Axis Minors

[aussem]

I suspect my opinion doesn't count for much, but I would like to attempt to raise a couple of points regarding the Axis Minors, when they go down.

In a game I am currently playing it is 13 Nov 1944 and up until last turn the Axis (Germany) still controlled Paris, Rome and Moscow (and of course Hamburg and Berlin), plus all the Axis Minor Capitals. It used to be that the Finns had to lose 2x cities plus the Baltic States, in my game they had only lost 1, and as soon as the last Baltic State was captured the Finns signed their Armistice. I wasn't aware of this rule change……regardless, even with the Baltic States getting captured I can't see why the Finns would still decide to opt out when the Axis still controls so many Capitals……how that can't be factored into a decision tree frustrates me……in my opinion (such as it is), until at least Moscow is back in the hands of the Allies and the Finnish homeland is truly under threat (which it wasn't), they should not need to sign any Armistice. I feel these, little illogical 'rules' (at least illogical to me) hurt our game.

Also, a last Romanian Air unit is sitting in the middle of Germany, occupying ground no less, when Romania went down (this turn). I feel this is also illogical, surely the Germans would have 'interned' them as soon as Romania turned ? Grrrrr.

[Cybvep]

In a game I am currently playing it is 13 Nov 1944 and up until last turn the Axis (Germany) still controlled Paris, Rome and Moscow (and of course Hamburg and Berlin), plus all the Axis Minor Capitals. It used to be that the Finns had to lose 2x cities plus the Baltic States, in my game they had only lost 1, and as soon as the last Baltic State was captured the Finns signed their Armistice. I wasn't aware of this rule change……regardless, even with the Baltic States getting captured I can't see why the Finns would still decide to opt out when the Axis still controls so many Capitals……how that can't be factored into a decision tree frustrates me……in my opinion (such as it is), until at least Moscow is back in the hands of the Allies and the Finnish homeland is truly under threat (which it wasn't), they should not need to sign any Armistice. I feel these, little illogical 'rules' (at least illogical to me) hurt our game.

Is that a new rule? I thought that it's been there for a while. Anyway, I agree with you - Finland shouldn't sign an armistice in such a situation, but then, surrender rules are simple in CEAW and don't take the military situation into account, for example. You can lose Rome "accidentally" (ninja transport) and Italy will surrender, even if they control the whole Med. Not realistic at all, but it's not an issue in 99% of cases and the player is supposed to defend Rome, anyway. It's similar in case of Finland - you know which cities you need to defend if you want to keep them fighting.

Also, a last Romanian Air unit is sitting in the middle of Germany, occupying ground no less, when Romania went down (this turn). I feel this is also illogical, surely the Germans would have 'interned' them as soon as Romania turned ? Grrrrr.

Well, if you cannot deal with Romanian air unit in the middle of Germany, then you can only blame yourself .

[Peter Stauffenberg]

In GS v2.2 we altered the Finnish armistice conditions so you need 3 cities (instead of 2). You can lose 2 in Estonia (Tallinn and Tartu), but you also need one inside Finland. So Finland won't surrender until you've lost a city in Finland.

I think the game described must be very weird. If the Russians are able to push into Romania and Finland, but don't control Moscow then the front line must look strange.

The Axis minor countries will surrender (or change side) when they lose their capital. What is so strange about that? It's your job as the Axis player to prevent that from happening. Finland is the exception because they surrendered (as Italy) prior to losing their capital. Both countries only surrender after they lose a home city. So make sure that doesn't happen.

We have to remember that not all countries had the same agenda as the main power of a side. The Germans were the ones wanting war and as long as the war was at a distance the supporting countries followed Germany. Once the war war brought to their home territory they tried to find a way out of the war. Remember that it was mainly Germany that benefitted from the conquests in the early stages of the war. The minor powers didn't gain much.

I think it didn't matter much to Romania if Germany would still be in Moscow if the Red Army stormed into Bucharest. What mattered to Romania would have been the survival of their own country. That meant finding not too harsh peace terms when their capital was lost.

[GogTheMild]

The Axis minor countries will surrender (or change side) when they lose their capital. What is so strange about that? It's your job as the Axis player to prevent that from happening. Finland is the exception because they surrendered (as Italy) prior to losing their capital. Both countries only surrender after they lose a home city. So make sure that doesn't happen.

At the risk of spoiling a neat theory with an inconvenient fact, Bulgaria also surrendered prior to losing its capital.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

In GS both Romania and Bulgaria change side if they lose their capital. Hungary will just surrender. I know that Bulgaria changed side a few days before they lost Sofia, but code wise it's easier to let them change side once the capital is lost.

[jimwinsor]

I think as the Germans you just need to be aware that Romania/Bulgaria switch sides on capital loss, and station their units accordingly (or preferably, kill them off) if you want to avoid inconvenient results.

[aussem]

Yes, it is a weird game, mostly my fault.....operationally / tactically I have done reasonably well, hence all the Capitals the Axis still had under their control so late in the game.....but, strategically / logistically (i.e. Med supply rules) I (the Axis player) have been terrible.....won't bore you with the details, just suffice to say, at a strategic / logistic level this Axis player (i.e. me) should be held up as a shining light / example of what NOT TO DO !

Back to my points:

Romanian Air unit in the middle of Germany:
I wasn't making comment about the Axis Minors (specifically Romania and Bulgaria) having to change sides, when their capitals get over run. That rule is perfectly fair and reasonable, at a Macro level. My comment was more about a Romanian Air unit sitting in the middle of Germany, "occupying" ground. Yes, I the German player could see the writing on the wall and that Bucharest was in danger of being over run. I tried killing it off with 'suicide' attacks, mainly because I didn't want to use a SS unit (full strength Corp) 'siting' in Berlin because I wanted it to continue it's 'fortification' activities. So, at a Micro level it was impractical to run over to this Romanian TAC and kill it off / intern it. Surely, we can have a rule that units in the German Heartland, and only in the German Heartland, allowing for 'reverting' Axis minors, should they be in the German Heartland, be 'interned, preferably killed off, or if not, at least removed to the reinforcement pool. Certainly, allowing said Air unit to 'occupy' the land space they sit on is even more annoying / illogical. I remember in the early play testing days that I made the point about Air units being able to 'land' in enemy territory, thus converting that space to their territory, whilst they freely transited the world across recently captured enemy territory. Thankfully, the powers that be took my point and changed the rules to prevent this. I believe my points above are another example of Micro events / situations not adequately catered for by the current rules ?

Finnish Armistice:
Probably on less arguable grounds here due to some 'subjective' assessments. Because of the 'confused' state of the game the Russians were fully occupied in trying to take back Berlin, bypassing lots of other Russian cities in the hands of the Axis and they had negligible forces in or around Finland. They (the Russians) also had to contend with a German Corp siting happily in the fortification hex between Helsinki and Leningrad. My point being that because of this Micro set of situations, the Finns were at something approaching a zero threat from the Russians. I would like to suggest we start to look at decision trees, sometime in the future, on some new version / upgrade project to look more at Micro situations / factors or events. I believe the existing Macro rules that cover the Axis Minors are two simplistic and can lead to unnecessary, illogical and untended results.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think we need some kind of simple coding here. If we say that all Romanian and Bulgarian units will be interned if in core German territory then the Axis player can exploit that by moving the Romanian and Bulgarian units there prior to their capitals falling. If the Axis player doesn't like the risk of having unwanted Axis minors in their home territory defecting then you just don't use these units inside Germany.

In the real war the Germans didn't know their partners would defect. So they wouldn't intern or reallocate any units. The Germans couldn't even predict the Italian defection.

I don't think we need to alter Finland armistice. Since it will only happen with Russian units inside core Finnish territory I don't think it will happen in situations where the Axis are winning. If the Axis player ignores the north and allows the Finns to be harassed by the Russians then it's just natural the Finns bail out of the war.

The more special rules we have the harder it will be for players to understand. E. g. how should the code try to interpret when we get an exception to the normal armistice rule? Should it say that if Moscow is Axis controlled then Finland would never ask for an armistice? What if the Germans in Moscow is then cutoff from the rest of Germany or Allied units are on core German territory? There are many possible situations where the Axis may control key cities and their situation is still hopeless.

I think it's better to just look at the situation for each minor power LOCALLY. E. g. Finland wouldn't be so interested in the situation far away from Finland. Let's say Germany have taken both Gibraltar and Port Said. That's completely of no interest to Finland if Russian troops are pushing into Finland. It's up to the Axis player to protect their minor Allies if they want to still keep these powers in the game.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Just a point regarding Finland. In GS v2.2 the Allied player needs to capture at least 1 city in Finland to trigger the armistice. Also less than 6 Axis units have to be present in Finland. So Finland won't surrender if Russia are bypassing Finland. Russia have to push into Finland and there have to be few Axis units left in Finland.

So I think you're commenting on an older GS version. In your situation Finland would not have asked for armistice in GS v2.2.

[Blathergut]

I don't suppose axis units could randomly remain on Germany's side despite capital loss? Losing most but having two or three remain to the end could be interesting and also unpredictable. Could each unit somehow 'roll' to remain or be removed?

[JimR]

I think as the Germans you just need to be aware that Romania/Bulgaria switch sides on capital loss, and station their units accordingly (or preferably, kill them off) if you want to avoid inconvenient results.

When as the Axis player you see the Russians approach Bucharest and Sofia, make sure that all remaining Romanian and Bulgarian units are in their way so the Russians must kill them first. The Romanian air force and navy are good for suicide attacks in the turn or two before Bucharest falls.