Russia surrender? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided



Message

invernomuto -> Russia surrender? (1/2/2007 7:10:24 PM)

Hi to all,
in AWD if Germany controls some Russian key provinces like Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow is there a chance of "russia surrender" event? In my game as Germany I conquered Gorky, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad and I'm still chasing russian units across Siberia. Quite unrealistic IMHO.

Bye




Tom Grosv -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/2/2007 7:27:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto
in AWD if Germany controls some Russian key provinces like Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow is there a chance of "russia surrender" event? In my game as Germany I conquered Gorky, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad and I'm still chasing russian units across Siberia. Quite unrealistic IMHO.


No, don't think there is a chance of russian surrender.

Unrealistic? Hitler made it a war of annihilation - why would they want to do anything except continue fighting?



invernomuto -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/2/2007 9:40:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Grosv

No, don't think there is a chance of russian surrender.

Unrealistic? Hitler made it a war of annihilation - why would they want to do anything except continue fighting?


In Hearts of Iron there was a similar event, I thought there was one similar for AWD. A Russia surrender event should be implemented by the game engine. While I agree with you that Hitler wanted the annilathion of Soviet Union and Communism, Stalin Government was on the verge of collapse during the first months of Barbarossa. At the beginning of German invasion of Russia, Stalin was more worried by traitors than by german panzers.



Joel Billings -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/2/2007 9:49:12 PM)

Just curious. What would a Russian surrender look like to those that want one? Would a Vichy type government be set up for Siberia? I thought Germany wanted to achieve the A-A line Archangel to Astrakhan. Would everything up to A-A become German controlled and anything east of it become an Axis Minor country like Vichy? Do you see all Soviet areas becoming German controlled?

Also, some have wanted an England/Commonwealth surrender as well. What would those look like? I'm not saying we would make any of these changes, but it's possible if we end up making the game more moddable down the road that these kinds of changes could be made (we are looking at adding more moddabilty). In order to make them though we'd need some agreement on what people think are reasonable surrender conditions (and the rules detailing surrender) for these major powers.



wargameplayer -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/2/2007 9:49:27 PM)

quote:

it a war of annihilation - why would they want to do anything except continue fighting?


There is no provision or chance of a script event for a russian surrender.

I think a random event if the key provinces are taken does make sense. I wish we had one:)



JagdFlanker -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/2/2007 10:05:43 PM)

the soviets would never have surrendered, especially given the fact that hitler never intended to go much beyond moscow, to the urals max. at that point the front would have been so long it would never have been defendable and the germans would have been pushed back the same way they were, albeit the soviets would likely have not ended up taking so much of eastern europe. hitler massively underestimated the soviet's military capabilities and in the end that front could never been won even if he had not made the massive amounts of mistakes that doomed the invasion right from the start. of course in this game the germans do not have the same problems and once they are up to the urals the USSR almost ceases to exist as a military power (as i found out the last 2 games playing the USSR - of course it didn't help that the western allies AI still hadn't done D-Day by the end of 1944 and i got left out to dry)



WanderingHead -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/2/2007 10:06:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
I thought Germany wanted to achieve the A-A line Archangel to Astrakhan. Would everything up to A-A become German controlled and anything east of it become an Axis Minor country like Vichy?


This is the implementation I would have suggested, although maybe the neutral eastern zone would be better "balanced".

If the Vichy surrender rules were made generic (i.e. nothing hard coded to define them) then obviously this could be done. The most awkward thing might be damaged infrastructure. No Vichy infrastructure is ever damaged, so it is not an issue there. But with Russia it would be an issue.

I think that this would be a very large coding effort, very ambitious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
Also, some have wanted an England/Commonwealth surrender as well. What would those look like? I'm not saying we would make any of these changes, but it's possible if we end up making the game more moddable down the road that these kinds of changes could be made (we are looking at adding more moddabilty). In order to make them though we'd need some agreement on what people think are reasonable surrender conditions (and the rules detailing surrender) for these major powers.


I think if Russia were implementable as above, then this would be easy. The flexibility to do a Vichy-like surrender would be enough to do stuff in between.

I've considered just splitting the Australia and India into separate nations, and giving them surrender rules like Italy (the units disappear). I think that might even be implementable in the data files right now, but I'm not sure.

That's a bit harsh, but then Australian troops would be likely to be called home with this implementation, so the outcome of the harsh rule seems reasonable.

This would require that the unit nationalities be distinguishable.



WanderingHead -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/2/2007 10:09:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flanker Leader
the soviets would never have surrendered, especially given the fact that hitler never intended to go much beyond moscow, to the urals max.


With the existing leadership, if it survived, yes.

But it is easy to imagine a complete breakdown of government and the flimsy economic system that somehow teetered along through 1942, which is effectively the same thing as surrender in game terms.




wargameplayer -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/2/2007 10:35:57 PM)

The Soviets were just as likely to surrender as any other power or any other Russians. Remember, the Russians did sign a separate peace with the Germans in WWII under far less pressure (moscow was far from occupied). If enough big targets are lost there are always people inside a government that decide to save the day, change the government and work out a deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flanker Leader

the soviets would never have surrendered, especially given the fact that hitler never intended to go much beyond moscow, to the urals max. at that point the front would have been so long it would never have been defendable and the germans would have been pushed back the same way they were, albeit the soviets would likely have not ended up taking so much of eastern europe. hitler massively underestimated the soviet's military capabilities and in the end that front could never been won even if he had not made the massive amounts of mistakes that doomed the invasion right from the start. of course in this game the germans do not have the same problems and once they are up to the urals the USSR almost ceases to exist as a military power (as i found out the last 2 games playing the USSR - of course it didn't help that the western allies AI still hadn't done D-Day by the end of 1944 and i got left out to dry)




invernomuto -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/3/2007 12:21:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Just curious. What would a Russian surrender look like to those that want one? Would a Vichy type government be set up for Siberia? I thought Germany wanted to achieve the A-A line Archangel to Astrakhan. Would everything up to A-A become German controlled and anything east of it become an Axis Minor country like Vichy? Do you see all Soviet areas becoming German controlled?


The first option is better IMHO. If Barbarossa is successful (Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad are occupied by the Germans) there is a chance that Russia become an Axis minor country. About the extent of the german controlled regions, IMHO Russia surrender event should offer to the axis player a trade off: accept a Vichy Russia and be forced to give back some valuable regions (but ending war in the est) or refuse it and go for total conquest, but leaving Western Front open for an Allied D-Day.

quote:


Also, some have wanted an England/Commonwealth surrender as well. What would those look like? I'm not saying we would make any of these changes, but it's possible if we end up making the game more moddable down the road that these kinds of changes could be made (we are looking at adding more moddabilty). In order to make them though we'd need some agreement on what people think are reasonable surrender conditions (and the rules detailing surrender) for these major powers.


I think that England would surrender (or, better, there could be a chance to) ONLY if London is captured (operation sealion is successful) *and* USA has not yet declared war to the Axis.

Bye



WanderingHead -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/3/2007 1:00:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto
I think that England would surrender (or, better, there could be a chance to) ONLY if London is captured (operation sealion is successful) *and* USA has not yet declared war to the Axis.


What about Australia and India? Any thoughts there?

One of the reasons I liked the idea of Aus/Indian surrender rules is that it provides a strategic political reason for Japan to take them on, rather than relying entirely on Strategic Points.



JagdFlanker -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/3/2007 1:08:23 AM)

quote:

quote:

the soviets would never have surrendered, especially given the fact that hitler never intended to go much beyond moscow, to the urals max. at that point the front would have been so long it would never have been defendable and the germans would have been pushed back the same way they were, albeit the soviets would likely have not ended up taking so much of eastern europe. hitler massively underestimated the soviet's military capabilities and in the end that front could never been won even if he had not made the massive amounts of mistakes that doomed the invasion right from the start. of course in this game the germans do not have the same problems and once they are up to the urals the USSR almost ceases to exist as a military power (as i found out the last 2 games playing the USSR - of course it didn't help that the western allies AI still hadn't done D-Day by the end of 1944 and i got left out to dry)



The Soviets were just as likely to surrender as any other power or any other Russians. Remember, the Russians did sign a separate peace with the Germans in WWII under far less pressure (moscow was far from occupied). If enough big targets are lost there are always people inside a government that decide to save the day, change the government and work out a deal.


unlike any of the other powers stalin got and stayed in power by destroying everyone that was even a remote threat to him so there was, in effect, nobody in the government that could decide or change anything. when the germans invaded, stalin was so shocked by the german betrayal that he went into deep seclusion for several days, assuming he would be ousted from power but the generals and party came back and BEGGED him to return to take control of the situation. stalin united the entire population (by fear and propaganda) better than any other ruler in russian history and regardless he would have ruled them until he died of natural causes.

and as far as any other possible outcome to the great patriotic war, being very intimate with the tactical and strategic situation of the entire eastern front (for the first 3 years at least) i can assure you that the only mistake hitler made that guaranteed the destruction of the third reich was the invasion of the USSR - once they went over the border there was not a single thing that they could have done to change the eventual outcome. it's fun to think so, especially when we play a fun game like a world divided, and it shouldn't be discouraged, but when you study the facts deeply there was only 1 outcome and only the details could have been different.

as far as london falling, the commonwealth was more like a collection of countries led but not so much ruled by england so i don't think it would actually changed anything on that end - the commonwealth would still have held together but they would have been led by the usa once they enter the war. actually at least some of britains fighting forces would have been outside of britain and they would have kept fighting with canada/ANZAC, containing germany in afrika at least.



WanderingHead -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/3/2007 1:53:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flanker Leader
unlike any of the other powers stalin got and stayed in power by destroying everyone that was even a remote threat to him so there was, in effect, nobody in the government that could decide or change anything. when the germans invaded, stalin was so shocked by the german betrayal that he went into deep seclusion for several days, assuming he would be ousted from power but the generals and party came back and BEGGED him to return to take control of the situation. stalin united the entire population (by fear and propaganda) better than any other ruler in russian history and regardless he would have ruled them until he died of natural causes.


Just because it DID happen that way doesn't mean it HAD to happen that way. There could have been a coup.

Hell, Stalin stayed in Moscow. We might as well allow that he might have been captured or killed by the Germans if Moscow fell, and if, as you say, there was absolutely noone else in Russia who could have led the country then that single, quite possible, event would 100% have brought about complete Russian collapse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flanker Leader
as far as london falling, the commonwealth was more like a collection of countries led but not so much ruled by england so i don't think it would actually changed anything on that end - the commonwealth would still have held together but they would have been led by the usa once they enter the war. actually at least some of britains fighting forces would have been outside of britain and they would have kept fighting with canada/ANZAC, containing germany in afrika at least.


I fully agree that if London falls the rest of the Commonwealth should keep fighting.

But what if Canberra falls?

New Delhi?

I think that the Aussie forces might well have been called home if the Japanese landed in Queensland.

I think that if British rule in India was destroyed, and Japan allowed the formation of a semi-autonomous Indian nation, it is quite likely that many Indian troops would stop fighting for Britain.



wargameplayer -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/3/2007 4:31:40 AM)

History is full of strong men then get toppled by others for one reason or another. Ranging from bombs exploding under a desk or gunshots. Or just getting hit by a bus.

You think Hitler ruled with less of an iron fist than Stalin? You think he didn't purge people who had an opposition? Of course not.

And he had someone try and plant a bomb under a desk and if he had been sitting just a few feet to the right that would have been that. It would have changed the war, either ending it or making it worse who knows but it would have changed.

The point is not to say "that never would have happened" or to claim to have some knowledge of Stalin that historians 50 years later now claim to have but to allow for a random event in a video game to do the What if's. If say 10/12 factories were taken and Russia was lost most of it's key cities, yeah it's possible there might have been a policy change. And for all I know you might have actually been there (you write like you were) but the point is to allow for a different outcome. Because if everything is just going to happen like it did in WWII then what's the point.

More pointedly. What do you think the AV that's already in the game represents. Has total destruction occurred? Does AV even require half of Soviet production for a total Axis victory. Nope.

This is just asking for a more complicated version of AV to be introduced for other powers such as the USSR/the commonwealth countries or a change in the US war entry.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flanker Leader

quote:

quote:

the soviets would never have surrendered, especially given the fact that hitler never intended to go much beyond moscow, to the urals max. at that point the front would have been so long it would never have been defendable and the germans would have been pushed back the same way they were, albeit the soviets would likely have not ended up taking so much of eastern europe. hitler massively underestimated the soviet's military capabilities and in the end that front could never been won even if he had not made the massive amounts of mistakes that doomed the invasion right from the start. of course in this game the germans do not have the same problems and once they are up to the urals the USSR almost ceases to exist as a military power (as i found out the last 2 games playing the USSR - of course it didn't help that the western allies AI still hadn't done D-Day by the end of 1944 and i got left out to dry)



The Soviets were just as likely to surrender as any other power or any other Russians. Remember, the Russians did sign a separate peace with the Germans in WWII under far less pressure (moscow was far from occupied). If enough big targets are lost there are always people inside a government that decide to save the day, change the government and work out a deal.


unlike any of the other powers stalin got and stayed in power by destroying everyone that was even a remote threat to him so there was, in effect, nobody in the government that could decide or change anything. when the germans invaded, stalin was so shocked by the german betrayal that he went into deep seclusion for several days, assuming he would be ousted from power but the generals and party came back and BEGGED him to return to take control of the situation. stalin united the entire population (by fear and propaganda) better than any other ruler in russian history and regardless he would have ruled them until he died of natural causes.

and as far as any other possible outcome to the great patriotic war, being very intimate with the tactical and strategic situation of the entire eastern front (for the first 3 years at least) i can assure you that the only mistake hitler made that guaranteed the destruction of the third reich was the invasion of the USSR - once they went over the border there was not a single thing that they could have done to change the eventual outcome. it's fun to think so, especially when we play a fun game like a world divided, and it shouldn't be discouraged, but when you study the facts deeply there was only 1 outcome and only the details could have been different.

as far as london falling, the commonwealth was more like a collection of countries led but not so much ruled by england so i don't think it would actually changed anything on that end - the commonwealth would still have held together but they would have been led by the usa once they enter the war. actually at least some of britains fighting forces would have been outside of britain and they would have kept fighting with canada/ANZAC, containing germany in afrika at least.




gijas17 -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/3/2007 9:00:00 AM)

Here's a interesting link to what might have happened if Hitler captured Moscow:

http://www.reddotbooks.co.uk/moscow-option-alternative-second-world-p-876.html

I do believe if Hitler would have launched Operation Barbarossa earlier (like in May or maybe early June) he could have captured Moscow, Leningrad, etc..instead of fooling around in Crete and crushing an uprising in the Balkin States/Greece. If this was accomplished then the Russians (Soviets) would have no where to go but backwards and any counter-offensive would prove just as coastly to them as it would have been for the Germans taking those cities in the first place. The Red Armies morale was extremely low at this point and would have been even lower by losing Moscow and Leningrad to the Germans so many Russian soldiers might have deserted despite being shot for it. Most likely, the war would have continued in Russia but in more of hit and run tactics for the Russians. Stalin knew if he lost the capital city then the war was over for Russia and with winter setting in any counter-offensive against Moscow would be too costly and useless with the Germans being dug in by then.

By Spring the German Army would have continued the war to crush the remaining Russian resistance to the East and thus Russia would be out knocked of the war. I then think Hitler would have concentrated on North Africa by invading through Iran/Iraq from Russia and re-supply Rom. to the West for the pincer attack on the Allies. If this was succesful then he could have concentrated on Britain again for a full scale invasion of the mainland or put more research into his U-Boat warfare to dismantle allied shipping and surround England in entirely. Britain would have then sued for peace with Germany. That's just my opinion though.



JagdFlanker -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/3/2007 3:38:16 PM)

looks like a neat book - might have to look around for it!

for the record hitler used a very different method of ensuring rule - he was so charming and charismatic that everybody who met him loved him and wanted to please him, and also he always assigned 2 competing "bureaus" to do the same job for almost every task in the third reich so they were always so busy competing with each other for hitler's favor they didn't have time to plot against hitler. of course there were those who saw through hitler later in the war and started plotting anyways, but overall it worked surprisingly well until germany got in trouble...



Tom Grosv -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/3/2007 3:45:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL:  invernomuto
I think that England would surrender (or, better, there could be a chance to) ONLY if London is captured (operation sealion is successful) *and* USA has not yet declared war to the Axis.

 
quote:

ORIGINAL:  gijas
By Spring the German Army would have continued the war to crush the remaining Russian resistance to the East and thus Russia would be out knocked of the war. I then think Hitler would have concentrated on North Africa by invading through Iran/Iraq from Russia and re-supply Rom. to the West for the pincer attack on the Allies. If this was succesful then he could have concentrated on Britain again for a full scale invasion of the mainland or put more research into his U-Boat warfare to dismantle allied shipping and surround England in entirely. Britain would have then sued for peace with Germany. That's just my opinion though.

 
Here's a speech you may have heard -
 
"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
 
Just hot air perhaps.....
 
..........but I don’t think so.  I believe Churchill articulated the mood of a Britain and Empire/Commonwealth (don’t want to ruffle feathers but the word Empire was still used to a large extent then) that were not at all likely to surrender.  And we were desperately alone after the fall of France in 1940 with no sign of our American or Russian allies joining the fray – did we surrender?  Not even with Hitler offering the temptation of Britain keeping its Empire while leaving Germany a free hand in Europe.
 
If any changes to AWD don’t reflect a “Churchillian” spirit it’ll be teddy bears flung in the corner time I’m afraid.



wargameplayer -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/4/2007 2:43:17 AM)

Well what's he going to say.

They had just lost Belgium, Netherlands, France, and even Norway in a busy afternoon. Wasn't that much more to lose but that island. There are not a lot of other "giving a good speech" options other than yeah we'll take a beating and keep on ticking.




WanderingHead -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/4/2007 7:17:43 AM)

Back to Joel's question.

If Allied surrenders were to be implemented, how should they be implemented?

I see the following as reasonable:
1) Britain never surrenders (the loss of England is penalty enough, and the fleets really quite likely would have rebased to Commonwealth/Empire and kept on).

2) Australia is a separate nation and can surrender.

3) India is a separate nation and can surrender.

4) Russia can surrender.

But how should the surrender look afterwards? The choices I see are:
a) the nation becomes neutral (balanced?)
b) the nation becomes frozen
c) the nations units disappear
d) combine (c) with (a) or (b)
e) the nation provides a "resource gift" to the Axis (tribute).
f) maybe some territories given to the Axis (or reclaimed?).

What combination of the above? Something else?

Should anything short of being attacked make that nation DOW again?

IMO, the surrender criteria themselves (this and that territory, whatever) are much easier to define than what _happens_ upon surrender. The criteria discussion could be deferred.

Personally, what I would like most about possible surrender rules would be being able to reduce the impact of "Strategic Points" and have victory follow more naturally from an actual political/strategic situation implemented in the game.




gijas17 -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/4/2007 7:45:52 AM)


[[/quote]
 
Here's a speech you may have heard -
 
"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
 
Just hot air perhaps.....
 
..........but I don’t think so.  I believe Churchill articulated the mood of a Britain and Empire/Commonwealth (don’t want to ruffle feathers but the word Empire was still used to a large extent then) that were not at all likely to surrender.  And we were desperately alone after the fall of France in 1940 with no sign of our American or Russian allies joining the fray – did we surrender?  Not even with Hitler offering the temptation of Britain keeping its Empire while leaving Germany a free hand in Europe.
 
If any changes to AWD don’t reflect a “Churchillian” spirit it’ll be teddy bears flung in the corner time I’m afraid.
[/quote]


Yes, I've heard the speech and it's really spirited but do you really think that speech made a bit of difference for the Allies, I don't think so myself.

War leaders make those wartime speeches to raise morale of their people and men through over-whelming odds but in Russia's case their really wasn't much to fight for except for Stalin himself or "The Motherland" when his people and men knew very well that once the war was over and the Russia triumphed over Germany that everything would go back to normal - facing the same hardships that they faced under communist rule so from the very beginning they had low morale.

The mistake Germany made was treating their Russia war prisoners so badly and even mass-killing many of them. Stalin used this mistake to boast morale of his own fighting men but if Moscow had of fallen to German hands then I believe most Russian's would have thought "why should we keep fighting when our capital city has been taken by the Germans." It might have fueled them even more in spirit who knows?

In the case with Britain it would have been hard to break the morale of her people. What I'm pointing out is if Hitler destroyed most of the supply ships coming in from the "New World" using U-Boat warfare then England would have been isolated from any foreign aid or fighting men and thus would have to choose between risking the lives of countless men and women civilians from German retaliation or end it in a more peaceful resolution and save millions of lives.



wargameplayer -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/4/2007 7:59:24 AM)

For the UK.
An event trigger for Canada, India, and Aus/MZ would be if London and Scotland are lost, a 50% check is done per power. i.e. There is a 50% chance that India/Canada or Australia (each) go to a neutral status. Neutral implies frozen territories. If neither India, Canada and Australia (3 checks) don’t go neutral then they keep fighting.

The rest of the provinces were more like colonies then nations. More like French Algeria and Nigeria. So doing a Vichy like check for them makes sense. Either they join as pro axis neutrals or stay active enemies. Whichever Axis power got takes out England gets the ability to turn down or accept the package deal. Just like vichy.

If all 3 potential belligerent powers surrender/go neutral then I think doing a Vichy like check for the UK units here -they go running back the the US capital makes some sense just like when france was taken.

As I write this I am thinking this might be too complicated. But hey I took a crack at it!

Russia: If Moscow, Gorki, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Caucus, Kiev, and Kursk are taken then there is a % chance of an event trigger (say 25%) per turn that condition holds.

The even trigger creates a balanced neutral state from the Urals East. Germany would get a chance to accept or keep killing. Other ceded provinces would be a Vladivostok and the 4 coastal pacific provinces to Japan assuming Japan still had not lost Manchuria to China or the Allies. That should leave them with just the two factories in the Urals which is reasonable at a 3 or 4x multiplier. All units from both sides would flow back to their respective capitals at the event trigger.

I guess the virture of accepting for Germany is that it keeps russia off its back for a period of time and gives Japan a big resource boost. Maybe make it 2 years with a chance of 25% unfreezing after that period maybe. I dunno...lots of unintended consequences here. The problem is it's pretty much beaten anyway if you've got troops at the urals and all those other provinces. As another option, maybe do a less restrictive territory check (meaning the german player doesn't know if he has say 2 or a few more seasons before deafeating Russia) and he knows he has the US on his back. If fewer territories were part of the event check maybe have a few of the factories get rolled back to the urals.








invernomuto -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/4/2007 3:15:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

Back to Joel's question.

If Allied surrenders were to be implemented, how should they be implemented?

I see the following as reasonable:
1) Britain never surrenders (the loss of England is penalty enough, and the fleets really quite likely would have rebased to Commonwealth/Empire and kept on).

2) Australia is a separate nation and can surrender.

3) India is a separate nation and can surrender.

4) Russia can surrender.


Good ideas.

quote:


But how should the surrender look afterwards? The choices I see are:
a) the nation becomes neutral (balanced?)
b) the nation becomes frozen
c) the nations units disappear
d) combine (c) with (a) or (b)
e) the nation provides a "resource gift" to the Axis (tribute).
f) maybe some territories given to the Axis (or reclaimed?).

What combination of the above? Something else?


a) surrendering Nation become leaning Axis
b) ok
c) Not sure about this one: if Axis decided to attack that nation again?
e) Good idea
f) Ok, but Axis need to mantain a garrison there (partisan attacks)

quote:


Should anything short of being attacked make that nation DOW again?


IMHO no.




Tom Grosv -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/4/2007 3:31:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
Well what's he going to say.

They had just lost Belgium, Netherlands, France, and even Norway in a busy afternoon. Wasn't that much more to lose but that island. There are not a lot of other "giving a good speech" options other than yeah we'll take a beating and keep on ticking.



Well he could of said, Let's quit - Germany doesn't want to conquer Britain anyway.

Invernomuto started this thread talking about the realism of SU continuing the fight after Germany took Gorky, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad. Realism is a really tough question to answer. In Britain's case the "realistic" scenario on the fall of France was for Britain to agree peace with Germany - Britain and the Commonwealth/Empire was alone and believed at the time that sealion was a very real possibility. Why fight on when Hitler was happy to leave Britain and Empire alone? Why risk conquest and subjegation? But, as we know, Churchill did not follow the "realistic" scenario.

Trying to determine the realism regarding the SU fighting on in the scenario outlined by Invernomuto is difficult. The United States suffered, I believe, just under 420,000 total killed or 0.32% of her population. SU suffered over 23 million or close on 14%. It cannot be easy for a modern American (or anyone else) to be blithly confident about knowing what the mindset was of the average peasant SU soldier in 1941-45. SU soldiers were motivated by many factors including absolute hatred of a the invading Germans and a deep desire for revenge, often personal, for the war of savagery unleashed by Hitler. Realistic? What's realistic got to do with it when 23 million of your people have been wiped out with many of the soldiers counting many many relatives and friends among the dead. So, whilst respecting the point made by Invernomuto, I don't think there is necessarily a strong argument for SU surrender.

As for the suggestion about turning the SU rump into a Vichy style country - any Russian player of this game may feel quite insulted by that. No? How about I suggest that if half of the United States is conquered the rest becomes a Vichy state? Feel unhappy? Not nice is it. But of course the United States is different because...............whatever.



WanderingHead -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/4/2007 8:18:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Grosv
As for the suggestion about turning the SU rump into a Vichy style country - any Russian player of this game may feel quite insulted by that. No? How about I suggest that if half of the United States is conquered the rest becomes a Vichy state? Feel unhappy? Not nice is it. But of course the United States is different because...............whatever.


I don't think it is insulting to consider a cease fire. There are surrender rules for France, Italy, Germany, Japan. Only the French should be insulted by the existing rules (that's a darned easy surrender).

It seems to me that there were actually plenty of nationalist movements in the Ukraine, Baltic states and Belorussia that would have been quite happy with such an arrangement (neutral but friendly), the hindrance being that Hitler was as intent on crushing them as on defeating the USSR.

We're really talking about surrender only if the entirity of the core of ancient Russia, which really is west of the Urals, is already conquered. It also represents the collapse of the government and economy and morale (large troop desertions) as much as a formal surrender.

I'm inclined to think that any Russian "surrender" should be more of a cease-fire. Russia should _not_ become neutral. Rather, it may become frozen again with a resource gift to Germany (and perhaps Japan). There could be an "inverse" garrison requirement, large German troop concentrations on the frontier would cause Russia to unfreeze again.




wargameplayer -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/4/2007 9:41:54 PM)

Tom, Insulting to consider a cease fire for Russia but not insulting to consider one for France. Are you saying Russians are inheritantly better than French people.

I think your post is really trying to insult the French people. Vive le France!

Fyi. Russia did surrender to Germany in WWI so is not a unprecedented occurance.



wargameplayer -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/4/2007 9:46:23 PM)

Neutral and Frozen are really the same thing if they can't get resources out (and they shouldn't be able to).
I think either a garrison requirement or just like a 18 month forced peace where the russians can't atttack. Then a % chance of re activating after that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Grosv
As for the suggestion about turning the SU rump into a Vichy style country - any Russian player of this game may feel quite insulted by that. No? How about I suggest that if half of the United States is conquered the rest becomes a Vichy state? Feel unhappy? Not nice is it. But of course the United States is different because...............whatever.


I don't think it is insulting to consider a cease fire. There are surrender rules for France, Italy, Germany, Japan. Only the French should be insulted by the existing rules (that's a darned easy surrender).

It seems to me that there were actually plenty of nationalist movements in the Ukraine, Baltic states and Belorussia that would have been quite happy with such an arrangement (neutral but friendly), the hindrance being that Hitler was as intent on crushing them as on defeating the USSR.

We're really talking about surrender only if the entirity of the core of ancient Russia, which really is west of the Urals, is already conquered. It also represents the collapse of the government and economy and morale (large troop desertions) as much as a formal surrender.

I'm inclined to think that any Russian "surrender" should be more of a cease-fire. Russia should _not_ become neutral. Rather, it may become frozen again with a resource gift to Germany (and perhaps Japan). There could be an "inverse" garrison requirement, large German troop concentrations on the frontier would cause Russia to unfreeze again.






WanderingHead -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/4/2007 10:07:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
Neutral and Frozen are really the same thing if they can't get resources out (and they shouldn't be able to).
I think either a garrison requirement or just like a 18 month forced peace where the russians can't atttack. Then a % chance of re activating after that.


Neutral and Frozen are quite different.

Frozen: can still do production (would be hindered by the resource gift to Germany however), perhaps strat move units. Could lend lease to China. There is still a Russian turn to be played.

Neutral: could theoretically join the Axis side in some sense, if the WA attack neutral Russia. Depending on neutral political status, all resources or part of resources go to either Allies or Axis. Cannot repair Russian infrastructure, there is no Russian turn to be played.

For Russia I think that Neutral would be much harder to implement, frozen is a much more likely implementation. The WR of Russia could conceivably be reset to a lower number, and allowed to grow again from there.

OK, what about India and Australia?

They need to be different from Russia. I think probably these surrender rules, if implemented, should be more like Vichy. Some territory instantly goes to whichever Axis power causes the surrender, some becomes neutral a-la Vichy, a phantom nation in game implementation (Vichy regions become French nationality if Vichy activates).

The easiest implementation would probably be the straight yielding of territory to the Axis, without twiddling with nationalities. This would not even require separating Indian and Aussie nationalities from the Commonwealth.

In addition, units of the Indian or Aussie nations could disappear (which would require separating the nations). Should they?



wargameplayer -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/5/2007 4:21:14 AM)

yeah good point on neutral vs. Frozen. Refreezing the USSR is better:)

WRT India, Canada and Australia. Did you see my post on doing a vichy like check on them. Specifically with a %50 chance for those three to go neutral and their units to return home (I think the units have to be broken out) or staying active allies. For the rest of the colonies, they were more possessions so do another 50% roll with it either going -Neutral or staying active allies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
Neutral and Frozen are really the same thing if they can't get resources out (and they shouldn't be able to).
I think either a garrison requirement or just like a 18 month forced peace where the russians can't atttack. Then a % chance of re activating after that.


Neutral and Frozen are quite different.

Frozen: can still do production (would be hindered by the resource gift to Germany however), perhaps strat move units. Could lend lease to China. There is still a Russian turn to be played.

Neutral: could theoretically join the Axis side in some sense, if the WA attack neutral Russia. Depending on neutral political status, all resources or part of resources go to either Allies or Axis. Cannot repair Russian infrastructure, there is no Russian turn to be played.

For Russia I think that Neutral would be much harder to implement, frozen is a much more likely implementation. The WR of Russia could conceivably be reset to a lower number, and allowed to grow again from there.

OK, what about India and Australia?

They need to be different from Russia. I think probably these surrender rules, if implemented, should be more like Vichy. Some territory instantly goes to whichever Axis power causes the surrender, some becomes neutral a-la Vichy, a phantom nation in game implementation (Vichy regions become French nationality if Vichy activates).

The easiest implementation would probably be the straight yielding of territory to the Axis, without twiddling with nationalities. This would not even require separating Indian and Aussie nationalities from the Commonwealth.

In addition, units of the Indian or Aussie nations could disappear (which would require separating the nations). Should they?





Tom Grosv -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/5/2007 3:22:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer

Tom, Insulting to consider a cease fire for Russia but not insulting to consider one for France. Are you saying Russians are inheritantly better than French people.

I think your post is really trying to insult the French people. Vive le France!

Fyi. Russia did surrender to Germany in WWI so is not a unprecedented occurance.


I think your post is immature, wargameplayer, and I don't appreciate you putting childish words in my mouth. On the other hand, perhaps my post suggesting a Vichy state in the US could have been better written. Shows what an emotive issue the surrender/colloboration of nations can be.

The surrender rules for France and the formation of Vichy France in AWD cannot be deemed insulting to France because the course of history shows AWD to be correct. We don't have the benefit of history to know for sure if Russia would have surrendered and in what circumstances.

No, Russians are not inherently better than the French. When I was at school we used to make jokes mocking the Italians for their poor martial performance in WW2. At the same time we would admire the military prowess of the Romans. Surely the racial stock of modern Italy and ancient Rome must have been similar to some extent. What gives? For complex social, political and endless other reasons some societies at certain times will fight more aggressively and show more staying power than others. Perhaps France of the 1930's was not a great martial nation - only 140 years or so previously they terrified Europe under the command of Napoleon.

I don't know if Russia would have surrendered in the scenario originally outlined by invernomuto - on previous threads I was trying to outline a counter argument. I don't think it was wrong to say that a Russian may find rules concerning a Vichy style governement insulting. The Vichy colloboration with the Nazis is looked on by many French as a shameful part of their history. Irrespective of what a Russian may think, I didn't believe that a Vichy state in Russia was at all likely.

Thanks for taking the time to point out the surrender of Russia in WW1 but I did know about that. I think the situation in Russia in 1918 and the SU in 1941 were very different to each other - the whole conduct of the war, the turbulent political situation with the rise of the Bolsheviks in 1917, and nothing like the territorial gains made by the Germans in WW2.






wargameplayer -> RE: Russia surrender? (1/5/2007 7:40:39 PM)

So you have a history of disparaging the Italians too?

It's called humor.

Anyway saying that the Russians (or any nationality) were not capable of surrendering under any circumstances is not really a realistic position to take in my opinion. If you had asked the French if they'd surrender before WWII started do you think they'd have come back with "Well we might...".

That's what your post read as. That the Russians would never surrender even though others had.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.921875