UK surrender.

[uxbridge]

Yes, that was the "almost pointless". Of course, with Britain occupid the Allies would have had a lot tougher time to come back to Europe. And game-wise it may be a point of trying. In reality, though, the losses incurred in conquering Britain would have delayed Barbarossa considerably, and the prospect of defeating the Russians would have been far more difficult. In most games, however, you get stronger, not weaker by conquests, so this may not be the case in the game.

As for tension, knowing a definite result for occuping a certain location, will leave the excitement only for the result of the combat to get there, and having an unrealistic object, such as Perm, as a single trigger point, will lead both players into fighting for this point only, probably creating a frontline looking like an outstretched arm.

Anyway, it seems that the developers have settled for this, so we have to try the completed game out and wish for changes in version II.

[firepowerjohan]

Yes, that was the "almost pointless". Of course, with Britain occupid the Allies would have had a lot tougher time to come back to Europe. And game-wise it may be a point of trying. In reality, though, the losses incurred in conquering Britain would have delayed Barbarossa considerably, and the prospect of defeating the Russians would have been far more difficult. In most games, however, you get stronger, not weaker by conquests, so this may not be the case in the game.

As for tension, knowing a definite result for occuping a certain location, will leave the excitement only for the result of the combat to get there, and having an unrealistic object, such as Perm, as a single trigger point, will lead both players into fighting for this point only, probably creating a frontline looking like an outstretched arm.

Anyway, it seems that the developers have settled for this, so we have to try the completed game out and wish for changes in version II.

We are listening to this very carefully and can adapt. For instance we can give USSR 4 Capitals if we want (Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow and Rjasan) if we want the Axis player to conquer on a broad scale to make USSR surrender. The editor can change this really easy. The final decision is not taken here and we also are considering optional rule for this if it seems to divide ppl too much.

[vveedd]

Yes, that was the "almost pointless". Of course, with Britain occupid the Allies would have had a lot tougher time to come back to Europe. And game-wise it may be a point of trying. In reality, though, the losses incurred in conquering Britain would have delayed Barbarossa considerably, and the prospect of defeating the Russians would have been far more difficult. In most games, however, you get stronger, not weaker by conquests, so this may not be the case in the game.

As for tension, knowing a definite result for occuping a certain location, will leave the excitement only for the result of the combat to get there, and having an unrealistic object, such as Perm, as a single trigger point, will lead both players into fighting for this point only, probably creating a frontline looking like an outstretched arm.

Anyway, it seems that the developers have settled for this, so we have to try the completed game out and wish for changes in version II.

Absolutely agree. You should listen this guy. This is how experienced wargame player thinking. To my opinion you shouldn??™t have capitals as surrender trigger at all. You should have something like 3R game has - quote from rules: ???Whenever at the end of a Russian player turn the Russians have less than 50 factors of ground and air factors on the mapboard, and combined Axis strength inside Russia's original boundaries exceeds the Russian total by at least a 3:2 ratio, Russia is considered defeated and must make a one-time offer to surrender. Partisans in Russia count toward the 50 factor limit. ??? Of course, you should adjust this rule to your game. Advantages of this options are enormous ??“ you will avoid all things that uxbridge mentioned, you will never have, per game, same front in Russia and players will have free hand to make war operations in Russia as they wanted.
Also, this same front issue or as uxbridge said ???creating a frontline looking like an outstretched arm??? is directly connected to my post in this forum about supply rules. If you will have supply rules in which unsupplied units will be enable to move and fight for too many turns after turn in which they lost supply you will have that outstretched arm front every time because that kind of rule make this possible. Worst case scenario, if you will have bad supply rules, that you will not have solid front at all in any game.

[firepowerjohan]

"If you will have supply rules in which surrounded units will be enable to move and fight for too many turns after turn in which they were surrounded you will have that outstretched arm front every time because that kind of rule make this possible. Worst case scenario, if you will have bad supply rules, that you will not have solid front at all in any game."

But we do have VERY harsh supply penalty rules in CEAW. Units out of supply immediately lose alot of movement, get effectiveness penalty each turn and get no effectiveness regain. That was one isse I considered very early in the design phase to make sure that front lines are the best way to advance instead of just a swarm of units.

Combined with ZOC penalty rules you can surround enemis and prevent them breaking out by slipping through your fingers.

[vveedd]

But we do have VERY harsh supply penalty rules in CEAW. Units out of supply immediately lose alot of movement, get effectiveness penalty each turn and get no effectiveness regain. That was one isse I considered very early in the design phase to make sure that front lines are the best way to advance instead of just a swarm of units.

Combined with ZOC penalty rules you can surround enemis and prevent them breaking out by slipping through your fingers.

I am very glad to see that. Maybe your game will be good after all.

[uxbridge]

We are listening to this very carefully and can adapt. For instance we can give USSR 4 Capitals if we want (Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow and Rjasan) if we want the Axis player to conquer on a broad scale to make USSR surrender. The editor can change this really easy. The final decision is not taken here and we also are considering optional rule for this if it seems to divide ppl too much.

This is much preferable to having only Moscow and Perm. But I for one would rather have it that the USSR surrender rules were divided into two distinct levels:

First, the German player has to occupy all the cities of Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Minsk and Stalingrad. Before this condition is fulfilled, there's no Russian surrender.

Secondly, you assign an additional batch of cities; for the example, let's make them Astrachan, Saratov, Rjasan, Gorki and Jaroslavl. Once the first condition is fulfilled, if taken by the Germans, each of these cities will generate a 15 % chance that the USSR surrenders. It will be a one-time, immediate shot for each location (if some are already in German hands when the first condition is met, the check is made for those at once).

If neither the first nor second condition gives the German player the victory, USSR will still surrender once all ten mentioned cities is taken.

This way you will divide the USSR surrender situation into three cathegories: Impossible, open to chance and, finally, certainty. Once you reach the "open to chance-situation", cold sweat will trickle down the forehead of most players. Much better than certainty following immediately upon impossible.

[SMK-at-work]

If you want cold sweat then make that "open to chance one" a chance for a ceasefire rather than a surrender, and give teh Axis player the opportunity to accept or reject, but if he rejects he never gets anothe chance.......

And as it's a ceasefire the Sov's get to come back into the war after, say, a year.....

[Plainian]

Just a thought inspired by some of the posts above but did Slitherine consider adding in a National Morale factor to decide when countries surrender? I realise from playing lots of boardgames that this is possibly more suited to WW1 but it might also be applicable to WW2?

I also realise that losing VP cities may be a better way to reflect and duplicate this effect However I suppose that things like the size of remaining National Forces (Army/naval/Air) or the size of attacking/occupying forces, or the morale of allies could be taking into account so that geographic considerations are not the only thing to consider in trying to get a nation to surrender?

Hell of a formulae to programme for each power though?

[Redpossum]

These suggestions are all getting too damned complicated.

KISS!

[firepowerjohan]

These suggestions are all getting too damned complicated.

KISS!

You mean like the current rule "A country will surrender when it loses all its Capital Hexes" ?

[Redpossum]

These suggestions are all getting too damned complicated.

KISS!

You mean like the current rule "A country will surrender when it loses all its Capital Hexes" ?

Yes, exactly, Johan. I am in favor of sticking with the current system or something very similar. It wasn't me who expressed any objection, except possibly to making Perm a capital

BTW, what's with Perm anyhow? Why is it important, but Stalingrad/Leningrad not?

[SMK-at-work]

They were important - but both were "close" to falling, as was Moscow, and there is no indication that their loss would have caused surrender.

Hence for game-surrender purposes they do not count.

Hopefully they count for unit replacement/resource purposes tho!

[firepowerjohan]

These suggestions are all getting too damned complicated.

KISS!

You mean like the current rule "A country will surrender when it loses all its Capital Hexes" ?

Yes, exactly, Johan. I am in favor of sticking with the current system or something very similar. It wasn't me who expressed any objection, except possibly to making Perm a capital

BTW, what's with Perm anyhow? Why is it important, but Stalingrad/Leningrad not?

To make USSR tough to conquer. Means Axis need to reach the Urals to get peace.