Axis DoW vs Allied DoW

vodkaferret

Recruit
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
Perhentian Besar
Country
ll
So.... with the rules stating the TO for declaration of war must be used the turn before invasion, the axis gets to still attack before the defending nation can organise its forces. However for the Allies the defender gets a turn to reorganise and dig in before the Allies can send in their forces. This seems a tad unfair to me... maybe the chivalric west (ahem) would have sent a nice DoW before invading, but not a whole week before :) And Uncle Joe surely didnt give two hoots - he invaded Finland without a formal DoW.

So shouldnt the Allies be allowed to invade on the same turn as DoW? Then the axis player will see the DoW news at the same time as the troops move in, which is the same as the allied player sees on axis invasions.

Only problem I see with this is if inactive units take greater losses in combat than active ones, which would skew things in the Allies favour, but I don't know enough about the TOAW's inner workings to know if that's true??
 

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
So.... with the rules stating the TO for declaration of war must be used the turn before invasion, the axis gets to still attack before the defending nation can organise its forces. However for the Allies the defender gets a turn to reorganise and dig in before the Allies can send in their forces. This seems a tad unfair to me...
It might seem unfair to you but perfectly represents historical early Axis aggressiveness...

I'm sure Poland, Norway/Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Yugoslavia, Greece and USSR also found it unfair....
 

vodkaferret

Recruit
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
Perhentian Besar
Country
ll
It might seem unfair to you but perfectly represents historical early Axis aggressiveness...

I'm sure Poland, Norway/Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Yugoslavia, Greece and USSR also found it unfair....
Maybe I didn't make myself clear - I'm in full agreement with you that the Axis clearly must have the chance of a suprise attack - I just don't see why the Allies , esp the Soviet Union, have to give a weeks advance warning of invasion, when the Axis don't. My thought is not that the Axis should not be allowed surprise attacks, but that the Allies should be allowed them also? As I say, the USSR did not declare war on Finland before they invaded......
 

Secadegas

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
665
Reaction score
3
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Country
llPortugal
Maybe I didn't make myself clear - I'm in full agreement with you that the Axis clearly must have the chance of a suprise attack - I just don't see why the Allies , esp the Soviet Union, have to give a weeks advance warning of invasion, when the Axis don't. My thought is not that the Axis should not be allowed surprise attacks, but that the Allies should be allowed them also? As I say, the USSR did not declare war on Finland before they invaded......
I can't remember any "Allied" surprise or sudden aggression in early WWII to justify modifying one of the (many) strong historical aspects of this scenario.

Of course URRS invaded Finland without a DoW but that it was an expected and ponderous campaign - far from a surprise for the Finns. We can't really compare it with the German's Blitzkrieg operations of 39/41, don't you agree?

However i think you can have a point here... URRS wasn't an "Allied" nation at this point of war. Molotov/Ribbentrop pact was in force at the time...
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
It represents two things: (i) as Secadegas has pointed out, letting the Axis do it covers their propensity for attacking without a formal declaration of war, and (ii) the Allies, East or West, never launched such attacks on neutral nations, partly - for the Western Allies at least - to avoid annoying the US, and partly because I've no confidence that the early war Imperial or French General Staffs, let alone STAVKA, could have organised such a sudden and decisive stroke.
 

vodkaferret

Recruit
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
Perhentian Besar
Country
ll
I can't remember any "Allied" surprise or sudden aggression in early WWII to justify modifying one of the (many) strong historical aspects of this scenario.

Of course URRS invaded Finland without a DoW but that it was an expected and ponderous campaign - far from a surprise for the Finns. We can't really compare it with the German's Blitzkrieg operations of 39/41, don't you agree?

However i think you can have a point here... URRS wasn't an "Allied" nation at this point of war. Molotov/Ribbentrop pact was in force at the time...
Absolutely I agree on the strong historical aspects of this scenario, I think it's an awesome piece of work and would hope it's understood I'm just thinking of small ways it may be improved, not critisising what is a fantastic (and historically strong) scenario.

I also agree that despite the lack of a formal DoW the Finns knew what was coming, and for sure it was not exactly the same as the 39-41 Axis campaigns.

but, I also believe (and will provide sources if required, am limited for time at the moment due to a wife who says we need to leave NOW.. hehehe) ... that at the time of the german invasion of Norway the British already had troops embarking for a pre-emptive occupation, which for sure had not been accompanied by a nice "here we come" diplomatic message. Had the Allies decided to send troops into Belgium without agreement (also covered by a TO in this scenario), I'm not sure any of us can say how much of a warning would "historically" have been given. I think it may have been, but who knows...

So it's more of a thought experiment than anything, but given we can follow a non-historical course in this scenario, I was simply wondering whether the substantial boost allowed by a surprise attack should be limited to use by one side and one side only.
 

vodkaferret

Recruit
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
Perhentian Besar
Country
ll
It represents two things: (i) as Secadegas has pointed out, letting the Axis do it covers their propensity for attacking without a formal declaration of war, and (ii) the Allies, East or West, never launched such attacks on neutral nations, partly - for the Western Allies at least - to avoid annoying the US, and partly because I've no confidence that the early war Imperial or French General Staffs, let alone STAVKA, could have organised such a sudden and decisive stroke.
(i) We're all in agreement on this point. I've never suggested the Axis not have this ability, that would just be silly.
(ii) A perfectly reasonable explanation. Hadn't thought of the US part, STAVKA I'm not sure about (Zhukov for one was pushing for a pre-barbarossa strike), French staff, for sure :)

Thanks.
 
Top