British Defeat

British Defeat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe

Message

Capitaine -> British Defeat (11/27/2016 10:48:14 PM)
What's the rationale for not allowing Britain to be defeated in this game? I can see the Manchester move, but once the main island is fully occupied I feel like they should be officially defeated. Maybe some units raised in Canada but continuing to get MPPs when they don't have their home country is pretty much a reach. In a game like this I believe countries should be "knocked out of the war" when their home country has been conquered. It assumes quite a lot to do otherwise.

Bronze -> RE: British Defeat (11/27/2016 11:30:18 PM)
You mean like Poland and France in real life?

Jim D Burns -> RE: British Defeat (11/28/2016 1:02:01 AM)
India was a very big part of Britain's economy at this time and fielded a very large army by wars end. No doubt had the home island been conquered Britain would have carried on with its empire holdings as the Netherlands did before Japan took the DEI's. But unlike the Netherlands Britain had some powerful and rich territory outside its home territory. Jim

dhucul2011 -> RE: British Defeat (11/28/2016 3:50:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capitaine What's the rationale for not allowing Britain to be defeated in this game? I can see the Manchester move, but once the main island is fully occupied I feel like they should be officially defeated. Maybe some units raised in Canada but continuing to get MPPs when they don't have their home country is pretty much a reach. In a game like this I believe countries should be "knocked out of the war" when their home country has been conquered. It assumes quite a lot to do otherwise. Sorry but I totally disagree. A "Free Britain" backed by its navy in Canada, the resources of its empire and then also the USA would have still been a strong combatant. It would still have been a "major".

Hartmann -> RE: British Defeat (11/28/2016 3:39:50 PM)
I disagree too. Also, "in a game like this" having UK relocate its capital after Sealion is common coin actually, e.g. it was already like that in Clash of Steel.

Capitaine -> RE: British Defeat (11/28/2016 4:15:25 PM)
What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior?

AmbrosioSpinola -> RE: British Defeat (11/28/2016 4:25:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capitaine What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior? Why are you asking this, Capitaine? Doesn't everybody know that Brits are superior to all other peoples? [;)]

IslandInland -> RE: British Defeat (11/28/2016 4:36:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capitaine What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior? The historical fact of France surrendering and the UK not surrendering would make it appear so. [:D]

Aurelian -> RE: British Defeat (11/28/2016 4:36:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capitaine What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior? I'll go with....Because they lost. And the UK didn't.

AmbrosioSpinola -> RE: British Defeat (11/28/2016 4:41:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: Capitaine What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior? I'll go with....Because they lost. And the UK didn't. I hope nobody is making jokes here about the French always surrendering and so on, that's an old cliché and very disrespectful... [:-][:D]

Hotschi -> RE: British Defeat (11/28/2016 4:53:56 PM)
I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. cannot be "knocked out" either in this game - for the simple reason that it's territory is not completely represented on the map. The British actually had the plan - or at least WSC had the intention - to fight on in the case of the Home Islands being occupied.

warspite1 -> RE: British Defeat (11/28/2016 5:30:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capitaine What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior? warspite1 When war gaming there are things we know (because they happened) and things that we have to guess at (because they didn’t). Whilst there is, by definition, no certainty of what may have happened for those countries that fall into the latter camp – educated guesses can be made based on historical records for example. In addition, a decision as to what may happen could be taken on the basis of play balance. Or it could be a combination of both of those elements. So to the first part of your question; as painful as it may be, the fact is Petain (for reasons outside the scope of this post) and his cohorts chose to surrender rather than have France fight on from North Africa. We know this – it happened. It is not contentious therefore in modelling this in a strategic war game. For Britain and the Commonwealth the situation is different. The United Kingdom was not invaded (much less conquered) and so we don’t know for certain what would have happened if they had. What we do know is that, although a decision to surrender can never be discounted for certain, there were certain features of the British Empire that would make a continuation of the war by the Dominions of the Empire more likely even if the British had been conquered: - The fact that Churchill was in charge – the author of the speech and the very embodiment of ‘we shall never surrender’. As mentioned above he had already made this point - The fact that there were Dominions within the Empire – particularly Canada, Australia and New Zealand with a fledging (but soon to grow quickly) industrial base. India, although not a Dominion, managed to raise the largest non-conscript army in history. - Unlike the populace of British and French colonies, the population of those Dominions still had a strong allegiance in many cases to the ‘mother country’. The strength of these ties was of course not as universal in parts of South Africa or one province of Canada, but it remained strong elsewhere. France had no Dominions. Algeria(?) was perhaps the only thing even remotely close. - As per real life, the US was handily placed to provide assistance to those Dominions. - With a large navy there was a good chance that many fighting age men and women in the UK (as well as the Poles, Free French et al) would be able to escape to Canada - Finally for play balance purposes in a strategic war game it perhaps makes for more reason to continue a game even if the UK is conquered. 'Brits superior'? The British and French positions at the start of WWII were more similar than they were different. They were two imperial powers that, thanks to the ruinous World War I, had lost much of their power and wealth and, thanks to World War II and the emergence of a bi-polar world dominated by the two superpowers of the USA and USSR they were never to recover to their 'former glories'. Combined with this was a rapidly changing world where imperial empires had had their day. As was continuously the case throughout history, the British were better off because they were an island – the French as a land power bordered by Nazi Germany – were in a less enviable position and so had more chance of defeat to the Axis. So let’s have less of the ‘Brits are superior’ crap please.

Goodmongo -> RE: British Defeat (11/28/2016 5:53:04 PM)
The Brits had a superior position to continue resisting.

Mantis -> RE: British Defeat (11/28/2016 9:58:19 PM)
I don't think that a "full surrender" ala France was even possible. Suppose the UK is completely under Axis control and Churchill orders complete unconditional surrender. Do the Canadians simply mothball the soon-to-be 3rd largest navy in the world, stop producing war materiel* and paint themselves Axis grey on the map when there isn't a wermacht soldier within a thousand miles of our borders? No, we align ourselves with big brother to the south and, taking a page from Mother England, we keep calm and carry on. The same would hold true for Australia/New Zealand forces. * The UK had entered the war with 80,000 military vehicles of all types; however, 75,000 of these British vehicles were left behind in the evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940. We made good the losses - Canadian industry produced more than 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 40,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns, and 1,700,000 small arms. The UK might have surrendered, but the empire would fight on.

Deepstuff3725 -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 12:35:00 AM)
I think Russia had a "superior position to continue resisting" as well. A vast country with brutal winters.

Aurelian -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 3:59:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AmbrosioSpinola quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: Capitaine What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior? I'll go with....Because they lost. And the UK didn't. I hope nobody is making jokes here about the French always surrendering and so on, that's an old cliché and very disrespectful... [:-][:D] Hey.I'm a big fan of Napoleon :)

Aurelian -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 4:04:47 AM)
double....grrrrr

warspite1 -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 5:53:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: AmbrosioSpinola quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: Capitaine What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior? I'll go with....Because they lost. And the UK didn't. I hope nobody is making jokes here about the French always surrendering and so on, that's an old cliché and very disrespectful... [:-][:D] Hey.I'm a big fan of Napoleon :) warspite1 Didn't he surrender too [:D]

sveint -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 6:14:59 AM)
This must be the worst thread I've read on Matrix Games.

vaalen -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 6:59:58 AM)
I have great respect for France, French culture, and the French people. And I am an American. This was the second time France was conquered by Germany, twice within a seventy year period.They did not lose for lack of courage, not in either war. They were overwhelmed by superior numbers, superior military technology,superior enemy leadership, and by being prepared to fight the last war instead of the blitzkrieg. They did not have a chance. The nations who make fun of France and French courage were never conquered by the Germans, and have no idea what it was like. They are in no place to judge. I should point out that the Free French never surrendered, and fought with superb courage until their homeland was liberated, and beyond. My uncle, who fought in North Africa, was assigned for a time as a liason officer to some Free French units that fought the Africa Korps. He told me stories of their courage and ingenuity,how units that got cut off would simply refused to surrender, fighting to the last man or holding on until they were relieved. He had nothing but respect for them. Nobody knows what Britain would have done had the home island been conquered. No one has conquered Britain since the Norman conquest, thanks to geography and the royal navy. Maybe they would have fought on under the inspiring leadership of Churchill, from other parts of the empire, maybe not. I think the game takes a believable position, as there were many reasons why it would have been more viable for Britain to continue the war from its empire, as have been described above.

Jim D Burns -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 7:25:17 AM)
One interesting thing to ponder on is how would the Royal navy have been used to blockade Britain had the home island been taken? Would the Germans have been allowed to come and go as they please to spare British citizens from starvation, or would a total blockade of all German shipping been instituted? Germany may have been able to ferry enough supplies in via air to feed a garrison army, but no way could they have fed the civilian population without major shipping arrivals on a regular basis. Which would have of course allowed them to fortify the island, so I'm curious what would have been the allied policy. Also, did Germany even have the number of ships needed to pull off keeping the people fed? I think most games completely overlook the difficulties in conquering and keeping Britain under German control in the face of total allied dominance on the sea. Britain had a hard enough time when dealing with a sub threat, imagine what would have happened had Germany ruled the waves above the waterline as well. Jim

stuart3 -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 8:18:30 AM)
quote: Germany may have been able to ferry enough supplies in via air to feed a garrison army, but no way could they have fed the civilian population without major shipping arrivals on a regular basis. Germany's policy with other conquered nations was to force them to supply Germany with food although it left the occupied countries unable to feed their own populations properly. There is no reason to think that they would have reversed that policy for an occupied Britain.

Hexagon -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 8:49:46 AM)
I dont see why is bad defeat British in game... in the end in WWII they were saved by a lucky combo of factors... 1-the terrain, be an island help them to selfdefense VS continental powers more based in land than in sea and why not say it, luck, need cross a sea has more random factors than cross a river for example. 2-the first great Hitler strategic mistake... not destroy BEF in France for me was the main motive to mantein British in war, you cant rise in a pair of months 270.000 well trained soldiers, British were not soviets to send cannon fodder to the front to win time. 3-Hitler allways think that Germany future was in east, not west... revenge for Versalles was important but revenge cant help expand Germany to be again a great empire... the tome window for revenge was short because in late 40 Rusia was the objetive, UK was secondary, who expect in 1940 after defeat France and leave UK armies soft in 3-4 years have the island as the biggest military base in world??? I allways think that with no Dunkirk UK sure falls in 1940 at least islands that in the end was the important part for Germany... is not the same jump Atlantic to land in a friendly island that do it fighting to win terrain to start placing your force near Europe. PD: apart this the impact of lose islands to north Africa area... middle east etc etc.

stuart3 -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 9:05:19 AM)
quote: What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? Historically it came down to personalities and power. In France, Reynaud wanted to fight on, and then to carry on the fight from France's colonies, but he had lost power to Petain who had Reynaud arrested when he tried to leave France for the African colonies. In Britain, Warspite has made the case for Churchill's determination to fight on regardless, but what would have been Churchill's chances of retaining the Premiership if his policies had led to invasion and occupation? Not much, I don't think. Chamberlain had been much more influential, but had been sidelined for very much less. Probably Halifax would have taken charge, and what would have happened after that is pure conjecture, but Halifax didn't have Churchill's determination to fight on at any cost.

Hartmann -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 9:26:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mantis I don't think that a "full surrender" ala France was even possible. Suppose the UK is completely under Axis control and Churchill orders complete unconditional surrender. Do the Canadians simply mothball the soon-to-be 3rd largest navy in the world, stop producing war materiel* and paint themselves Axis grey on the map when there isn't a wermacht soldier within a thousand miles of our borders? No, we align ourselves with big brother to the south and, taking a page from Mother England, we keep calm and carry on. The same would hold true for Australia/New Zealand forces. * The UK had entered the war with 80,000 military vehicles of all types; however, 75,000 of these British vehicles were left behind in the evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940. We made good the losses - Canadian industry produced more than 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 40,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns, and 1,700,000 small arms. The UK might have surrendered, but the empire would fight on. This is what makes the most sense to me. If the British isles would have been occupied, whoever authorities still in charge there would of course have "officially" surrendered - but Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India would not have followed suit. The only thing we could reasonably debate is whether any UK "government in exile" would still have been acknowledged by the rest of the Commonwealth countries as actually being in charge of any coordinated efforts.

Capitaine -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 1:02:00 PM)
People are mostly missing the point. This is not a question of what happened historically. Historically, London was never seized and the entire island never subjugated. In the game it is. My reference in my inquiry is the time-honored game Avalon Hill's "Third Reich", where every country was subject to surrender except for the U.S., for obvious reasons. In 3R, if any major's capital was taken, it would go into surrender protocol. Russia had a different surrender mechanism based I think on several key cities occupied and a certain level of army losses. There is certainly a reasonable level of theorycrafting that one can indulge in to explore what would've happened to other Allied countries had they been overrun by Germany -- and those countries "want to believe" they'd have gone on fighting. Understandable. But in a game "like this", as I've said, I feel there needs to be a discrete conquest protocol as in 3R simply for game purposes. Otherwise I sense that the Allied "cause" in the game is mostly informed by modern political sensibilities.

Aurelian -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 2:54:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: AmbrosioSpinola quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: Capitaine What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior? I'll go with....Because they lost. And the UK didn't. I hope nobody is making jokes here about the French always surrendering and so on, that's an old cliché and very disrespectful... [:-][:D] Hey.I'm a big fan of Napoleon :) warspite1 Didn't he surrender too [:D] Twice [:D]

Mik29 -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 3:45:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns One interesting thing to ponder on is how would the Royal navy have been used to blockade Britain had the home island been taken? Would the Germans have been allowed to come and go as they please to spare British citizens from starvation, or would a total blockade of all German shipping been instituted? Germany may have been able to ferry enough supplies in via air to feed a garrison army, but no way could they have fed the civilian population without major shipping arrivals on a regular basis. Which would have of course allowed them to fortify the island, so I'm curious what would have been the allied policy. Also, did Germany even have the number of ships needed to pull off keeping the people fed? I think most games completely overlook the difficulties in conquering and keeping Britain under German control in the face of total allied dominance on the sea. Britain had a hard enough time when dealing with a sub threat, imagine what would have happened had Germany ruled the waves above the waterline as well. Jim I think that a conquered Britain would imply a total destruction of the Royal Navy in the first place. One can hardly imagine that the RN would stand and stare if a german assault was ordered across the Channel. It would have been a fight to death, so if your question is how the german would deal with a conquered island and a british domination of the seas, the answer is simple. They conquered because the RN is dead.

gravyhair -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 4:00:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capitaine What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior? France was socially and spiritually exhausted after the horror of the Great War. From the perspective of 2016, it's hard to grasp how pervasively French thinking was dominated by shock and revulsion and a "let's avoid that mess at any cost" disposition. I am generalizing, of course, but I'm not alone and there is ample evidence. As one reference among many, consider - https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Third-Republic-Inquiry-France/dp/0306805626https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Third-Republic-Inquiry-France/dp/0306805626

warspite1 -> RE: British Defeat (11/29/2016 4:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capitaine People are mostly missing the point. This is not a question of what happened historically. warspite1 Well that depends on two things: a) Play balance. b) What sort of game you want to play. I think even in a game like this or World In Flames - where actions maybe taken outside of the historic - there is still the need for some degree of historically accuracy or its no longer a WWII game. The considered opinion - not universal, but the accepted view no doubt - is that the UK would fight on. I don't see the issue - and I certainly don't see that modern sensibilities have anything to do with it.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953125