Russia

[cpdeyoung]

In my opinion the game would not change for the better if the USSR surrendered on the loss of the "Big 3". At that point we would all be pleading for a special rule to force a very significant garrison in the former Soviet Union since if the Germans are allowed to pull everything out it makes for - no game - as the Allies cannot defeat an Axis with all troops in the West and the resources of ex-USSR behind them. I have played it out in RtV many times, and even in PBEM no one wants to continue under those circumstances. If you want Russia to surrender then just call it a victory and start your next game, your opponent won't mind.

Leaving it as it is forces the German to continue to think, a little anyway, about the East, and this is a nice solution I think. The Germans will still be doing very well but the Western Allies will have a hope for a resurgent Russian state.

Chuck

[RandomAttack]

Good point Chuck!  You are right there is no real requirement to garrison your conquests.  I found myself instinctively wanting to garrison cities at first because I didn't realize that all the "partisan activity" wasn't going to result in units popping up in empty cities.  If nothing else, the "mopping up" operation will keep the equivalent of a realistic garrison in the USSR.  I gotta think about that.  I still hate the Murmansk location though!  [:'(]

[swatter555]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

In my opinion the game would not change for the better if the USSR surrendered on the loss of the "Big 3". At that point we would all be pleading for a special rule to force a very significant garrison in the former Soviet Union since if the Germans are allowed to pull everything out it makes for - no game - as the Allies cannot defeat an Axis with all troops in the West and the resources of ex-USSR behind them. I have played it out in RtV many times, and even in PBEM no one wants to continue under those circumstances. If you want Russia to surrender then just call it a victory and start your next game, your opponent won't mind.

Leaving it as it is forces the German to continue to think, a little anyway, about the East, and this is a nice solution I think. The Germans will still be doing very well but the Western Allies will have a hope for a resurgent Russian state.

Chuck

Certainly a large garrision force would have been needed, you are certainly correct about that. Yet, making it tedious is not the solution either in an ideal world. If an elegant method could be achieved to make the germans leave a large garrision AND have reasonable surrender conditions, that is the way to go. Maybe an event could pop up every month that requires a certain amount of strength points in USSR cities, or bad things happen. That could be an elegant and non-tedious solution.

On the other hand, USSR is not the only country with tedious surrender conditions. I think the designers have made some poor choices. I am not saying it is enough to torpedo the game, but introducing tedium to make up for design/engine shortcomings is never a good idea.

[JFalk68]

Sometimes is just advantageous for both sides to sue for peace. Russia making peace could mean several things, it could mean they got tired of waiting for D-Day so they made a separate peace, Germany might also be happy to make such a deal so they can go back to focusing on knocking out Britain.

Poland beat the Soviets in the Polish-Sovoet war and forced the Soviets to sue for peace. The Bolsheviks wheren't beaten completely but they wanted and needed to consolidate their power. Pilsudski didnt have to go to Kamchatka and get that last garrison to win the war.

For gameplay there should be several oppourtunities to end the war in the East if things keep gooing from bad to worse. In my game I went with the "Crush" France option and I had to find every single unit in Africa before I won, that wasn't fun. When 85 percent of France is conquered the country should just throw the towel in. Same with England, I had to cheat and put them on human player so I could disband the last unit from Gibraltar because there was no way to get at it and Great Britain decided not to take my offer of being a puppet.

[doomtrader]

But you know that the ultimate goal in this game is to be the only Alliance that left?
So one way or another you will have come back to Russia.

[Hard Sarge]

I agree, follow what Doom is saying

Pilsudski didnt have to go to Kamchatka and get that last garrison to win the war.

yea, but that was a different war, different style, different time, this is a war of conquest

[Mike Parker]

I think taking the 'Big 3' is not enough to have forced a Soviet Surrender.  I do believe that Stalingrad should keep at least some of its industry though.  I say that because historically it did run industry, in fact there is a rather famous account of the Derzhinski tractor works turning out T-34's that literally rolled out the factory doors and into the fight to hold the industrial site.  But currently other than the nice event that triggers there is not a huge reason to go after Stalingrad as its reduced to 0PP after the industry event.  Keep some PP there please!
 
One thing I will say, if the Russians win the winter war against Finland (they usually do) they get control of Petsamo, a 1VP city on the far north of the map.  Everytime I have forced a Soviet surrender it has been the last city I took.  I can sort of see Murmansk, the lasdt vestiges of the Soviet Govt. barricaded around that lifeline in the north directing the tattered remains of the Soviet Military, but Petsamo?!  The end of the winter war event should remove the VP from Petsamo and put it somewhere else, perhaps another place in Finland to make it harder to conquor, or add it to Murmansk to give it 2VP.
 
But forcing a Soviet Surrender on the loss of Moscow Leningrad and Stalingrad is too much I think.  You will by capturing those cities severly hurt the Soviet production, especially is some industry is maintained in Stalingrad.

[Anraz]

Just look at the picture



not much any value was in Stalingrad after the battle.
Interesting fact - 1945 Stalingrad's census listed 1500 (1,5k!) citizens. The City before the battle has something like 850 000 citizens...

[Mike Parker]

True... the battle rather destroyed the city.  But up until the battle Stalingrad was still an industrial centre, and putting some PP there gives the German's incentive to take it to deny those PP to the Soviets.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: swatter555

Certainly a large garrision force would have been needed, you are certainly correct about that. Yet, making it tedious is not the solution either in an ideal world. If an elegant method could be achieved to make the germans leave a large garrision AND have reasonable surrender conditions, that is the way to go. Maybe an event could pop up every month that requires a certain amount of strength points in USSR cities, or bad things happen. That could be an elegant and non-tedious solution.

On the other hand, USSR is not the only country with tedious surrender conditions. I think the designers have made some poor choices. I am not saying it is enough to torpedo the game, but introducing tedium to make up for design/engine shortcomings is never a good idea.

Here's an idea I'd like to run up the flagpole. [8D]

I believe the correct model for partisans is to focus on the supply as it affects unit efficiency.

I suggest a table that xrefs the number of captured cities with total combat factors on, or within 1 hex, of all captured cities yielding a unit efficiency penality for all in-country units.

This table should be exponential with respect to an increasing penalty per each additional city.

I would only count infanry division (i.e. not corps, not armor) combat factors as applying to partisan suppression.

[>:] or [&o]

[RandomAttack]

"Tedious" is the operative word I think.  After a certain point it's simply not FUN (or challenging) anymore.  And I don't accept the premise that Germany would have had to conquer every city west of the Urals to win.
 
Willgamer: IMO your partisan suggestion is good as long as USSR has viable forces, but doesn't solve the "need to garrison" issue.  If the Germans are winning big, the supply hit is really just a nuisance I think.
 
If not changed (Swatter's idea sounds great to me),  after the patch I may try a game as Germans with modified USSR victory conditions (say, Big 3 plus a couple extra), nerfing the Soviet efficiency hit a bit (this will help ensure Germans face a tougher fight), and maybe a house rule that if I win I have to keep X number (TBD) of "Div equivalents" in USSR to simulate a garrison.

[marklv]

I simply don't agree that the USSR would never have surrendered  - this is very unlikely as every nation, no matter how big, has a breaking point.  Stalingrad was not necessarily very important, but Moscow and Leningrad certainly were, and after losing the Caucasus region as well I don't see how Stalin would not have sued for peace.  In my opinion, Russian surrender should be triggered by the losses of Moscow, Leningrad, Gorki, Saratov, Stalingrad and the whole of the Caucasus (Baku, Grozny, Tbilisi etc).  If not outright surrender, then at least a peace offer from Stalin leading to a puppet West Russian state under German domination as well as a puppet Ukraine, with outright total surrender if the Germans also occupy the Ural areas like Magnitogorsk, Ufa, etc.

Having to capture minor towns like Murmansk, Vologda and others is irrelevant and should not be included in the calculation.

[cpdeyoung]

We are talking about the Nazis here. This is not the same thing as making peace with Great Britain. Read "Hitler's Table Talk" and see what Hitler intended for the Slavic peoples. You are talking about suing for peace with a nation which did not consider your people human. Sometimes in gaming it can be forgotten what the Nazi state was. They did have fine armed forces, but never were superior skills employed in a worse cause. If I were in charge I would fight till they captured Sakalin Island.

The Russian people were well aware what an enemy they faced and atrocities occured on both sides with frequency.

Let the fight goes on till the last soldier dies, there is no peace after surrender.

Chuck

[RandomAttack]

All too true about the Nazis-- but you can't forget the average Russian peasant wasn't much better off or considered a whole lot more "human" under Stalin, who also used the war as a good excuse to whack anyone, even any ethnicity, he thought was a threat to his rule.  If Hitler had torn into Russia as a "liberator" and worked more towards that end then the outcome could have been quite different.  Thank goodness he didn't.

Obviously games, by their nature, can't address all the abstract issues.  None of the nations had perfect control over their populaces, all practiced propaganda to varying degrees, and I think EVERY Government's worst nightmare was losing popular support (yes, even Hitler & Stalin).  People aren't cattle forever, and Russia had a strong recent history of revolution. Maybe they would never have "surrendered", but effectve organized resistance could have ceased (same effect in game context).  If the fight is to the last man there's no sense in playing because it's not going to happen in any possible scenario...

One final thought: By all accounts the Japanese government had THEIR people TOTALLY convinced that the U.S. would ruthlessly massacre their entire population-- but when faced with annihilation even they surrendered.

[Anraz]

I think we will arrange something to please both sides of the discussion

[oldspec4]

Looking forward to the patch [8D]..

[Tordenskiold]

Excuse me for asking but when did the Poles take Moscow?

[Anraz]

In 1610 and occupied it till 1612.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2% ... %931618%29

[marklv]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

We are talking about the Nazis here. This is not the same thing as making peace with Great Britain. Read "Hitler's Table Talk" and see what Hitler intended for the Slavic peoples. You are talking about suing for peace with a nation which did not consider your people human. Sometimes in gaming it can be forgotten what the Nazi state was. They did have fine armed forces, but never were superior skills employed in a worse cause. If I were in charge I would fight till they captured Sakalin Island.

The Russian people were well aware what an enemy they faced and atrocities occured on both sides with frequency.

Let the fight goes on till the last soldier dies, there is no peace after surrender.

Chuck

I don't believe the Nazis really considered the Russians subhuman - all this 'untermenschen' stuff was largely propaganda to generate hatred for the enemy, and definitely for a domestic audience. Even Hitler and Goebbels liked Russian composers and often played their music in private, despite ostensibly imposing bans on some Russian music.

Hiter's aim was 'Lebensraum' - conquest of the East and settlement with Germanic people. The natives would either stay as peasants to work on German owned farms, perform menial labouring tasks, or they would have to move East of the Urals. Those who resisted would be shot. Himmler mentioned that 30 million Russians might have to be starved to death, though this does not mean that this would really have occurred. Despite lacking any morals or scruples the Nazi leaders knew that they could not rule a country without at least some degree of cooperation from the conquered peoples. Once all the Communist elements had been destroyed it's likely that some kind of modus vivendi would have developed in Russia between the occupiers and the occupied. I'm not saying it would have been great living under the Nazis, but not what the Jews had to endure. In the end Hitler even allowed the setting up of a Russian anti-Communist army under captured General Vlasov; around one million Soviet prisoners joined this force, and were pretty well treated once they showed loyalty to the Germans. The others, who stayed loyal to Stalin, were treated only slightly better than the Jews, though this varied from camp to camp.
Historians are often, unfortunately, very keen to sensationalise past events, as this sells more books - however this often gets in the way of historical truth.

[marklv]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack



One final thought: By all accounts the Japanese government had THEIR people TOTALLY convinced that the U.S. would ruthlessly massacre their entire population.

Not far from the truth - no surrender by the Japanese would have meant just that! Not sure how many nukes had been built by 15 August 1945, but there is no reason to suppose that Truman would have stopped at Nagasaki.