Possible bug - Soviets and surrender of Italy
Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core
Possible bug - Soviets and surrender of Italy
Not a big issue, but in my game with Morris the Soviets managed to take the two last Italian cities and forced an Italian surrender. Nevertheless, Italy surrenders to the UK. Is this intended or is this a bug?
Cheers Zechi
Cheers Zechi
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant

- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Does it mean this game is created by English ? If US conquer Italy , will it also appears Italy surrender to UK?pk867 wrote:That is how the game engine works. If the Russians defeat the Germans the game will end (if Italy is out) Germany will surrender to UK.
It has been this way since the Vanilla game.
-
Peter Stauffenberg
- General - Carrier

- Posts: 4745
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
I get it . But I still feel not make sense . Does it mean that UK was the Allies leader in WW2 ? Even if USA agree, USSR won't .Stauffenberg wrote:A major power surrenders to the country in change of the other side. For the Allies the sequence is:
* UK
* USA
* USSR
For USA to be used the UK must have surrendered. For USSR to be used then both UK and USA must have been surrendered.
For the Axis the sequence is:
* Germany
* Italy
-
Peter Stauffenberg
- General - Carrier

- Posts: 4745
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
It has nothing to do with that, but who the game considers to be the country in charge when you check for certain things. UK is probably chosen because they're active from the start while USA and USSR start as neutral.
France can't be chosen because they often surrender.
This is something we inherited from the vanilla game. I don't think it's worth changing. If a major Axis power surrenders then the game is about to end anyway and it doesn't matter who they surrenders to.
Actually Germany surrendered to the ALLIES (i. e. UK, USA AND USSR). So this is just a definition more than a real game effect.
France can't be chosen because they often surrender.
This is something we inherited from the vanilla game. I don't think it's worth changing. If a major Axis power surrenders then the game is about to end anyway and it doesn't matter who they surrenders to.
Actually Germany surrendered to the ALLIES (i. e. UK, USA AND USSR). So this is just a definition more than a real game effect.
The Germans really wanted to surrendered only to the US/UK and not to the USSR. In fact, Himmler in the last days of the war in Europe was trying to work his way to Eisenhower headquarters to seek a separate peace with the US/UK. He never made it and was captured after Germany's surrender by the British and killed himself.Stauffenberg wrote:Actually Germany surrendered to the ALLIES (i. e. UK, USA AND USSR). So this is just a definition more than a real game effect.
An excellent movie that I've found and watch 2 times recently is Downfall. It centers around Hitler and his inner circle in the final days of the 3rd Reich. It's setting if primarily in, and around, Hitler's Berlin bunker and the story is based on a book by and interviews of Traudl Junge, Hitler's private secretary. In fact the movie includes the last interview with her before her death in 2002. When I watched the movie I had recognized her from a BBC interview in early 70's done for their series, "World at War". Downfall is all in German, but even having to watch it with subtitles I highly recommend it.
For me the question should be, "Does it have any impact on the outcome of the game?" given the time and effort to implement and properly test a change this fundamental and of this magnitude. I've never experienced a situation where Italy or Germany surrendering to the UK impacted the outcome of the game. So for me, there are a lot of other potential changes with higher priority than this one.zechi wrote:Does it have any impact on the game to whom a major power surrenders? If this is the case, then I think this should be changed. If it is only a formality, then it would not be necessary to change it.
If it has an impact on the game, then it can always have an impact on the outcome of a game. Imagine a situation where the western Allies did not get ashore at all in Europe, but the Soviets manage to take out Hamburg and Berlin, while Italy is still in the game.rkr1958 wrote:For me the question should be, "Does it have any impact on the outcome of the game?" given the time and effort to implement and properly test a change this fundamental and of this magnitude. I've never experienced a situation where Italy or Germany surrendering to the UK impacted the outcome of the game. So for me, there are a lot of other potential changes with higher priority than this one.zechi wrote:Does it have any impact on the game to whom a major power surrenders? If this is the case, then I think this should be changed. If it is only a formality, then it would not be necessary to change it.
Germany will then surrender to the UK. All German units will disappear, but who will take control of the German cities? I'm not sure what happens then, because I never had this situation, but who will get control of the German cities? The Italian or the British? If its the British, then this could have an impact on the game, as the Soviets will not be able to rail units to British controlled cities.
Does it work the same for minor countries:Stauffenberg wrote:A major power surrenders to the country in change of the other side. For the Allies the sequence is:
* UK
* USA
* USSR
For USA to be used the UK must have surrendered. For USSR to be used then both UK and USA must have been surrendered.
For the Axis the sequence is:
* Germany
* Italy
a) that have been conquered
b) that joined the side
?
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.




