UK surrender.

[vypuero]

2 - Moscow and Perm

[honvedseg]

The importance of Moscow was not only as a center of government but as a rail junction. Most of the Soviet rail system ran directly to and from Moscow, and its capture by the Germans would have severely restricted the ability of any surviving Russian forces to coordinate and supply what forces they had left. The remaining rail lines would have been disconnected from each other, allowing the Germans to move against them individually with the Russians unable to shift their defending forces effectively between sectors of the front. The Russians could have continued the war from further east, but would have had nowhere near the same amount of industry and resources available to them.

[firepowerjohan]

The importance of Moscow was not only as a center of government but as a rail junction. Most of the Soviet rail system ran directly to and from Moscow, and its capture by the Germans would have severely restricted the ability of any surviving Russian forces to coordinate and supply what forces they had left. The remaining rail lines would have been disconnected from each other, allowing the Germans to move against them individually with the Russians unable to shift their defending forces effectively between sectors of the front. The Russians could have continued the war from further east, but would have had nowhere near the same amount of industry and resources available to them.

We have a high production value of Moscow to simulate this.

[vveedd]

The importance of Moscow was not only as a center of government but as a rail junction. Most of the Soviet rail system ran directly to and from Moscow, and its capture by the Germans would have severely restricted the ability of any surviving Russian forces to coordinate and supply what forces they had left. The remaining rail lines would have been disconnected from each other, allowing the Germans to move against them individually with the Russians unable to shift their defending forces effectively between sectors of the front. The Russians could have continued the war from further east, but would have had nowhere near the same amount of industry and resources available to them.

We have a high production value of Moscow to simulate this.

And that??™s very good. Moscow was exactly what honvedseg said. My suggestion is: when Axis takes both capitals USSR will automatically sign peace agreement and effects of this will be like classical surrender you will have in game. BUT Axis must leave significant number of units in USSR. If Axis not leave units, USSR will reactive as Allied major. To my opinion this will be realistic and you will avoid empty USSR territory from Axis units after surrender (which is totally unrealistic and stupid).
I am SURE that Russian people will fight until last men with guerrilla, partisans (or whatever) especially because of fact that Hitler wanted to exterminate them.

[firepowerjohan]

We will see, but frankly if Germany conquers USSR I think, unless allies are the gates of Berlin, the game will be over for Allies anyway.

[vveedd]

We will see, but frankly if Germany conquers USSR I think, unless allies are the gates of Berlin, the game will be over for Allies anyway.

This is exactly what I am trying to avoid with this suggestion. Allies has much better chance to keep going (and game to keep going) if Axis can not use all units on western front because they must garrison USSR territory.

[vypuero]

It could also be considered a benefit of conquering Russia - for one thing they would probably start pushing the puppet governments more, getting the Ukrainians set up and entrenched, and leave most of the policing to the various instruments of the occupation, which are not necessarily represented on the map. I kind of like the idea that garrisons are needed to keep all production captured and avoid partisans, but you can also consider that by abstracting this they make the game more focused on the real play and less bogged down.

[uxbridge]

Is it possible to have a probability that a nation will surrender when it's capital falls, rather than only a certainty that it does or doesn't? Does it have to be either or not?

[Plainian]

Is it possible to have a probability that a nation will surrender when it's capital falls, rather than only a certainty that it does or doesn't? Does it have to be either or not?

I'd be happy to go down this road but only if you could set the % to suit your own feelings on history. Player in the NEVER SURRENDER bracket could put it 0%.

A German AI would of course have to be handicapped in that it will assume that it is 100%. In fact it will assume that it doesn't even have to capture London to make Britain sue for peace. All it has to do is capture Paris, destroy the BEF, badly maul the RAF then threaten to turn all British cities into Rotterdams and Warsaws.
After all thats what Hitler thought..........
However British history suggests that 0% is probably accurate. As long as the Royal Navy could still sorty then Britain would put up a fight.

[fundin]

I don't think Uk would surrender when it fell, it had to many outlying territories to fight from Canada etc. Although losing UK would much reduce its effectiveness .

[vypuero]

Russia has two also - Moscow and Perm

[rtamesis]

I think that if London falls on a turn that the game should at least provide a political phase for the possibility that the British government would surrender rather than fight on. Churchill would have come under intense pressure from the House of Commons to resign and for a new government to negotiate terms of surrender with Hitler if he had lost the capital of the UK.

[firepowerjohan]

Such random roll is deceisive for the war, especially since if UK surrender when USA and USSR are still at peace then the whole Allied side loses. I do not think we want a random roll to decide the whole game.

[coldknight]

I would have to take #2 on that one. Itll be a lot harder to stop them

[vveedd]

Such random roll is deceisive for the war, especially since if UK surrender when USA and USSR are still at peace then the whole Allied side loses. I do not think we want a random roll to decide the whole game.

Absolutely agree for one reason more ??“ reloading cheat in PBEM. Player can reload game until he gets UK surrender. Less luck factor in game - game will be better.

[rtamesis]

Are you really sure that the British would not have surrendered if the German army managed to conquer Southern England and their capital London, especially during those dark summer days of 1940 when British military commanders admitted that Britain was at the time most vulnerable to German invasion after the fall of France and losing most of their armor at Dunkirk? Life does not always turn out the way you expect it to, and this was reflected by the random events phase that the good old SPI wargames from the 1970s often included in their simulations. Good military stategists always plan for the unexpected and adjust their strategies accordingly. By the same token, what if the French decided to have more of a backbone and kept on fighting rather than making peace with the Germans and establshing the Vichy government? If you want no luck to play a factor in wargames, then stick to chess.

[firepowerjohan]

One thing is for certain. We have alot of space left on the game setup screen to include on/off rules so if there is some debate that split players we could include it in optional rules so keep the discussions going and we will see

[vveedd]

Are you really sure that the British would not have surrendered if the German army managed to conquer Southern England and their capital London, especially during those dark summer days of 1940 when British military commanders admitted that Britain was at the time most vulnerable to German invasion after the fall of France and losing most of their armor at Dunkirk? Life does not always turn out the way you expect it to, and this was reflected by the random events phase that the good old SPI wargames from the 1970s often included in their simulations. Good military stategists always plan for the unexpected and adjust their strategies accordingly. By the same token, what if the French decided to have more of a backbone and kept on fighting rather than making peace with the Germans and establshing the Vichy government? If you want no luck to play a factor in wargames, then stick to chess.

Maybe they would have surrendered, maybe they would have not. This is not the point. Point is - more luck factors in game enabling more opportunities to cheat with reloading save file AND that is what game make less playable (in PBEM, of course). I have no problem with luck in wargames.

[uxbridge]

Wouldn't it be possible to just have a delay when triggering a surrender? One turn? Or effect is triggered in the opponents turn. This way the cheating player won't know whether it was a good or bad result before his opponent has played his turn.

I really side with rtamesis on this. If the UK capital moves to Canada, invading England becomes almost pointless for the Axis. And the tension goes out of the game if there's fixed "rules" for surrender tied to cities.

UK should have something like 25 % chance when London falls; another 40 % when Glasgow goes; and if neither happens the Axis have to conquer Canada, which, of course, they can't.

USSR should have a similar system, that unlocks when Moscow is taken. Maybe 20 % each for Leningrad and Stalingrad; then 10 % for each distant city falling thereafter. Using Perm as a trigger point will create a very peculiar front in the USSR.

If i can't be in the standard game, it would be nice to have the option to edit this.

[Plainian]

I'm not 100% convinced either that Britain would have fought on if Germans had somehow got past the Royal Navy, somehow built and resupplied a bridgehead and then broke out and seized London. The fall of London would have been a serious blow and in fact who is to say that if Germans had threatened London that the British would have defended it? Paris was made an open city? Yes I know all of the Churchillian speeches but would the British have considered making London a mini Stalingrad?

As for tension and making the game pointless however I don't agree with this. I think that a German player will invade not to knock Britain out of the game but to capture Production centres and delay British build up. British forces operating from Canada are going to have a negligible effect against main land Europe. I guess you can still move troops to Africa from Canada, just takes longer. Until the USA enters the war and gears up then Germans should have a free hand in the east, but may have to leave a sizeable garrison in Britain sitting idle.

But I definitely agree that players should be allowed to set the % chances of capitulation for cities. I really like the idea of a turns delay before a player knows if his attack has worked or not.