Russian troops again, sorry

[bo]

Still can't beat the Russians, destroyed 172 units by may 1943, facing another 75 units WHEW!

I wonder if it is better just to wound the Russian units [;)] meaning knock
off a couple of points insted of destroying them, this way they would have to constantly reinforce their units which would take away from them building new units all the time.

I know James is going to rip me on this one so I will say GO Aggies, [;)] that should lessen the severity of his reply [:D]

Bo

[Flaviusx]

The way to beat the Soviets is to focus on geographical objectives. Unit destruction is incidental to this. You beat up whatever is in the way of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad.

You can grab these and force them to a premature peace even if they still have an enormous army in the field. In fact, they probably will have lots left even if you push them back that far. Personally, I don't much buy this -- I think the Sovs would've fought on. It's very generous for the Axis. But I suppose this is the only way to give them an attainable objective.

If it were up to me, the only way to defeat the Sovs would be to drive their morale to zero. That's much harder to do.

[Bylandt11]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The way to beat the Soviets is to focus on geographical objectives. Unit destruction is incidental to this. You beat up whatever is in the way of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad.

You can grab these and force them to a premature peace even if they still have an enormous army in the field. In fact, they probably will have lots left even if you push them back that far. Personally, I don't much buy this -- I think the Sovs would've fought on. It's very generous for the Axis. But I suppose this is the only way to give them an attainable objective.

If it were up to me, the only way to defeat the Sovs would be to drive their morale to zero. That's much harder to do.

Actually, I once didn't make it to Moscow ('44 scenario). I got the Sovjets to surrender by digging in and destroying nearly 300 units. The OP is already more than half way there.

[BillRunacre]

It is of course a choice for the player whether or not to accept terms once Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad have been taken.

When we have Multiplayer, both sides will have to agree, so if one side says no, then the war continues irrespective of what the other desires.

[Dunkelheit87]

Never saw russian surrender after Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad taken. I was forced to take other two "capitals" or reduce their morale to 0 to achieve it.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Bylandt11

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The way to beat the Soviets is to focus on geographical objectives. Unit destruction is incidental to this. You beat up whatever is in the way of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad.

You can grab these and force them to a premature peace even if they still have an enormous army in the field. In fact, they probably will have lots left even if you push them back that far. Personally, I don't much buy this -- I think the Sovs would've fought on. It's very generous for the Axis. But I suppose this is the only way to give them an attainable objective.

If it were up to me, the only way to defeat the Sovs would be to drive their morale to zero. That's much harder to do.

Actually, I once didn't make it to Moscow ('44 scenario). I got the Sovjets to surrender by digging in and destroying nearly 300 units. The OP is already more than half way there.

That's the harder way to do it, yeah, dropping morale to zero.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Dunkelheit87

Never saw russian surrender after Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad taken. I was forced to take other two "capitals" or reduce their morale to 0 to achieve it.

These are the conditions for it:

When Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad are in Axis hands and France has surrendered, and there are no Allied units within 6 hexes of Paris or Nantes.

Hopefully something was going on in France to explain why you didn't get it?

In Multiplayer the USSR will get to decide whether or not to offer terms, but the AI is set to always do so.

[Dunkelheit87]

Hopefully something was going on in France to explain why you didn't get it?

No, only allied strategic bombardments and ships in channel. I must add that it was Barbarossa scenario.

[sPzAbt653]

When Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad are in Axis hands and France has surrendered, and there are no Allied units within 6 hexes of Paris or Nantes.

I'm not sure this always works, this screen shot is from my last game with 653H [I haven't intentionally messed with any USSR surrender scripts]. I played as the Axis against the Allied computer and played mostly historically [Poland-France-Sealion-Russia]. In Russia I've taken everything but Perm, and no Allied units are near France.
This game even continued several turns past Perm's capture, and the USSR NM was still at 61% or 62% when they did surrender.
To me though, Russia shouldn't go out too easy if at all, so I am ok with it. Great idea to put those French conditions in, as that way the player can't go Russia first and expect an easy victory.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

It is of course a choice for the player whether or not to accept terms once Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad have been taken.

When we have Multiplayer, both sides will have to agree, so if one side says no, then the war continues irrespective of what the other desires.

Bill that statement seems incorrect to me as I have taken all three with no offer of surrender, what goes.

Bo

Now a person with any smarts, he or she would have erased this post, two turns later after this post was posted the Allies offered me a full surrender in April 1942 [:(] I apologize to Bill.

What I did not like about the Allied offer it said the game was over, I do not think that is right as I thought taking Cairo, London, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow ended the game. Cairo and London are still in allied hands.

I did not accept the offer as I did not think the allies should have offered a full surrender. Is there something I do not understand here. I do not believe the game should have ended like that.

Bo

[BillRunacre]

Hi

The Decision does end the game, and it is just an option, perhaps more for Multiplayer, for those who feel they have won/lost to end the game with a definitive outcome rather than having to play on for longer. Of course, saying No to it leaves players with the option to continue for bigger goals, so it is really trying to just provide possibilities.

I'm not sure why there would be a delay of more than one turn before the Axis are presented with the Decision, nor (sPzAbt653) why it might not have been offered if the circumstances are met, as the conditions for these are very simple. The scripts involved are Decision and Victory.

[bo]

Truthfully Bill I am not sure it was two moves later, it could have been the next move it just caught me by suprise as I have never gotten that far before, a Russian surrender.

Bo

[sPzAbt653]

I did get the offer to accept Allied Surrender, but not a USSR Surrender on it's own. The above post #7 caused me some confusion, sorry about that !

[BillRunacre]

Ok, that's all good to hear. [:)]

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I did get the offer to accept Allied Surrender, but not a USSR Surrender on it's own. The above post #7 caused me some confusion, sorry about that !

Is it possible to make the USSR surrender on it's own, but to continue the game?

[sPzAbt653]

Of course ! But if you also take London, usually the game ends. There is one Script that runs that, so I disable it in the Options screen [;)]

[James Taylor]

Actually you don't have to take any capitols, USSR and UK both surrendered with NM=0.

I was trying to milk the game along until it timed out but to my chagrin, UK up and called it quits in Dec. 1946 and I had no choice other than to reload and not attack.

[sPzAbt653]

Oh yes, that is also true. Recently in 1946 with USA and UK making a comeback after the USSR surrendered at the end of 1944, suddenly the UK bowed out and left me and the USA high and dry in Italy and N. Africa. Beware the 0% National Morale !!

{Neat though, some of the UK units transferred to US control].

[James Taylor]

Was that UK elements in North Africa and Italy or were they somewhere else?

[sPzAbt653]

UK units were in Italy, N. Africa and the Mid-East.