Combined WiFCE/DoD III Campaign Playthrough #8: Mar/Apr - May/Jun 1937

Some political miscues lead to an unexpected development on the maps.

[@bjarneandreassen9118]

Yeah! And it not even christmas yet!

[@jamescopping8999]

I’m coming very late to this series but thoroughly enjoying it and learning a lot. Many thanks.

[@thetabletopsedge]

Welcome aboard! Glad you're enjoying it!

[@markriley5966]

Superbly done. The exacting detail is very much appreciated as I learn stuff every time - in particular how to set up and operate a civil war, previously a complete mystery to me.

[@thetabletopsedge]

Thank you! Glad you are enjoying it, and even picked up a thing or two. There are a few gray areas with regards to civil wars in the rules (things like hex control upon setup, etc.), but the meat of the rules are there. My group always plays for the enjoyment of the game, rather than with a tournament mindset, so we usually just talk through whatever sticking points we come across in the rules and come to a mutually acceptable agreement about how to handle it. Sometimes I worry about droning on too much, but feedback like yours helps a lot. Stay tuned, as there's a lot more to come!

[@emrd1]

This is great! I played DOD1 many years ago. Have owned this one for years, but never even read the rules. Thank You🙂

[@devincutler6460]

Love this series, as I've never played DOD2 or DOD 3 despite having played WIF for almost 30 years. So, it is very informative to me. I do have a few questions to bring up: #1. If Spain is getting full wartime movement allowances even though it is neutral, what does that mean if, say, Italy DOWs Greece while both are neutral? Are you going to give Greece and Italy full wartime naval moves? #2. It seems to me that not allowing zero bid powers to get the bonus PE points to their next turn bid really tends to shackle the non-Axis powers. It seems to me that extending the PE bonus to all non-bidding powers would better allow more inactive powers to do things. It also smooths out the difference between bidding 1 money and bidding zero money. #3. Can you explain a bit more how the civil wars work in DOD3? By that I mean: A. Who gets initial control of the non-occupied hexes? Do the rebels start with control of any hexes other than the ones they start in? It seems this would be vital for both supply and rail movement, both of which would be crucial in this Spanish Civil War. B. How are you keeping track of which faction controls which hexes, especially as they start to move around? C. Why are both the Nationalist and Republican units counted for the Spanish Civil War but if some other minor had a civil war, you'd just divide up their normal force pool? Is this a special rule for Spain? D. How would you recommend keeping track of government and rebel units in the case of a non-Spanish country going into civil war, since they don't have specific government and rebel units? E. Would Tangiers count as a resource point for the civil war? If so, then I think the Nationalists should have set up the division there so as to have an unassailable resource point since they have the only TRS available. Keep up the good work! I am looking forward to seeing how DOD integrates with WIF during the full-blown stages of WW2 (1941-1945).

[@thetabletopsedge]

Hi Devin! I definitely recognize your name from the old WIFList. Glad you are enjoying my humble little series! I'll try to answer your questions as best I can: 1)Excellent question. In your example (It vs Gr), I would keep Italy under the neutral definition of "naval move", since the WiF rules do explicitly state that a MP is considered neutral unless at war with another MP. For Greece, though, I don't think I would do so. My reasoning (however faulty) is based on the relative efforts of each side. A MP can prosecute a war against a minor country without necessarily having to fully mobilize its armed forces, let alone its economy and society. A minor country, on the other hand, due to its size, need to put everything it can into the fight because its very survival is at stake. Greece would still be subject to the impulse type action limits of its controlling MP, which if it is also neutral would be restricted to Combined impulse types only. It's just that the Greeks could perhaps get a little more efficient use of whatever navy they have since I wouldn't hold them to the neutral definition. 2) The more I think about it, the more I believe the language was added to increase the number of bidding MP's each Political Phase. It's an effort to increase "the action", which is a very Harry thing to do. From a philosophical perspective, I hate players getting something for nothing in games (not just WiF, but any game). From a practical standpoint, for many powers there just isn't all that much they need to do every turn. While there are 21 IPO's, as well as several country specific MP options, many of them are highly situation-dependent. Stuff like Surrender, Declare War, Gear Up, CBV's, etc. Most turns, many (if not most) political options simply aren't applicable. The Fascists have the most to do, while the Democracies have the least. Which I think is reasonably historical. It's not that there is nothing for the Democracies to do, it's just that they are the "status quo" powers who see no need to upset the current state of world affairs, which tends to make them more reactionary and less active generally. If you have any experience with DoD I, you'll recall that it was very much the Axis powers who dominated the political phase in that edition. DoD II/III certainly breaks out of the strict historical mold, but the Fascists still tend to be the MP's dominating the political phase. For some MP's, like China for instance, they don't really have very much to do. So having China bidding every, or even many, political phases just to play a non-relevant, ineffectual option tends to slow play down. I'm also one who thinks that MP's need to have some skin in the game if they want to be politically active. Having to decide on whether, and how much, to bid each turn can be an interesting, and sometimes difficult, puzzle to wrestle with. Plus, the bonus PE points seems like a nice consolation for MP's that got screwed out of a chance to play whatever option they were trying to. Their bid cost them real money (which could have gone towards units), and so rather than see them screwed out of that, they get an opportunity to have a better chance at scoring a lower initiative in the following turn. Of course, they'll still have to bid again, and spend more money, but they will know that they will have some extra bid points to help them out. All that said, I'm totally open to other groups' differing play styles, and hardly think that my way is the only it should be done. It just feels more correct to me. 3)A) The rules do state that the government controls every hex not occupied by rebels at setup. You are 100% correct that this has implications for things like supply paths and rail moves. B) In a solo playthrough/demo like this, I don't track it precisely. In fact, unless I'm playing in a tournament setting (which I never do) I usually just eyeball it. For most minors, they have so few units, and their countries are so small, that it's normally not a problem to keep track of which hex is controlled by which faction. Spain (and other large minors like Turkey) can be problematic early on, due to the often chaotic nature of the setup. However, as you'll see over the next couple of episodes, the civil wars often develop into a much more conventional situation with a reasonably obvious traditional looking front line. For games or situations where precise control tracking is desired, I usually use either KT-X markers or small plastic, transparent colored discs to mark hexes where control isn't obvious. C) This is indeed a special rule unique to Spain. The civil war setup rules call out the Spanish by name. I believe this is because Spain is the only minor country that has units for two different factions. D) We handle it through counter orientation. For example, all government units are oriented "normally" (top to the north of the maps), while all rebel units would be oriented the opposite (top to the south). This has worked pretty well for us over the years, you just have to take care when inverting units and un-inverting them that you maintain the proper orientation. E) Another excellent question. The setup rules state, "whoever sets up first chooses 1 of their units and places it on any resource, factory, port, or city IN THE COUNTRY (exception: the Belgian Congo and NEI territorial must set up in its territory)." I believe Spanish Morocco is considered a separate country from Spain, and therefore ineligible for unit placement (or to count towards production). But historically, that was a Nationalist stronghold, and Franco's troops were dramatically airlifted from there into Spain by Ju-52's. I can't find anything in the civil war rules that explicitly addresses minor controlled territories outside of "the minor". But in fact it was a total oversight on my part. The camera rig may have been in the way of Spanish Morocco, and it was out-of-sight, out-of-mind. I recall back in DoD I, the setup was fixed and there were Nationalist units located in Tangiers. I honestly don't know how I should rule on this. I see a strong "common sense" argument for it, but the rules are unfortunately silent on it. Hope this adds some clarification for you. Thanks for watching, and stay tuned as there's a lot more to come!

[@denisdelarive7753]

Very enjoyable as are most of your productions, very educational too. Many will have learned how a civil war works. Thanks for such great content.🙂

[@thetabletopsedge]

Glad you are enjoying it, and getting something out of it. More to come!

[@McCainenl]

This is such a cool series! I love it every time I see the update, please keep em coming :)

[@McCainenl]

btw shouldn't the Spanish Rep division have tried to take Vigo for the BP?

[@thetabletopsedge]

@@McCainenl Vigo is only a minor port, with no city. Only cities, factories, and resources provide production for either side in a civil war. But I like your thinking! 😉

[@davidkujala3603]

Great video

[@ardwulfslair]

We're gonna talk about putting WiF on the schedule.

[@shawntorno]

Yes, please do.

[@czujnywilczek6832]

Any expeditionary units from Axis? It was quite important in the Spanish civil war. It looks like Nationalist are immidietly on a losing side :/

[@davidkujala3603]

Thank you

[@kentnilsson465]

I like the AETO/APTO game better but the DOD part is much better and interesting in the WiF series. Keep up the good work, very interesting to follow and I admire your reasoing for all the nations decisions

[@thetabletopsedge]

Thanks! AETO/APTO is definitely another classic grand strategic WWII system. Sometimes I wonder if all my yammering gets old, but I am hoping to give viewers some insight as to why certain countries are doing certain things. I am not trying to show optimal strategies, by any means. Rather, the goal is to demonstrate some (hopefully) reasonable strategies that viewers may encounter if they try playing this monster themselves. Mistakes will be made (both rule mistakes, which I hope to keep to a bare minimum) and strategic mistakes. But strategic mistakes can often lead to interesting and entertaining games!

[@kentnilsson465]

@@thetabletopsedge As person who has a good understanding of ww2 and the 30s, I enjoy the yammering the most. The decisions about the neutrals, the buildup etc. I would add though that while there were sympathetic swedes towards Germany, they were in the clear minority and what was in the leading circles quickly disappeared with the German attack on Denmark and Norway. The Communists in Sweden had an even worse time and after the attack on Finland they were chased everywhere in society. So while we were afraid, the chance of Sweden joining the Axis was 0%. But for the game its interesting

[@Dell999950]

Awesome!- Good to see the Spanish Civil War starting. I guess the Axis (and Allies) can start supporting via tanks/planes?

[@thetabletopsedge]

Correct. There are IPO's that allow a MP to support either the loyalists or the rebels by building units for them (works similarly to Lend-Lease), as well as actually giving them some of their own units. It will be interesting to see how much the various MP's are willing to invest in the outcome of the civil war.

[@kentnilsson465]

15:04, my numbers dont match, Im at Ger 8, Fra 5, US 1 and China at 2. Now the 2 more for Germany I wrote in the 1936 video, but the difference on the other 3 are new. China had one in Mar/april, got one new and did nothing but you still have her at 1? Fra had 3, got 3 new and built a TP, doesnt that give her 5? And finally, US had 0, got 3 and built a TP(-2) which should leave her at 1. Now I havent seen the build for mar/april so I could be wrong, I used the BP for the previous turn

[@shawntorno]

Woot!

[@nikolai877]

It would seem as if Italy and Germany would pretend to be allies, it would have been more worthwhile for Germany to minor-nation-ally Spain, thus taking control of "Republican" Spain in a case of a civil war from the coup and thus easily guaranteeing a swift end to the civil war? (Rather than alienating Italy over Hungary, especially pointlessly given that it's several years left until any actual alignments can take place.)

[@thetabletopsedge]

That is an entirely valid strategy. Two reasons Germany did not pursue something like that in this game are: 1) The cost of moving Republican Spain far enough to be controlled by Germany. Germany has already spent a lot of money trying to bring Sweden under her control. It would take an even larger investment to do the same for Spain, because Spain's marker starts much farther from Germany on the Status Display than Sweden's. More hexes to move requires more influence, which requires more options targeting Spain, which requires more money. 2) Spain could be useful to Germany, particularly if a war breaks out with France. However, Spain can be quite vulnerable to Allied attacks, especially before France can be taken out. Germany chose instead to focus on Sweden and Scandinavia while leaving the Med to Italy. Germany and Italy had discussed "spheres of influence", and agreed that the Med would be Italy's (which includes Spain, in this case), while Germany would get northern Europe. What they failed to discuss in detail was central and eastern Europe. Which is how the Hungary fiasco happened. For the moment, Germany isn't much stronger than Italy, but eventually Italy will very much be the junior partner in the alliance, and pretty much have to dance to Germany's tune. But it doesn't always have to be this way. That's the cool thing about DoD III, there are so many valid and interesting strategies to pursue. No two games will ever play out the same way. In this game Germany chose to focus on Scandinavia, but in another game she could just as easily have chosen Spain to concentrate on, even if not to fully control her, but at least control the government forces if a civil war breaks out.

[@pm71241]

I agree that just saying "initiative" is vague... but ... how could "lower initiative" be interpreted if it was WiF initiative?

[@thetabletopsedge]

Excellent point, and I think that reinforces my decision to use political initiative to determine set up order for civil wars.

[@tridbant]

If Italy had moved their influence marker before Germany then it looks like Germany would have won Austria.

[@thetabletopsedge]

You are absolutely correct! And this is an excellent example of why the order in which the influence markers are resolved is so important sometimes.