes / No
2. Should a DoW upon Belgium activate Holland as well? Yes / No

We can update the BJR-mod with what the majority wants. The reason I ask 1 and 2 separately is because in WW1 the Dutch remained neutral even though Belgium was attacked by Germany. I think it's not unlikely that Belgium would ask for Allied help if Germany attacked Holland.

The Germans probably attacked both countries simultaneously to keep the surprise effect. The entire case Yellow depended upon a major thrust through the Ardennes and they also needed to attack Holland and Belgium to make the Allies believe the old Schlieffen plan was used instead of the new Sichelschnitt.

[OzHawkeye2]

I would say no.

My reasoning is the rather optimistic Belgian insistence on Neutrality right up to the very last minute. This prevented the Allied forces from occupying prepared defenses early and this neutrality was maintained even after a German airplane was forced down in Belgium a few weeks before the attack with a complete set of plans.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if Germany had declared war on Holland separately to Holland that Belgium would have clung to this neutrality. Really, what choice would they have had?

[ncali]

I vote yes to 1 but only if there are additional changes - otherwise, this rule helps the Allies out in an unreaslistic way since the game does not satisfactorily account for the "shock and awe" the German blitzkrieg initially produced.

The reason for the simultaneous attack rule is that an attack on Holland would have meant there was a 100% chance of an attack on Belgium as it made Belgium basically impossible to defend. The only realistic alternative to allowing the French and British in at that point would have been to try to make a deal with Hitler to let him go through Belgium - and I don't see that as being a real possibility.

I previously posted a suggested house rule (that I have tried out in a couple games and seems to work OK) to address this. It didn't seem to get much comment at the time, but I have copied it below:

1A) To simulate the fact that Belgium would have seen the way the wind was blowing if Germany attacked Holland (an attack on Holland being a dead giveaway the Germans were going through Belgium), Germany may not DOW on Holland without also DOW on Belgium. This helps the Allies, but see the next two changes.
(1B) To simulate initial "surprise" by the Blitzkrieg, the French and British may buy - but not place - a commander until the turn Germany DOW on Belgium or the Germans take a Maginot fort. This reduces Allied efficiency significantly in the early stages of the main German attack.
(1C) on the turn of a German DOW on Belgium (or Belgium/Holland), the Allies may move into Belgium but may not attack any Axis forces in Benelux by land, sea, or air.

EDIT: I clarified that I meant only a yes to question 1.

[joerock22]

I'm starkly opposed to this idea. I don't like rules where you start trying to predict what certain powers would have done in certain situations. We can never know what the Belgians would have done because none of us were in Belgium in 1940! I'm all for house rules that make the game more historical, but I draw the line at rules that guess at how a few individuals in power might have led their countries.

An earlier iteration of the BJR mod had a rule where Germany was required to declare war on Russia within 3 turns of capturing any city in the UK. The rationale was that Stalin would surely mobilize the Soviet forces if faced with the prospect of confronting Germany alone in Europe. But how do we know? Was Stalin not at least somewhat unpredictable in his day? I didn't like this rule for the same reason I don't like the proposed rule in this thread. Ultimately, this is a game, and reading too much into the history is detrimental to the fun of it, at least for me.

[rkr1958]

1. Should a DoW upon Holland activate Belgium as well? Yes / No

No.

2. Should a DoW upon Belgium activate Holland as well? Yes / No

No.

Here's my rationale. Holland was invaded on May 10, 1940 and formally surrendered on May 15, 1940. That's 5 days and is equivalent to 1/4 of a turn in CEaW. Belgium was also invaded on May 10, 1940 and King Leopold surrendered on May 28, 1940. That's 18 days and is almost equivalent to one turn. Of course Germany also launched its attacked on France on May 10, 1940 and by May 21 had reached the coast near Abbeville cutting off a significant number of Allied forces, which included the British BEF. This is equivalent to a little over 1/2 a turn in CEaW. And, all this happen in the equivalent of one turn in CEaW. I haven't figure a way yet to take Holland and Belgium out in one turn, much less take both these countries out and make a major thrust into France too.

[BenTaylor]

Loads of great ideas thanks for posting

I think perhaps it should be a little bit unpredictable for everyone but that means coding something like a chance of neutrality or a chance of Belgian DOW in response to Holland only invasion. RKR's post is relevant there

I don't know if that can be done. It at least builds in an element of risk for Germans whereas now it is just too certain

A limited Allied response is interesting I think it's true that the best they could do is get in to Belgium rather than immeadiately counter assaulting in the first turn after such an event

I would vote yes for 1

Not so sure about 2

The problem is I like some political intrigue in the game that reflects what really happened. You do need that otherwise why not just have Russia at war from start?; why should minor Axis countries go in with Germans? etc.

[ncali]

I vote "No" to 2 by the way. Although a DOW on Holland would have forced the hand of the Belgian government and brought Allied troops in to protect the country, it would not have happened the other way around. If the Germans had attacked Belgium and left Holland alone, the Dutch would have breathed a sigh of relief as in WWI and carefully guarded their neutrality. In fact, an attack on Belgium alone by Germany would have been something close to a friendly act toward Holland.

[afk_nero]

I agree with RKR in that due to the short amount of time it took to defeat both the Dutch and the Belgians if in its current format this meant that you attacked both at the same time it would produce a result that is totally unhistoric.

If you wanted to have an automatic DOW against both I would suggest the following:

Netherlands has only 1 garrison based in Amsterdam (they had a larger army but they disintegrated)

The belgians should only have garrisons - again a little harsh but they did lack the effective equipment to counter the german invasion.

If the above where implemented I would think that this would produce a historic result and I would have no issue in launching an attack on both states simultaneously. I believe this may give you a chance of knocking out both states in 1/2 turns.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Here is info about Belgium in WW2:

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/belgium.htm

If you read this interesting article you see that the Belgian King Leopold wanted to keep Belgium neutral at almost any cost. Even after the Germans had attacke Belgium directly did he try for awhile to not have the Allies enter Belgian territory. The Belgian Government wanted to allow Allied access to Belgian territory and it took some time until the King accepted it.

Since the King had such influence of the Belgian actions it's my belief that Belgium would not immediately allow the Allied access to Belgium if Germany DoW'ed Holland only. The King would know that allowing Allied entry into Belgian territory would bring the war to Belgium. Maybe the Belgian Government would eventually have convinced the King that war was coming to Belgium anyway, but at least he would have delayed the order to grant the Allied access into Belgium.

You can also read from this text that the Allies had plans to violate Belgian neutrality and move into Belgium uninvited. So it's better in my opinion to make Belgium and Holland completely neutral in the BJR-mod. This means both sides can DoW Belgium and Holland.

Many neutral countries were like ostriches and stuck their heads in the sand. Norway was such an example. We got several warnings that a German invasion was imminent, but the defense minister denied 8 times the request from the war chief to mobilize our troops. Reports about German warships being spotted in Danish war heading northwards were ignored. Even when the German transport shi Rio de Janeiro was torpedoed by a Polish sub on April 8th in the Skagerrak the Norwegian Government didn't react. The salvaged German soldiers in Wehrmacht uniforms from the transport said they were headed for Bergen when the ship was sunk. Even that wasn't enough to issue a mobilization order. So I think we shouldn't underestimate the desire in many minor powers to remain neutral during WW2. The Government used the argument that Norway must not provoke Germany into attacking by mobilizing. They also knew the Allies had plans to invade Norway and they knew Norwegian fjords had been minelayed.

It seems the Belgian King had a similar mindset to the Norwegian Government, i. e. trying to remain neutral at any cost. Fortunately our King Haakon VII did oppose any ideas of surrender. He told the Government he would abdicate rather than accepting the German terms for surrender (stopping all Norwegian resistance and allowing the new Government led by Quisling). Look here for an interesting article about his contribution to the Norwegian resistance during WW2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haakon_VII ... rld_War_II

We have on our agenda for BJR-mod v1.06 or v1.07 weather effects in most of Europe and not only Russia. The normal weather effects will only affect movement. The special weather effects in Russia will affect movement AND efficiency. This change will make it less likely for Germany to attack during the Winter of 1939. We will have to see how it works and adjust France accordingly by e. g. having a lower at start war effort. It's more likely that the Allies will only take Holland during the winter and wait with Belgium until winter ends in the spring.

So my vote is to not activate Belgium with Holland is DoW'ed and vice versa.

[gerones]

I think it could be chosen an intermediate solution: certainly if Germany DOW´s only Holland and not Belgium, Belgium should enter the war since then (this could be historically explained by France and Great Britain pressures made to Belgium to enter the war or at least to let the allies army enter or use its territory). But if Germany DOW´s only Belgium, this (as it has been said above about WWI) shouldn´t cause Holland entrance at war. Then my vote for 1 option is YES, and for 2 is NO.

[OzHawkeye2]

The problem Ieridano is that's not historically accurate. There's piles of evidence to show that if Germany had declared war on Holland only, Belgium STILL would not have enter the war on the Allied side.

[gerones]

The problem Ieridano is that's not historically accurate. There's piles of evidence to show that if Germany had declared war on Holland only, Belgium STILL would not have enter the war on the Allied side.

I´m not quite sure about this... And apart from this I don´t think that it can be done an historical CEAW game at 100%... Keep in mind that USSR enters at war in CEAW (when USSR is not DOW´ed by Germany) by 10/1941 ¿is this historical? Historically it has been said that USSR wouldn´t be prepared for war until 1942-43...As USSR enters at war in CEAW by that choosen date, Belgium should enter the war after Holland is dowed by Germany, in both cases for balancing the game. If, in my opinion, it´s a little bit easy for Germany to beat his enemies in the early CEAW game, it would be even easier for the axis player if Germany can beat his enemies one by one (first Holland, after Belgium, finally France) with his flanks protected and with no, practically, losses...

[afk_nero]

Allot of what is being discussed is very interesting but its all speculation.

What is the facts - it took less than 20 days to defeat both Belgium and the Netherlands - they did this without huge losses. This we know as fact.

So I dispute any claim that its "easier" in the game than it was in reality - it usually takes between 20-40 days to defeat each country. It could be anything up to 80 days if you are unlucky to take both Belgium and the Netherlands.

So should we really be discussing making it easier to defeat both Belgium and the Netherlands?

The belgiums where tougher opponents but still only held for less than 1 game turn. The germans lost no significant amount of equipment or men in the invasion of the Netherlands, and only a bit more with the conquest of Belgium. Making it harder for the Axis player seems very strange to me when looking at the facts of destruction of these countries.

Again I would state that I have no issue with DOW both countries when playing Axis if it was made possible to defeat both in 1 game turn. This can be done by reducing the Netherlands to a single garrison and Belgium to only garrisons.

[joerock22]

Again I would state that I have no issue with DOW both countries when playing Axis if it was made possible to defeat both in 1 game turn. This can be done by reducing the Netherlands to a single garrison and Belgium to only garrisons.

The problem with this is that it would make 1939-1940 too easy for Germany. The Germans could invade France a turn or two earlier and be stronger too! If you look at the fall of France stats on this forum, casualties have steadily gone down while the capture of Paris date has become sooner and sooner as we move from version to version. Personally, I think a lot of this is just getting lots of practice playtesting against our opponents, but later versions of the mod have made the early part of the war easier on Germany too. I would worry about any further changes that might make it easier still. We don't want France surrendering in February, after all

[rkr1958]

My first wargame, which I got in 1973, was Avalon Hill's France 1940. In it they had both historical order of battles and variants. Also, they had a scenario, which they suggested be played solo, based on the Dyle Plan. This was the plan that the Allies actually used and which led to the easy defeat of France in less than a month and to Dunkirk. Basically, when Germany declared war on Holland and Belgium the French and British marched into Belgium and Holland to defend against the German thrust that had to got through there. After all there was no way the Germans could move their armor through the Ardennes or breach the Maginot line. It was an interesting scenario to play solo. However; it was no fun playing against another player; especially if you were the Allies.

We all have 20/20 hindsight and we all can try out and refine our strategies by playing a number of games we have the advantage of not recreating this and other doomed strategies (e.g., Russians in 1941, Germans at Kursk in 1943 or at Stalingrad in 1942).

I'm not sure where I was headed with all this but somehow I feel all this is relevant to me answering "NO" to both questions posed by Borger above.

That is, I feel we should keep it the way it is and continue to allow separate DOW's on Holland and Belgium.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Scheduled for a future BJR-mod version is weather effects in all of Europe. The weather effects will only affect movement during the winter months (November - February). Only Russia will have efficiency loss during the severe weather period.

With such a change it means you won't see the Germans strike through Holland and Belgium in December. It's more likely you will see the Germans invade Holland in November 1939 and spend 2 turns to get to Hague. It's not a good idea for the Germans to rush into Belgium during the winter because you won't take Brussels in one turn. So you might delay the DoW till March.

If we implement these weather effects then we need to look at play balance so France won't get too many units before Germany can engage the French.

I believe that with weather effects we won't see France fall in April 1940 as the norm. Blitzing Belgium in March 1940 and then strike France in April 1940 should be the new target. Then France should last 4-5 turns or so. That means a French surrender in June.

So I think we will have a lot to discuss once the weather effects are implemented.

[afk_nero]

I am excited to see weather effects in the west.

This should make a huge difference to what can and cant be done "out of season"

[gerones]

I think it mustn´t be a house rule that forces the axis player to dow both Holland and Belgium. This way, Belgium entry at war would be a consequence for a separate axis dow in Holland (like Finland join the Axis when USSR seizes Carelia territory). I think this and winter effects will make more historical this phase of the war in western front...

If we implement these weather effects then we need to look at play balance so France won't get too many units before Germany can engage the French.

I don´t think this is a problem: France in winter turns will build its army as Germany will do. I mean Germany waiting until spring turns can build a large army to invade successfully both Benelux and France.

[rkr1958]

I think it mustn´t be a house rule that forces the axis player to dow both Holland and Belgium. This way, Belgium entry at war would be a consequence for a separate axis dow in Holland (like Finland join the Axis when USSR seizes Carelia territory). I think this and winter effects will make more historical this phase of the war in western front...

If we implement these weather effects then we need to look at play balance so France won't get too many units before Germany can engage the French.

I don´t think this is a problem: France in winter turns will build its army as Germany will do. I mean Germany waiting until spring turns can build a large army to invade successfully both Benelux and France.

I think one issue is that the Allied player knows that France won't be around long and so they can completely ignore research and focus entirely on builds. Where as the Germany player needs to invest in research, which doesn't even start to pay off until after the fall of France. For example, in a game I'm currently playing the Allied player built an extra French tank corps. All other French PPs went for infantry corps, or repairs. Couple this with active participation from the Brits and this makes for one bloody affair for the Germans. Hopefully my heavy investment in research will play off later in the game. I have a heck of a lot of repairs left to do. Anyway ... I digress ...

To balance out better defensive terrain and winter weather effects in BJRv1.06 then I believe we need to consider somehow to restrict new French builds but allow them sufficient PPs for repairs. Basically, I feel we may need to consider CEaW engine or data file changes (i.e., not house rules) that mitigates the apriori knowledge that France is doomed and the use of their forces at any cost to inflict maximum damage on the Germans.