Russia surrender?

[wargameplayer]

For the UK.
An event trigger for Canada, India, and Aus/MZ would be if London and Scotland are lost, a 50% check is done per power. i.e. There is a 50% chance that India/Canada or Australia (each) go to a neutral status. Neutral implies frozen territories. If neither India, Canada and Australia (3 checks) don’t go neutral then they keep fighting.

The rest of the provinces were more like colonies then nations. More like French Algeria and Nigeria. So doing a Vichy like check for them makes sense. Either they join as pro axis neutrals or stay active enemies. Whichever Axis power got takes out England gets the ability to turn down or accept the package deal. Just like vichy.

If all 3 potential belligerent powers surrender/go neutral then I think doing a Vichy like check for the UK units here -they go running back the the US capital makes some sense just like when france was taken.

As I write this I am thinking this might be too complicated. But hey I took a crack at it!

Russia: If Moscow, Gorki, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Caucus, Kiev, and Kursk are taken then there is a % chance of an event trigger (say 25%) per turn that condition holds.

The even trigger creates a balanced neutral state from the Urals East. Germany would get a chance to accept or keep killing. Other ceded provinces would be a Vladivostok and the 4 coastal pacific provinces to Japan assuming Japan still had not lost Manchuria to China or the Allies. That should leave them with just the two factories in the Urals which is reasonable at a 3 or 4x multiplier. All units from both sides would flow back to their respective capitals at the event trigger.

I guess the virture of accepting for Germany is that it keeps russia off its back for a period of time and gives Japan a big resource boost. Maybe make it 2 years with a chance of 25% unfreezing after that period maybe. I dunno...lots of unintended consequences here. The problem is it's pretty much beaten anyway if you've got troops at the urals and all those other provinces. As another option, maybe do a less restrictive territory check (meaning the german player doesn't know if he has say 2 or a few more seasons before deafeating Russia) and he knows he has the US on his back. If fewer territories were part of the event check maybe have a few of the factories get rolled back to the urals.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

Back to Joel's question.

If Allied surrenders were to be implemented, how should they be implemented?

I see the following as reasonable:
1) Britain never surrenders (the loss of England is penalty enough, and the fleets really quite likely would have rebased to Commonwealth/Empire and kept on).

2) Australia is a separate nation and can surrender.

3) India is a separate nation and can surrender.

4) Russia can surrender.

Good ideas.

But how should the surrender look afterwards? The choices I see are:
a) the nation becomes neutral (balanced?)
b) the nation becomes frozen
c) the nations units disappear
d) combine (c) with (a) or (b)
e) the nation provides a "resource gift" to the Axis (tribute).
f) maybe some territories given to the Axis (or reclaimed?).

What combination of the above? Something else?

a) surrendering Nation become leaning Axis
b) ok
c) Not sure about this one: if Axis decided to attack that nation again?
e) Good idea
f) Ok, but Axis need to mantain a garrison there (partisan attacks)

Should anything short of being attacked make that nation DOW again?

IMHO no.

[Tom Grosv]

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
Well what's he going to say.

They had just lost Belgium, Netherlands, France, and even Norway in a busy afternoon. Wasn't that much more to lose but that island. There are not a lot of other "giving a good speech" options other than yeah we'll take a beating and keep on ticking.

Well he could of said, Let's quit - Germany doesn't want to conquer Britain anyway.

Invernomuto started this thread talking about the realism of SU continuing the fight after Germany took Gorky, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad. Realism is a really tough question to answer. In Britain's case the "realistic" scenario on the fall of France was for Britain to agree peace with Germany - Britain and the Commonwealth/Empire was alone and believed at the time that sealion was a very real possibility. Why fight on when Hitler was happy to leave Britain and Empire alone? Why risk conquest and subjegation? But, as we know, Churchill did not follow the "realistic" scenario.

Trying to determine the realism regarding the SU fighting on in the scenario outlined by Invernomuto is difficult. The United States suffered, I believe, just under 420,000 total killed or 0.32% of her population. SU suffered over 23 million or close on 14%. It cannot be easy for a modern American (or anyone else) to be blithly confident about knowing what the mindset was of the average peasant SU soldier in 1941-45. SU soldiers were motivated by many factors including absolute hatred of a the invading Germans and a deep desire for revenge, often personal, for the war of savagery unleashed by Hitler. Realistic? What's realistic got to do with it when 23 million of your people have been wiped out with many of the soldiers counting many many relatives and friends among the dead. So, whilst respecting the point made by Invernomuto, I don't think there is necessarily a strong argument for SU surrender.

As for the suggestion about turning the SU rump into a Vichy style country - any Russian player of this game may feel quite insulted by that. No? How about I suggest that if half of the United States is conquered the rest becomes a Vichy state? Feel unhappy? Not nice is it. But of course the United States is different because...............whatever.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Tom Grosv
As for the suggestion about turning the SU rump into a Vichy style country - any Russian player of this game may feel quite insulted by that. No? How about I suggest that if half of the United States is conquered the rest becomes a Vichy state? Feel unhappy? Not nice is it. But of course the United States is different because...............whatever.

I don't think it is insulting to consider a cease fire. There are surrender rules for France, Italy, Germany, Japan. Only the French should be insulted by the existing rules (that's a darned easy surrender).

It seems to me that there were actually plenty of nationalist movements in the Ukraine, Baltic states and Belorussia that would have been quite happy with such an arrangement (neutral but friendly), the hindrance being that Hitler was as intent on crushing them as on defeating the USSR.

We're really talking about surrender only if the entirity of the core of ancient Russia, which really is west of the Urals, is already conquered. It also represents the collapse of the government and economy and morale (large troop desertions) as much as a formal surrender.

I'm inclined to think that any Russian "surrender" should be more of a cease-fire. Russia should _not_ become neutral. Rather, it may become frozen again with a resource gift to Germany (and perhaps Japan). There could be an "inverse" garrison requirement, large German troop concentrations on the frontier would cause Russia to unfreeze again.

[wargameplayer]

Tom, Insulting to consider a cease fire for Russia but not insulting to consider one for France. Are you saying Russians are inheritantly better than French people.

I think your post is really trying to insult the French people. Vive le France!

Fyi. Russia did surrender to Germany in WWI so is not a unprecedented occurance.

[wargameplayer]

Neutral and Frozen are really the same thing if they can't get resources out (and they shouldn't be able to).
I think either a garrison requirement or just like a 18 month forced peace where the russians can't atttack. Then a % chance of re activating after that.

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

ORIGINAL: Tom Grosv
As for the suggestion about turning the SU rump into a Vichy style country - any Russian player of this game may feel quite insulted by that. No? How about I suggest that if half of the United States is conquered the rest becomes a Vichy state? Feel unhappy? Not nice is it. But of course the United States is different because...............whatever.

I don't think it is insulting to consider a cease fire. There are surrender rules for France, Italy, Germany, Japan. Only the French should be insulted by the existing rules (that's a darned easy surrender).

It seems to me that there were actually plenty of nationalist movements in the Ukraine, Baltic states and Belorussia that would have been quite happy with such an arrangement (neutral but friendly), the hindrance being that Hitler was as intent on crushing them as on defeating the USSR.

We're really talking about surrender only if the entirity of the core of ancient Russia, which really is west of the Urals, is already conquered. It also represents the collapse of the government and economy and morale (large troop desertions) as much as a formal surrender.

I'm inclined to think that any Russian "surrender" should be more of a cease-fire. Russia should _not_ become neutral. Rather, it may become frozen again with a resource gift to Germany (and perhaps Japan). There could be an "inverse" garrison requirement, large German troop concentrations on the frontier would cause Russia to unfreeze again.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
Neutral and Frozen are really the same thing if they can't get resources out (and they shouldn't be able to).
I think either a garrison requirement or just like a 18 month forced peace where the russians can't atttack. Then a % chance of re activating after that.

Neutral and Frozen are quite different.

Frozen: can still do production (would be hindered by the resource gift to Germany however), perhaps strat move units. Could lend lease to China. There is still a Russian turn to be played.

Neutral: could theoretically join the Axis side in some sense, if the WA attack neutral Russia. Depending on neutral political status, all resources or part of resources go to either Allies or Axis. Cannot repair Russian infrastructure, there is no Russian turn to be played.

For Russia I think that Neutral would be much harder to implement, frozen is a much more likely implementation. The WR of Russia could conceivably be reset to a lower number, and allowed to grow again from there.

OK, what about India and Australia?

They need to be different from Russia. I think probably these surrender rules, if implemented, should be more like Vichy. Some territory instantly goes to whichever Axis power causes the surrender, some becomes neutral a-la Vichy, a phantom nation in game implementation (Vichy regions become French nationality if Vichy activates).

The easiest implementation would probably be the straight yielding of territory to the Axis, without twiddling with nationalities. This would not even require separating Indian and Aussie nationalities from the Commonwealth.

In addition, units of the Indian or Aussie nations could disappear (which would require separating the nations). Should they?

[wargameplayer]

yeah good point on neutral vs. Frozen. Refreezing the USSR is better:)

WRT India, Canada and Australia. Did you see my post on doing a vichy like check on them. Specifically with a %50 chance for those three to go neutral and their units to return home (I think the units have to be broken out) or staying active allies. For the rest of the colonies, they were more possessions so do another 50% roll with it either going -Neutral or staying active allies.

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
Neutral and Frozen are really the same thing if they can't get resources out (and they shouldn't be able to).
I think either a garrison requirement or just like a 18 month forced peace where the russians can't atttack. Then a % chance of re activating after that.

Neutral and Frozen are quite different.

Frozen: can still do production (would be hindered by the resource gift to Germany however), perhaps strat move units. Could lend lease to China. There is still a Russian turn to be played.

Neutral: could theoretically join the Axis side in some sense, if the WA attack neutral Russia. Depending on neutral political status, all resources or part of resources go to either Allies or Axis. Cannot repair Russian infrastructure, there is no Russian turn to be played.

For Russia I think that Neutral would be much harder to implement, frozen is a much more likely implementation. The WR of Russia could conceivably be reset to a lower number, and allowed to grow again from there.

OK, what about India and Australia?

They need to be different from Russia. I think probably these surrender rules, if implemented, should be more like Vichy. Some territory instantly goes to whichever Axis power causes the surrender, some becomes neutral a-la Vichy, a phantom nation in game implementation (Vichy regions become French nationality if Vichy activates).

The easiest implementation would probably be the straight yielding of territory to the Axis, without twiddling with nationalities. This would not even require separating Indian and Aussie nationalities from the Commonwealth.

In addition, units of the Indian or Aussie nations could disappear (which would require separating the nations). Should they?

[Tom Grosv]

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer

Tom, Insulting to consider a cease fire for Russia but not insulting to consider one for France. Are you saying Russians are inheritantly better than French people.

I think your post is really trying to insult the French people. Vive le France!

Fyi. Russia did surrender to Germany in WWI so is not a unprecedented occurance.

I think your post is immature, wargameplayer, and I don't appreciate you putting childish words in my mouth. On the other hand, perhaps my post suggesting a Vichy state in the US could have been better written. Shows what an emotive issue the surrender/colloboration of nations can be.

The surrender rules for France and the formation of Vichy France in AWD cannot be deemed insulting to France because the course of history shows AWD to be correct. We don't have the benefit of history to know for sure if Russia would have surrendered and in what circumstances.

No, Russians are not inherently better than the French. When I was at school we used to make jokes mocking the Italians for their poor martial performance in WW2. At the same time we would admire the military prowess of the Romans. Surely the racial stock of modern Italy and ancient Rome must have been similar to some extent. What gives? For complex social, political and endless other reasons some societies at certain times will fight more aggressively and show more staying power than others. Perhaps France of the 1930's was not a great martial nation - only 140 years or so previously they terrified Europe under the command of Napoleon.

I don't know if Russia would have surrendered in the scenario originally outlined by invernomuto - on previous threads I was trying to outline a counter argument. I don't think it was wrong to say that a Russian may find rules concerning a Vichy style governement insulting. The Vichy colloboration with the Nazis is looked on by many French as a shameful part of their history. Irrespective of what a Russian may think, I didn't believe that a Vichy state in Russia was at all likely.

Thanks for taking the time to point out the surrender of Russia in WW1 but I did know about that. I think the situation in Russia in 1918 and the SU in 1941 were very different to each other - the whole conduct of the war, the turbulent political situation with the rise of the Bolsheviks in 1917, and nothing like the territorial gains made by the Germans in WW2.

[wargameplayer]

So you have a history of disparaging the Italians too?

It's called humor.

Anyway saying that the Russians (or any nationality) were not capable of surrendering under any circumstances is not really a realistic position to take in my opinion. If you had asked the French if they'd surrender before WWII started do you think they'd have come back with "Well we might...".

That's what your post read as. That the Russians would never surrender even though others had.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: Tom Grosv


I don't know if Russia would have surrendered in the scenario originally outlined by invernomuto - on previous threads I was trying to outline a counter argument. I don't think it was wrong to say that a Russian may find rules concerning a Vichy style governement insulting. The Vichy colloboration with the Nazis is looked on by many French as a shameful part of their history. Irrespective of what a Russian may think, I didn't believe that a Vichy state in Russia was at all likely.

Thanks for taking the time to point out the surrender of Russia in WW1 but I did know about that. I think the situation in Russia in 1918 and the SU in 1941 were very different to each other - the whole conduct of the war, the turbulent political situation with the rise of the Bolsheviks in 1917, and nothing like the territorial gains made by the Germans in WW2.

I didn't mean that if russia surrenders the new Government should be collaborative with the Nazi. Simply, if Germany crushes Russian forces and conquer their major cities, Stalin is captured or forced to flee and the overall militar and economical situation collapse, there could be *A CHANCE* that Russia try to make an acceptable agreement with Germany to end the war. I can't see why someone should be offended by this hypotetical scenario.
Your comparison with UK it's not correct IMHO. In 1940 France surrendered and UK was alone. But UK has an awesome naval superiority over the Axis and could not be invaded easily. In the med and in Africa, the only "menace" were the Italians and you know our exceptional performances during WW2 [:D].
Moreover, AWD is a game and it's part of the fun trying to explore some historical "what if". The more "what if" the better is the game IMHO.

Bye

[Rabbitman]

I'm not sure I like the idea of Australia surrendering.[:-]

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Rabbitman
I'm not sure I like the idea of Australia surrendering.[:-]

What, you're Australian?

My current view of an Australian surrender is something like this:
1) if New South Wales OR Victoria are occupied, 25% chance Australia surrenders.
2) if New South Wales AND Victoria are occupied, Australia surrenders (100%).
3) the surrender implementation is that every Australian territory that has no WA troops becomes Japanese (or German if they force the surrender) controlled, without assessing any new damage to infrastructure.

For any territory with WA troops, there is no change of control. But it is still a nice benefit to the Japanese, because they get some repaired infrastructure for free. And for the WA to hold on, they have to commit at least some garrison troops, which is really the whole point of the rule anyway.

I'm thinking India surrender would be the same. Although with India I think there are good reasons to consider a more Vichy-like implementation, the above rule seems relatively easy to code.

BTW - this is not idle chit chat. I have been given the opportunity to change the AWD code in order to make the game more modifiable for new scenarios, and this is high on my list.

I'm only starting looking at this now, I have accomplished nothing. No guarantees, but I'm going to try.

[Tom Grosv]

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
So you have a history of disparaging the Italians too?

It was over 30 years ago - I have grown up since then (well, as much as any wargamer grows up)

It's called humor.

Really? Thought humour was funny. Perhaps it's just me.

Anyway saying that the Russians (or any nationality) were not capable of surrendering under any circumstances is not really a realistic position to take in my opinion. If you had asked the French if they'd surrender before WWII started do you think they'd have come back with "Well we might...".

That's what your post read as. That the Russians would never surrender even though others had.

I don't think I said that but if that's how it came across I'll qualify it - I don't know if the Russians would have surrendered or not - I was just giving counter-arguments as to why it may (MAY!) not be unrealistic for Russia to not surrender if Germany conquered Gorky, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad - I was trying to get across that the surrender of nations is a complex question. We haven't even mentioned Germany yet - why did they continue fighting when things became hopeless in 1944-45? Historians have devoted countless pages to answering that.

ORIGINAL: invernomuto
I didn't mean that if russia surrenders the new Government should be collaborative with the Nazi. Simply, if Germany crushes Russian forces and conquer their major cities, Stalin is captured or forced to flee and the overall militar and economical situation collapse, there could be *A CHANCE* that Russia try to make an acceptable agreement with Germany to end the war. I can't see why someone should be offended by this hypotetical scenario.

If I can quote myself here, I said "As for the suggestion about turning the SU rump into a Vichy style country - any Russian player of this game may feel quite insulted by that." There is a world of difference IMO between a surrender and a Vichy colloboration. Yes, invernomuto, I KNOW you didn't mean that if Russia surrendered the new government would be collaborative with the Nazi's, but other contributors on this thread posed the question of a Vichy style government. You're right - there could be a chance of an acceptable agreement to end the war and no one should be offended by this hypothetical scenario.

Your comparison with UK it's not correct IMHO. In 1940 France surrendered and UK was alone. But UK has an awesome naval superiority over the Axis and could not be invaded easily. In the med and in Africa, the only "menace" were the Italians and you know our exceptional performances during WW2 .

Your analysis of the UK in 1940 is good but I wasn't trying to compare Russia with the UK - other posts spoke about an UK/Commonwealth surrender - I was again trying to give counter arguments and used a pivitol speech by Churchill to try and emphasis the mood of the UK/Commonwealth was not one of surrender, even if things had got a lot worse. Others thought that the speech was just words - I'm British and I beg to differ. If I similarly discounted the Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln I'm sure others in this forum would have been unamused.

Moreover, AWD is a game and it's part of the fun trying to explore some historical "what if". The more "what if" the better is the game IMHO.

You're right, but, as you say, AWD is a game. If Germany gets to control Gorky, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad haven't they, in a typical game, moved into a fairly commanding position? Penalising the Allied player(s) still further at this point may not make for a better gaming experience even if you are absolutely right about it being realistic. I generally accept what you are saying about "what ifs" - AWD is more fun than WAW in that respect.

Talking about fun, I really regret ever taking part in this thread - it's not been fun.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Tom Grosv
You're right, but, as you say, AWD is a game. If Germany gets to control Gorky, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad haven't they, in a typical game, moved into a fairly commanding position? Penalising the Allied player(s) still further at this point may not make for a better gaming experience even if you are absolutely right about it being realistic. I generally accept what you are saying about "what ifs" - AWD is more fun than WAW in that respect.

This is a good point. I think that the motivation would be for conditions were there is still some suspense.

It seems to me that the AV conditions have to modified, primarily by removing the significance of Strategic Points. I think of it as motivation for accomplishing objectives for more realistic strategic reasons instead of nebulous SPs. The idea would be that these surrenders don't mean the inevitable end of the game and slow decline for the Allies, but that it gets harder from there to recover the eventual win, and the course of the war then feels different enough to make it interesting and fun.

It could be that these ideas can only work with a "no AV" and "no end date" configuration.

The thread has been useful from my own view of considering how these might be implementable. I hope the conclusions I have reached (described above and more succinctly here) are in sync with what a non-zero number of people would be interested in seeing.

[wargameplayer]

AV is basically just a simplified surrender rule.

[Rabbitman]

I think if Victoria was occupied I'm pretty sure everyone in NSW's would be sending the victorious invaders a boquet of flowers and vice versa.[:D]
 
Seriously tho, I guess we'd never know for sure but if it makes the game more interesting, then it's worth a look see.
 
Oh and on India, I found it too easy to invade. The WA seem to have abandonned it and I just waltzed in and took all of India with a unit of Italian Militia.(bet Hirohito was pissed[:D])
 

[rickperreault]

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer

For the UK.
An event trigger for Canada, India, and Aus/MZ would be if London and Scotland are lost, a 50% check is done per power. i.e. There is a 50% chance that India/Canada or Australia (each) go to a neutral status. Neutral implies frozen territories. If neither India, Canada and Australia (3 checks) don’t go neutral then they keep fighting.

We'll I'm not sure about the rest of the Empire but I can assure you that Canada would not have surrendered or changed it status to neutral had the UK fallen to the Germans. Canada, while part of the Commonwealth, was a fully independent industrialized country of about 11 million by the start of WWII. It's industrial production surpassed that of Italy and in many categories, the Empire of Japan ( see http://www.wwii.ca/page17.html ). Additionally (and if it wasn't so late I would find all the links to this info), much of England's wealth was moved to Canada (gold) and preperations were made to continue the war from Canada in the event that Sealion was successful. The port of Halifax (eastern Atlantic Canada) was being upgrade to accomodate the larger ships from the Royal Navy. And while the US was neutral, there were significant preperations for joint US/Canada continental defence of North America in the event of the defeat of the UK.

[wargameplayer]

Any country has the potential to come to an agreed peace if the circumstances are right.
I don't know what Canada having 11m people back then has to do with it. India had hundreds of millions.
There were a lot of people in North America (inside Canada also ) who thought it was a European affair and wanted to stay out of the war entirely. England falling would have been an opportunity for them raise those arguments again.

Lots of people, often from the country in question themselves, say "my country would never surrender" but obviously no country goes into a war thinking they would ever give up. But things change.

[PanzerKampfwagen]

In my opinion, Russia might have surrendered, but as a result, communist partisan activity would have gone way up as isolated party members and commissars kept up the fight. If a Russian surrender is coded into the game for some reason, it should also cause the partisan activity in German-held Soviet territories to increase heavily.

Lots of people, often from the country in question themselves, say "my country would never surrender" but obviously no country goes into a war thinking they would ever give up. But things change.

'Tis very true. However, morale played a large part. Britain would probably never have surrendered unless the Germans literally pounded every square inch to a pulp. I know someone earlier mentioned that they might have surrendered to save millions of people from getting needlessly killed. However, what good is it to surrender if all you get is your ( miserable, at that point ) life, and many wouldn't have gotten even that. Hitler would have killed all of the Jews, Gypsies, and anybody else who looked at him the wrong way, which would have been hundreds of thousands of people right there.

Personally, I think India would have 'sort of' surrendered. I don't think that India was really a country in the view of the people of India at the time, and they would have probably surrendered, but only piecemeal, one territory or district at a time.

However, I can say with reasonable surety that Australia and New Zealand wouldn't have surrendered, unless most everybody was first dead as a doornail or the place was totally wrecked. ( In which case there'd be almost nobody left to sign the surrender document. )

Neither would the U.S. have surrendered unless extremely serious damage was done. Most of the Americans of that day figured that they were invincible, and they would have had to be plainly convinced otherwise before anything resembling a surrender would have happened. And, American partisan activity would have also gone through the roof, as would have Canadian and Australian as well. You just can't easily hunt people down in the vast outback of Australia, or in the Rocky mountains of the US and Canada. It would have been a serious problem for the Axis to keep the partisans in check.

Thus, in my opinion, if something is done to the surrender rules for any country, there must be an effect on the partisans as well, proportional to the segment of the population that would have wanted to fight on after the surrender, which probably would have been more than the usual partisan activity.

These are just my opinions, and you can take them for what they're worth. Just for the record, I'm not attempting to insult or exalt anybody, I'm just trying to show things as I see them, and as I think history might have panned out.