Bad German Surrender Rule (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

Omnius -> Bad German Surrender Rule (11/25/2014 2:37:40 AM)

I have to say that the rule for German surrender is beyond ignorant and unrealistic. When Berlin is captured the German player should be able to surrender unconditionally, just as Germany did historically. I can see where you want to give countries conquered by Germany a chance to have governments in exile. I can even see allowing Italy to revive itself if German units keep Italian cities out of Allied hands. Once, not more than once though no matter how many minor countries Italy might have.

However for Germany the capture of Berlin should be the equivalent of Hitler dying, and in MWiF there is no option to follow history and allow for a German unconditional surrender. The automatic victory rule is no excuse for this most ignorant and unrealistic of rules. Once Hitler was dead the German generals certainly were tired of fighting a losing war. It's just plain ignorant to allow Germany to keep on fighting as some minor country. It really screws up the Allies for being able to redeploy to the Pacific Theater.

What's needed it a "None" choice for moving the German capital once that screen pops up. That would be the unconditional surrender option that would stop the unrealistic and nonsensical transfer of Germany to some minor country. Once Germany surrendered no minor country allies wanted to continue the obviously lost war and so it should be in the game. I've always hated games that had this idiotic no surrender rule in them.

I transferred Germany's capital to Prague figuring that I could capture Prague and two units in the mountains adjacent to Prague would disappear as Czechoslovakia surrendered. Nope the two units stayed there and I had to waste time doing combats to eliminate them. Not a big problem but a real waste of time and effort.

The same with Japan, it should surrender once Japan is conquered. No moronic transfers to some minor country that historically wouldn't have continued the war.

I can see where most WiF board games played by multiple humans would never reach this late stage of the game. However it's a real pain in the behind watching Germany transfer it's captured capital each turn to some other minor ally.

It would be nice if MWiF fixes this idiotic and unrealistic surrender option for Germany and Japan so once the major country is conquered it has the option to move it's capital to "None" which would end the game for that major country as it should and did historically. This rule doesn't take into account real human reactions and falsely allows a losing side to keep on limping along unrealistically. Please give us an unconditional surrender option!

Omnius



michaelbaldur -> RE: Bad German Surrender Rule (11/25/2014 9:29:04 AM)


it is in the game, as soon as the allies have taken half of Germany factories, then Germany can surrender
so there are a option for the countries to surrender.

but making a stupid rule like the Italian conquest rule, is just stupid.
the rules are very historical, when Berlin was taken, all it minors were conquered, captured or surrendered


then should there be a special UK surrender rule, or a US surrender rule, or a Russian.


so next time, just surrender Germany, or take out the minor first.



MilRevKo -> RE: Bad German Surrender Rule (11/25/2014 12:56:52 PM)

There is nothing unhistorical about it.

The Germans could have fought on with any city "declared" as its capital. The game is not designed to play one script as any one person see it. The allies were convinced that the "bavarian redoubt" was real and thought the war was going to end at the mythical german fortress.

I can see how easy it is for a player to think that. But not Germans, the capital was where ever the Nazi's said it was and the war was over when the Nazi's said it was over, at least to the German people...



michaelbaldur -> RE: Bad German Surrender Rule (11/25/2014 1:09:22 PM)


that is why I hate that stupid surrender rule ..

it is to easy to conqueror Italy



Centuur -> RE: Bad German Surrender Rule (11/25/2014 5:38:58 PM)

What is the objective in this game for the Axis? To conquer the world and get an automatic victory? Did anyone see this happening on the board? I didn't...

The objective for the Axis is to have at least the number of victory hexes at the end of the July-August 1945 that they have bid for. Now, there are victory hexes outside of Germany too and it isn't unheard of to see Germany holding on to victory hexes after Germany itself gets taken out...

Say, the bid is that Germany has 3 victory hexes at the end of that turn. Those might be Belgrade, Budapest and Bucharest. At that point: it's a victory for the German player (who might be kicked out of those places in a turn or two, but that's beside the point).

Also: it is quite feasable to see governments in exile appearing during a war. It also happened to the Dutch, Belgians, French, Greeks, Yugoslavians and on and on and on, during the war. So why couldn't Hitler go to exile in Rumania or Finland?

The conquest rules makes this possible while at the same time it becomes very difficult to rebuild lost units if you are incompletely conquered as a major power...

On Italy, yes, it's easy to conquer the place. But the same thing could be said for France, regarding the installment of Vichy. Thing is: the political structure of both nations wasn't that good, which resulted in Vichy and the early collapse of Italy.

We can (in the very far away future) perhaps discuss if it is possible to add optional rules, to change these things...



michaelbaldur -> RE: Bad German Surrender Rule (11/25/2014 7:11:00 PM)

quote:

see governments in exile appearing during a war. It also happened to the Dutch, Belgians, French, Greeks, Yugoslavians and


the Danish [:D]



Centuur -> RE: Bad German Surrender Rule (11/25/2014 7:27:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

quote:

see governments in exile appearing during a war. It also happened to the Dutch, Belgians, French, Greeks, Yugoslavians and


the Danish [:D]


I thought they didn't establish a government in exile during the war? Or am I mistaken?



michaelbaldur -> RE: Bad German Surrender Rule (11/26/2014 1:51:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

quote:

see governments in exile appearing during a war. It also happened to the Dutch, Belgians, French, Greeks, Yugoslavians and


the Danish [:D]


I thought they didn't establish a government in exile during the war? Or am I mistaken?


there were a free Danish naval force, and there were free Danish combat units. so there most have been somekind of leadership in UK

don´t know if it was a government in exile.



Omnius -> Not Exactly (11/26/2014 5:28:39 PM)

michaelbaldur,
The German surrender rule is not historical or realistic. Germany's allies do not surrender when Germany surrenders, as was done historically. I know this for a fact as I played through capturing every German city and still Germany moves onto another Axis minor ally. After every turn that a new home minor country surrendered Germany would always move onto another minor ally. Obviously you have not played through to the end to see just how idiotic the German surrender rule is. Historically Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Allies and this historical reality is not properly modeled in MWiF.

Omnius



Centuur -> RE: Not Exactly (11/26/2014 5:53:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius

michaelbaldur,
The German surrender rule is not historical or realistic. Germany's allies do not surrender when Germany surrenders, as was done historically. I know this for a fact as I played through capturing every German city and still Germany moves onto another Axis minor ally. After every turn that a new home minor country surrendered Germany would always move onto another minor ally. Obviously you have not played through to the end to see just how idiotic the German surrender rule is. Historically Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Allies and this historical reality is not properly modeled in MWiF.

Omnius


Historically: all German aligned minors were conquered before or at the same time as Berlin was conquered. Prague was conquered in battle on the 9th of may 1945 (so only a couple of days after Berlin) and that was the last German aligned country if you look at the rules of MWIF...

There were only conquered minors in German hands at that time (such as Denmark and Norway) and conquered minor countries can't become the capital of a German government in exile in World in Flames...



Omnius -> But Not Norway (11/26/2014 5:58:36 PM)

Centuur,
Norway wasn't about to be conquered so your premise isn't correct. It's just plain ludicrous to have Germany not be able to unconditionally surrender if it still has minor country allies. We should have a "None" selection so we can have an unconditional surrender option.

All those who try to make excuses for this nonsensical German surrender rule don't think about the human element. It's too easy to think that when playing with cardboard or electronic counters that no one gets hurt so why not extend a losing battle.

Omnius



Centuur -> RE: But Not Norway (11/26/2014 6:03:17 PM)

I don't think you understand the rule. The rule is: every country aligned to a major power can host it's government in exile. This means, that to totally conquer Germany in Brute Force, you have to conquer the following countries:

Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, Finland, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Germany itself. All other countries cannot host the German government in exile...

Now: historically all those countries were conquered by the Allies before or at the same time as Berlin was...



Omnius -> The Rule is Wrong! (11/26/2014 6:07:46 PM)

Centuur,
I understand the need for governments in exile rule. However for Germany at the end of the war that's the most ignorant rule of all because it clearly ignores history. After Germany surrenders what minor ally aligned with Germany would have wanted to continue a losing war? The rule is stupid and should be fixed so we can have Germany do an unconditional surrender regardless of aligned minor allies.

Omnius



michaelbaldur -> RE: The Rule is Wrong! (11/26/2014 6:30:02 PM)

Austria is not aligned, it is a part of Germany.



Centuur -> RE: The Rule is Wrong! (11/26/2014 6:38:07 PM)

Let me put it this way:

Would any country surrender unconditionally if they still can defend themselves? Especially before WW II, a country which did so, always became a poor country, full of hungry and despaired citizens...

Look at the WW I treaty: Germany, Turkey and Austria had huge reparation payments to do. While in the West their were the "roaring" twenties, in those nations there were food riots, hunger, unemployment, hyperinflation and on and on and on. My grandmother was evacuated out of Austria in those years, together with her schoolchildren to the Netherlands, because there was no food there. And after her return there, it wasn't any better...

So we've got a war going on, which everybody knows will be lost. However, if you surrender, this is an "unconditional" surrender, which will probably mean hunger, occupation, unemployment and no prospects to a better life. So it is better to die with honor and to fight to the last bullit... That's what was the reason the Germans still did fight in 1945, according to my greatuncles diary of those years...

Why did Japan surrender? Because the emperor stayed on as emperor of Japan. That meant that a Japan would be existing after the war and that the country wouldn't be dismantled...

If you don't give the enemy a way out, they will fight and continue to fight, even with the home country conquered. This is also what the Poles, Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians and on and on and on did in the CW forces...



brian brian -> RE: The Rule is Wrong! (11/26/2014 6:43:47 PM)

Hungary might have kept it going. The Arrow Cross group seized what power they could I believe, though it all flowed from the barrels of German guns. Similar regimes could have existed elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Nazi ideology appealed beyond the borders of Germany.

It is generally a moot point for Germany. By the time you reach every German factory, there isn't likely to be much left under their control elsewhere on the board, unless perhaps the UK/US reach Breslau before the Russians somehow. And no German unit was going to surrender to the Russians. They all kept retreating to the west as steadily as they could and only the unchallengeable power of the Western forces could turn over POWs to a Russian unit, I think.

It is also moot because only Objective Hexes on a certain turn matter for the Victory Conditions, not whether a handful of German units still have a primary supply source. And many players look at it more simply than that. If the Allies are still fighting in Europe into the summer of 1945, they lost. Anything beyond that is just an exploration of What If? and the hard coded rules matter very little.

Finland could definitely use some improved rules, but loads of fine detail rules could be added to the game in many areas - but probably won't be.

There are some House Rules for an alternative ending in Japan that float around, but that was a dicey situation all the way through with the Japanese militarists, particularly with their penchant for assassinating political opponents, and just one personality there could have changed history. It wouldn't be simple to write a definitively structured game rule for that situation.

The rules for Italy have changed several times over the editions of the game. It was technically easier for the historical Allies to get the Italians to quit than it currently is in the game. But that also was not a clearly cut situation, with a few dates to pick from, ongoing Fascist participation at miscellaneous levels, and a lot of shades of feld-grau involved there as well.



delatbabel -> RE: The Rule is Wrong! (11/27/2014 2:55:05 AM)

Regardless of historical fact, the rules of the computer game are written as per the rules of the boardgame, and in the boardgame it's possible for the axis to claim a game victory despite the incomplete conquest of Germany.

It's actually quite hard in v.7 of the boardgame rules for the German player to survive with anything better than total annihilation in Jul/Aug 1945 and the axis player (not the German nation, remember we are talking about cut out bits of cardboard and 1s and 0s here, not real people) needs to be rewarded for achieving that.

As an allied player you have to be careful in how you approach the conquest of Germany. A combined approach using the intelligent playing of O chits, cooperation and communication between the allied players, etc, is what is required. A slipshod allied side is going to have to fight much harder to finish off Germany or even get to the point where it's possible.

The same needs to be said for Japan. The correct way to take out Japan is to strangle and then destroy the fleet, isolate the home nation from the mainland Asia assets and then take those out. Only then do you start tackling the Japanese home country. It's extremely important to reduce the Japanese production to zero or thereabouts (due to a glitch in the boardgame rules it's actually possible to reduce it to below zero) very early on in order to have sufficient time to wipe out the navy and air force. If the USA player isn't careful about how he goes about things then it's not going to be an easy task.



Courtenay -> RE: The Rule is Wrong! (11/27/2014 3:17:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
It's extremely important to reduce the Japanese production to zero or thereabouts (due to a glitch in the boardgame rules it's actually possible to reduce it to below zero) very early on in order to have sufficient time to wipe out the navy and air force. If the USA player isn't careful about how he goes about things then it's not going to be an easy task.



OK, I'll bite. How do you reduce any country's production below zero? What does that even mean?



paulderynck -> RE: The Rule is Wrong! (11/27/2014 4:48:32 AM)

Nothing really - once it's at zero or worse the production is zero. But it can get to worse via the "double-dip" ruling on strategic bombing that was affirmed in the FAQ.



warspite1 -> Bad German Surrender Rule (11/27/2014 5:18:41 AM)

Please stop changing the thread titles.



delatbabel -> Bad German Surrender Rule (11/27/2014 6:31:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Nothing really - once it's at zero or worse the production is zero. But it can get to worse via the "double-dip" ruling on strategic bombing that was affirmed in the FAQ.


Correct -- you can't actually produce a negative amount and neither do you have to remove anything from the production track if your production points are negative -- you just produce nothing.

How the double dip works is this:

* X has 5 resources, 5 factories, therefore 5 production points.
* Y strat bombs 3 of X's factories, reducing X to 2 production points.
* Y then overruns, say, 3 of X's factories. X now has 2 factories, 5 resources, 2 production points, but has lost 3 production points to strat bombing, for a net total of -1 production point. X produces nothing.

It's also quite easy to reduce Japan to zero production or lower with the use of strat bombing. Japan starts with, say, 10 resources being convoyed via 10 convoy points to home factories for a total of 10 production points (ignoring the ones that are already there just for the purpose of illustration). The USA strat bombs 5 factories, say causing -5 production loss. The USA then sinks 5 convoy points, and Japan has run out of spare convoys so can't replace them. The end result is that Japan now has zero production despite the fact that 5 resources could get through to 5 unbombed factories. The points lost to strat bombing cause a double dip effect because Japan can't say, after the strat bombing happens "Oh well, I wasn't going to send any of my resources to that factory anyway" (if Japan could say that then strat bombing would have little or no effect because Japan could always shuffle the resources off to unbombed factories).



Dabrion -> RE: Bad German Surrender Rule (11/27/2014 11:15:44 AM)

That's literally stupid/faq'ed.. Play with markers that disable factory stacks and *not* negative PP.



Omnius -> Did You Know? (11/27/2014 3:16:02 PM)

Centuur,
Did you know that Germany can switch it's capital to Angola? In my game I invaded Portugal and Spain as the USA and the program offered me the lands of partially conquered Portugal and Spain as alternate places to put the German capital. How nuts is that?

I made the mistake of declaring war on every country to get rid of that screen. I gave Germany most of the countries in South America below Colombia. Plus I gave Germany Sweden. I can see where that was a big mistake. More units for the program to keep track of which bogged it down badly by 1948. Also more places for Germany to keep transferring to after conquest.

It still comes down to what country would have wanted to host a Nazi government in exile after Germany was beaten and Hitler was killed? The game does not provide us with an historical unconditional surrender option for Germany and Japan when that was what happened historically. Historically Italy gained a second life because German troops occupied important cities and brought back Il Duce. There were no second chances for Nazi Germany or Japan. That's why it's a bad rule, because it's unrealistic and doesn't follow history.

Omnius



brian brian -> RE: Did You Know? (11/27/2014 3:40:52 PM)

So is invading Portugal and Spain as the USA….

These capital transfers don't amount to much when they happen. If you take Berlin, the Germans aren't going to have Army Group Angola waiting in the wings to continue the struggle because the Allies bypassed Lisbon. The only way to get units to keep fighting, is to take them out of their Home Country, before conquest, and weaken it's defenses. You also need to stash some Oil somewhere. It may seem like a silly rules process, but it just doesn't gain you very much. You might also want to read the rules on how units work after an Incomplete Conquest - they don't return to the Force Pools 50% of the time if removed from the map while in supply (challenging sometimes for a unit without a country), and are removed from the game entirely if eliminated while out of supply. (And a new host country usually can't build anything anyway).

Comparing it to history isn't that instructive - in 1945, the Axis had nothing left aligned to them. The Japanese had Korea, but for probably one more week at the most. The Germans had Prague, aligned under the game rules, for a similar amount of time.

One of the points of the rule is the Allies offered Unconditional Surrender, and no other terms, to the Axis. Any regimes allied to the Axis would have the same terms. Finland managed to come to peace with help from US negotiators, but the other Axis regimes only toppled when overwhelming force was on their doorstep, as it was for the Finns with a major Red Army thrust about to break through their thinned lines. The losing regimes knew their fates and they weren't going to meekly offer up their wrists to be handcuffed and tried. If you want their Objective Hexes for your Victory Point total, you have to go and get them. And basically, the Axis offered the same terms to the countries they attacked, with the exception of the creation of Vichy France.



warspite1 -> Bad German Surrender Rule (11/27/2014 6:04:36 PM)

Not sure what you are trying to achieve here.

The rule isn’t going to be changed so the choices are:

a) Accept it’s just one you don’t like but go along with it, or
b) Decide it’s just too much to accept and give the game up

If you don’t like the rule because it’s unrealistic and doesn’t follow history then:

- You won’t like that cruisers are your ASW units
- You won’t like the weather could be rubbish in May/June 1940 (France) and there be an Indian summer in the Soviet Union in November/December 1941.
- You won’t like the factors given to the Italian battleships (factors are decided upon a range of things – speed, armour, radar etc etc. Apparently the RM’s wish to avoid battle when outnumbering the RN is not one of them)
- The ability of the Allies to invade Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal etc etc - none of which is realistic or historical
- The factors given to some real dog’s of Axis aircraft for game balance purposes
- That if Belgium is aligned to France and Vichy is created then Germany would not be able to defend the Belgian coast because it would belong to Vichy.
- You won’t like that Germany can place entire army groups in Finland blocking the way to Helsinki and yet the Soviet Union and Germany are not at war
- You won’t like the what-if counters – how the hell can Japan build the last two Yamatos and the Super Yamatos?
- While we are at it, you won’t like that the Japanese can fill the Shinano (Essex/Midway styleee) with aircraft?

As you know, this game does not follow history slavishly – it does not purport to. I think it’s clear that a lot of WIF fans have areas they are not keen on (peacekeepers for me – but I made the argument and was mollified – if not entirely won round by the grognards here). So, accept it is what it is and accept too that banging on about how ignorant and unrealistic a rule is, isn’t going to get the rules of MWIF changed.



paulderynck -> RE: Bad German Surrender Rule (11/27/2014 6:15:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

If you don’t like the rule because it’s unrealistic and doesn’t follow history then:

- That if Belgium is aligned to France and Vichy is created then Germany would not be able to defend the Belgian coast because it would belong to Vichy.


I'd like to see a game where Vichy gets declared with Belgium still unconquered. That would be instructive. [:)]

But I do agree with your post.



warspite1 -> RE: Bad German Surrender Rule (11/27/2014 6:21:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

If you don’t like the rule because it’s unrealistic and doesn’t follow history then:

- That if Belgium is aligned to France and Vichy is created then Germany would not be able to defend the Belgian coast because it would belong to Vichy.


I'd like to see a game where Vichy gets declared with Belgium still unconquered. That would be instructive. [:)]

But I do agree with your post.
warspite1

You are assuming that the German player doesn't declare war on Belgium and then changes his mind; deciding that proceding through Switzerland is a far more sensible idea [;)]



paulderynck -> RE: Bad German Surrender Rule (11/27/2014 6:23:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

If you don’t like the rule because it’s unrealistic and doesn’t follow history then:

- That if Belgium is aligned to France and Vichy is created then Germany would not be able to defend the Belgian coast because it would belong to Vichy.


I'd like to see a game where Vichy gets declared with Belgium still unconquered. That would be instructive. [:)]

But I do agree with your post.
warspite1

You are assuming that the German player doesn't declare war on Belgium and then changes his mind; deciding that proceding through Switzerland is a far more sensible idea [;)]


I like to see a Blitzkrieg through the Maginot line, thrusting into Paris in JF40. [:)]



brian brian -> RE: Bad German Surrender Rule (11/27/2014 8:30:33 PM)

And that's what makes the game so great. Germany drops two Offensive Chits, Paratroopers, Engineers, and a whole lot of Stukas to crack the Maginot, rolls quite well along the way, and then the Panzers blitzkrieg through the farm fields to Paris while Belgium stays neutral. Far-fetched? Perhaps. But do you want to find out? You are the Commander. You decide.

And the great thing about Matrix World in Flames is it does make it quite a bit easier to find out before sorting out 5,000 little pieces of cardboard and taking over 50+ square feet of horizontal space…



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625