Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Name one major power in WWI or WWII which continued to fight after its capital was taken. And count the major powers that surrendered even before their capital was taken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Name one major power in WWI or WWII which continued to fight after its capital was taken. And count the major powers that surrendered even before their capital was taken.

China. Lost Nanking...fought until the end.

Now count the major powers that moved or had plans to move their capital so they could continue to fight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I was thinking about countries that surrendered when their capital fell, major or minor, and none came to mind. Most continued to fight after their capitals were taken, several surrendered before their capitals were taken, but none surrendered only because their capital was enemy occupied, were they ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

Everything right, I think. But with the loss of a capital and a country also a substantial part of the resources, economy and production power is lost. Of course, if possible, an exile government will be established and various units will continue the fight in one way or another. But what is the best way to illustrate this process? A few partisans and free units with an exile capital or the "takeover" of a whole country? From the point of view of the axis player, a territorial shift of England into the hardly accessible area of Canada (Surrender_1 - DE 105, and thus a de facto reestablishment of the already beaten major) could be felt as "somewhat unjust" after all the efforts of an invasion...just a thought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Its the multitude of advantages gained by the Axis that is the unbalancing factor; especially given that historically the move to Canada was a definite possibility and the self governing dominions already in the war were remote from German attack unlike the French North African possessions.

A loss of all MPPs held would seem a legitimate penalty (with reduced MPP income thereafter) but to remove all the British forces (land and air plus naval units in ports) in UK and Mid-East is a massive bonus for the Axis as it instantly allows them to fully redeploy and reinfoce eastwards to Russia and Persia. Game experience suggests these units would swiftly be overcome or forced to flee, by transport or air operation, but as long as they continue they distract the Axis. The removal of the GB force pool may be justified but shouldn't Canada's be supplemented to reflect other Empire force potential. The final killer is the ending of any further British research thereby condemming what's left (mainly RN) to soon to be obsolesence.

quote:

What about Germany?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

What about Germany?

Captured on the 2nd but fighting didn't stop until the 7th. By the 7th most of Germany was occupied and their remaining units were a shambles, so that plus Hitler's death are the reasons for Germany to surrender, not Berlin.
In game terms each country should be looked at separately, because not one rule would cover them all. For 1990's Third Reich I can see why a capital would have such programming significance, but these days not so much. I have read of Germany and Russia making provisions for moving the governments so that the loss of Berlin or Moscow would not cause a surrender, but I don't recall ever reading about Britain and what they historically had planned. Has anybody else ? I would be interested to incorporate something into the 653H mod. As it is now, if Sealion is successful, I have the UK taking control of Nova Scotia as a base of operations and seat of new government [no Egypt option].

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonik

Sure UK capital transferred to Alexandria doesn't make any sense gamewise nor historically .
On the other hand if it happens, that means that Sealion has succeeded and then UK surrender is irrelevant because Axis won the game anyway .
It is not Russia which will stop the Germans to get Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad and then the game is over .

The answer on the question "What to do when UK surrenders ?" is "Nothing, start another game ."
What is more important is that making UK surrender should be VERY difficult and not just an afterthought .

quote:

Have you considered all options within the gameplay to insure that Britain doesn't fall easily? Keeping Britain well-garrisoned, even if foreign adventures must be curtailed?
Expanding the already large RN to withstand an assault from a more formidable KM agenda? Same with RAF?

quote:

With all due respect sPz, 5 days is essentially contemporaneous with the fall of the capital. Especially in terms of the length of a turn in the game. This is just a quibble in my view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonik

Hitler not only intended to invade England but ordered to plan it in his Weisung 16 on 16.7.1940 .
What you apparently ignore is that the transport fleet was already gathered on the invasion ports (some 300 ships and 2 000 transport barges) .
The condition was to eliminate the RAF what almost happened when Hitler surprisingly ordered to Attack towns instead of air fields what basically saved the RAF and prevented Sealion .
He would do the same error later in Russia ordering a priority on economical targets instead on the destruction of the ennemy armed forces .

quote:

This is NOT a historical simulation

quote:

I wasn't given the option of moving it anywhere.

quote:

move into place and attack is so ahistorical it just ruins the game for us history nuts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jgs

quote:

This is NOT a historical simulation

I sure wish I had read this before my purchase. Sure, the game has great graphics and so many historic connections to give it great flavor. I appreciate the time effort put into those areas. But they are just icing on the cake and they can't compensate for Risk-like game engine. The "keep rolling until their dead" kills me in a game with so much historic promise. To see a battle unfold where the adject enemy unit attacks, withdraws, then the next enemy unit moves into position, attacks, withdraws, and a third unit, now remember we are dealing with at least division size units, move into place and attack is so ahistorical it just ruins the game for us history nuts.

I am glad there are so many people who enjoy the game and I wish Fury continuing success.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar


I guess without these changes in gamemechanics, it would be more of a WWI-style combat, with little gains and nearly equal losses. So for my part, I highly appreciate those changes.