German surrender

Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.

Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software

Post Reply
MajorHeinz
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:10 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

German surrender

Post by MajorHeinz »

I advocate that the Germans (at least in PBEM mode) get a Surrender Event similar to the Soviets after the Germans took Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow.
For example, the event could come after the fall of Paris or Warsaw (or possibly both cities).

Reason:
Of course this is not historical. But not every Axis player is willing to fight to the end in a PBEM game. This can be a frustrating situation for the Allied player when the opponent gives up as soon as the initiative changes. But I think that some would continue to play if it didn't go to Berlin, but they had the chance to capitulate beforehand and didn't have to burn all the units pointlessly. On the other hand, the Allies would have a satisfactory result, being able to act not only defensively but also actively. Normally at this point (Warsaw and Paris) the point would be reached anyway where the Germans could hardly defend themselves.

I've had a scenario at this point before. But I had no desire to burn the units pointlessly. As an axis, you simply have no more goals and many of the points at the end are just annoying. The game is then clearly pro-Allies and the Allies can also end the war faster than in reality if a D-Day front develops. To give a few examples:

1. Soviet NM: This is already too high for my taste, or gets a level that is a bit below the Germans due to various boosts (with a halfway realistic course of the war). Then came the French conquest and Soviet morale rose over 20% as a result. Firstly, it is doubtful whether this really had such an impact on Soviet morale and 2. the Soviets then have an NM status compared to the Germans, which allows the Soviets to blast through entranched Germans with almost no damage (which is not all is so historical when you look at the loss numbers of 45).

2. Italy always does what it shouldn't:
Italy is an easy target for the Allies and the fact that there is no chance for Italy to recover from the NM makes it so difficult for the Axis. Sicily is usually the place where the Axis is most likely to counterattack, as Sicily is difficult to resupply for the Allies. Ultimately, one could even attack North Africa from Sicily with troops. But none of that helps, because a defeat by the Italians after a landing should actually be in the interests of the Germans. They get the MPP for northern Italy and the Italian units are almost useless in terms of combat values ​​after the NM decay from Sicily. The icing on the cake is the D-Day scenario. There, too, Italy is the best chance of success. But as soon as you conquer Rome, Italy is at war again, you lose all the MPP from Northern Italy and Italy is totally left behind research-wise and to top it all off there isn't even an NM boost for the Germans :roll:
User avatar
nnason
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:47 pm
Location: Washington DC Metro Area

Re: German surrender

Post by nnason »

I agree and should apply to WaW also
Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”