UK surrender.

firepowerjohan · Post by **firepowerjohan** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:32 am

When would you want UK to surrender and be taken out of the game?

1) When London falls
or
2) When London plus some other important city further noth (Liverpool or Manchester) falls
or
3) UK has a Secondary Capital in Canada meaning they do not surrender until losing London and Ottawa (=Canada).

roman1uk · Post by **roman1uk** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:54 pm

Churchhill would have fought on from Canada. Please do not make the capital move to egypt.

BTW, I think it is a real positive that oil is a seperate resource.

I hope the combat model emphasizes battles of encirclement, w/ mobility, supply, combined arms and strategy being crucial elements.

SMK-at-work · Post by **SMK-at-work** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:27 pm

Yep - what's left of the UK fights on from Canada......

vypuero · Post by **vypuero** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:54 pm

I agree

Now go pound Iain on his fricking head and get us that password

Plainian · Post by **Plainian** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:59 pm

Agreed Churchill would fight on but what if he is killed/captured along with most of the government. What if the Royal family are captured? In hindsight this is absurd as key figures would be spirited away before the Germans entered London. But what if they weren't? I'd guess there might be a total collapse in morale and Britain would indeed sue for peace. It would be nice to allow for the chance of a catastrophic collapse? 1%

Only way to replicate this I suppose is if the game has a real Capital for each nation. Capitals can be moved about but cause a loss in morale/VP? Capture the capital then you captures the Govt/head of state?

Alternatively I'd allow players to set the conditions themselves. (think CWiE had this for Warsaw?) This keeps everyone happy. So players can set Y/Y/Y for collapse of Britain. London/Liverpool/Toronto) Ok this might be a bit elaborate for a game on this scale?

firepowerjohan · Post by **firepowerjohan** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:09 pm

A country can have more than one Capital in CEAW, so for instance for USSR they have Moscow and Perm (near Urals). So, you need to conquer all Capitals to force surrender.

Means we can London+Liverpool+Edinburgh as 3 UK Capitals that would mean UK surrender when you get all 3 of them or as in current Beta they have London+Ottawa.

Plainian · Post by **Plainian** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:20 pm

Yes but I'm thinking that Capital is a game unit rather than just a location. Just a thought.

Is there any penalty for losing a location which is a nominal capital apart from VP's? Sorry I mean in the situation like Britain where the nominal capital just automatically relocates? Most other countries I guess suffer the ultimate penalty and surrender.

firepowerjohan · Post by **firepowerjohan** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:24 pm

ian wrote:Yes but I'm thinking that Capital is a game unit rather than just a location. Just a thought.

Is there any penalty for losing a location which is a nominal capital apart from VP's? Sorry I mean in the situation like Britain where the nominal capital just automatically relocates? Most other countries I guess suffer the ultimate penalty and surrender.

No, just the penalty of losing the production which is deliberately large for London, Berlin, Moscow and other major Nations primary Capitals. Also, if you let Axis land and take London they can then trace supply from London so it is not good at all losing it

Plainian · Post by **Plainian** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:25 pm

Ok I know you want to keep the game simplistic meaning uncomplicated as opposed to simple but should London really operate as a supply source for the enemy? The ports eg Southampton/Portsmouth etc yes because supply is traced to there and then of course from there as would have happened IF Op Sealion had occurred. Is London treated as a port in this game?
Reason I ask is if you look at the 44' situation then capturing an inland city in France such as Rouen or whatever shouldn't automatically guarentee supply for allied forces?

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:31 pm

I'm highly skeptical about the fight-on-from-Canada scenario.

My opinion would be that if London and Manchester both fall, the UK should surrender.

Plainian · Post by **Plainian** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:46 pm

I can't make any quotes to substantiate things but my feeling is that Britain would fight on. However I feel that it would be nice to create a bit of uncertainty so that players just do not have 100% assurance that if they retreat north from London then the country would not fold! Of course this % chance would have to be set very low.

Aleterantively just make it an option.

Plainian · Post by **Plainian** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:48 pm

I can't make any quotes to substantiate things but my feeling is that Britain would fight on. However I feel that it would be nice to create a bit of uncertainty so that players just do not have 100% assurance that if they retreat north from London then the country would not fold! Of course this % chance would have to be set very low.

Aleerantively just make it an option.

vypuero · Post by **vypuero** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:56 pm

Guys - even if UK surrenders, Canada would not surrender, right? I think it is good the way it is

firepowerjohan · Post by **firepowerjohan** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:56 pm

London will not give full supplt to Axis, only half supply but half supply is better than low supply or out of supply which is what the axis forces in britain would get when having no city foothold conquered.

joe98 · Post by **joe98** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:59 pm

How many capitals does Russia have, in this game, for surrender purposes?

-

firepowerjohan · Post by **firepowerjohan** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:23 pm

joe98 wrote:How many capitals does Russia have, in this game, for surrender purposes?

-

USSR have Moscow and Perm

James Taylor · Post by **James Taylor** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:15 am

So none of y'all remember Churchill's speech about fighting from the landing beaches, fields and cities and if finally vanquished from the Island continuing to fight from the far reaches of the Empire until the great Democracy of the US comes to world's rescue from that black abyss of the threatening new Dark Age?

Sound familiar?

You doubt Churchill's resolve and that of the UK? Ever read his book, "Never Surrender"?

I know in this day of politicians and lawyers many of you have lost your clarity......but back then they made a lot of Real Men and Women.

UK would have fought on if the British Isles had been occupied.

vveedd · Post by **vveedd** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:58 am

You have my vote for Canada. And not because Churchill and brave UK people will fight from Canada, but because in many cases game is over when UK surrender. There is very little chance to win with Allies if UK falls.

As for USSR ??“ Perm? Never heard. As I know Soviet government has planned to run in Kuybyshev. They already have moved documents and some staff members and then Stalin has decided to stay in Moscow. Anyway, maybe you should consider different way for USSR surrender. USSR is special case like UK. Stalin has considered peace offer when Axis attacked but to my opinion he also will never surrender. Also USSR is very, very big country so complete occupation is close to impossible mission. To my opinion you should not have in game complete surrender only peace agreement which Axis should keep with lots of garrisons on USSR territory.

firepowerjohan · Post by **firepowerjohan** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:30 am

Perm is on the east edge of Map near the Urals. That means if Axis get there they are totally dominating the scene.

vveedd · Post by **vveedd** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:06 pm

firepowerjohan wrote:Perm is on the east edge of Map near the Urals. That means if Axis get there they are totally dominating the scene.

Kuybyshev is historically correct but this is less important. If you want Perm let it be Perm.

More important is that you consider my suggestion about peace agreement instead of total surrender for USSR. To my opinion agreement will be much better for gameplay.