what advantage in refusing Vichy?

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Playing Human as the English, French, and the USA against Germany, Italy and Russia all AI with all Countires at -25% including the human ones.
Refused Vichy and the French continues on, their PP is now at -700 or so.  But their fleet helped knocking out the Italians.

At March 43 there is no Axis left so now it is war Against the Russians with the front lines in mid Germany.

Doom, you'll please notice my prediction of ultimate outcome to Axis on the Developers Board!! HA ha![:-]

[doomtrader]

where?

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

where?

Doom, please refer to the link I (inadvertantly) posted above to my post on the original development board.

As lomyrin discovered, the Nazis are out of buisness by 1943, which is the result I also achieved in the one time I tried the French "Rope a Dope" strategy on my own. As you mar remember, I was going to try to repeat this result against Gary in 4play, but that never completed.

I am disappointed, but not surprised to see that no one has yet come up with a reason for a human French player to accept Vichy, or even anyone who is willing to admit having done so.

I reperat: WHY DOES THE AI DO SOMETHING THAT NO COMPETENT HUMAN WOULD DO???[:-]

[doomtrader]

So Michael, are you trying to tell me that every human would refuse Vichy?
We have trying to learn AI to make historical choices in case of history-similar situations.

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

So Michael, are you trying to tell me that every human would refuse Vichy?
We have trying to learn AI to make historical choices in case of history-similar situations.

As it is presented now, any Allied player will refuse it. But the problem is not in the answer, it is in the question: Vichy should be accepted or not by the *winner*, eg Germany, not by the loser ! [8|]
As it stands, the current event is the only time in history where the loser has to choose the terms of surrender [:'(]! Does Germany have a "3rd Reich in Argentina" option when Berlin is taken ? [:D]

[cpdeyoung]

There actually was a chance that France would have fought on, and had a French Government based in North Africa. The problem we face in these games is that the human playing France wants to get the most our of France before she collapses. Who ever has repaired a French ship? We do not have the same perspective on France as the French of 1940 had.

Perhaps we need to have a random die roll based on French social unrest that will cause even human controlled France to seek an armistice. Another possibility is to have a Free French "nation" which gets its armies and PP based on where France was at armistice. If I knew that one year after armistice my Free French would have 20% of the French Military and PP I would consider bowing out while they still had some power. Give us some incentive to accept the armistice.

It is known that Churchill considered offering joint nationhood of Great Britain and France. No one quite knows how this would work, but lets say that we do implement a chance that a human controlled France would ask for Vichy based on social unrest. If we had the British player pay PP to keep French social unrest higher, then the human would have to decide if having France is worth the cost, a continuing cost.

We can certainly find ways to make a human consider an armistice as favorably as the 1940 French did. Note that all this still demands the Axis to beat the French. I do not want victorious French burdened with any consideration of Vichy, and I do think "my French" can give the Axis a very hard time!

Chuck

[PDiFolco]

Frankly, mood in France in June 40 was really not warlike, and making France harder to surrender than say Poland is a bit weird. Then, Vichy should be some "addon" to usual surrender routine so that instead of "normal" occupation you have the Vichy France. The only real French specificity was her N African possessions, which at that time had no reason to surrender to the Germans; Vichy was eventually a kind of "compromise" with Germans, that allowed France to stay neutral, whereas a full occupation could have had N Africa joining the Brits.
Obviously Vichy should only be possible  with France beaten.

[cpdeyoung]

I recently finished "Lighting War" by Ronald E. Powaski and he does a good job of showing how the attack could have gone another way in 1940, but he also shows how the French were in trouble very fast. The question addressed in this thread has to do with getting a "beaten" France out of the game rather than having a human looking to give Great Britain and the USSR the best possible chance sacrificing the French. I am sure you have all read of garrisons of 20,000 men surrendering. In gaming we want those 20 thousand humans to continue fighting to obtain 1SP of enemy losses. The humans have another agenda! This must be enforced in a game. Extreme bravery and self sacrifice are unusual.

Right now the Vichy state is much desired by the Axis, and a very poor bargain for the Allies. They must be forced into accepting it, or it must be made more attractive. If not the difference in human and AI behavior will continue.

Chuck

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

So Michael, are you trying to tell me that every human would refuse Vichy?
We have trying to learn AI to make historical choices in case of history-similar situations.

As it is presented now, any Allied player will refuse it. But the problem is not in the answer, it is in the question: Vichy should be accepted or not by the *winner*, eg Germany, not by the loser ! [8|]
As it stands, the current event is the only time in history where the loser has to choose the terms of surrender [:'(]! Does Germany have a "3rd Reich in Argentina" option when Berlin is taken ? [:D]

HooHa! Someone finally gets it! Huzzzzah![:D][:D][8D][X(][:D]

ALL historical armistice requests follow this general sequence. !) 1)The political situation in the losing country becomes so desperate that the community of decision makers act to preserve what is left of the nations exsistance. (These decision makers are NOT the current political or military leadership. They are composed of legislators, social leaders, sometimes the middle and upper levels of the officer corps, etc.)
2) This unspoken consensus becomes more and more outspoken until eventually, someone, or more usually (because of social self-preservation) a group of people who are so important that they simply cannot be ignored, approach the current leadership. There is a meeting where the leadership is informed that they must seek an armistice, or they will be replaced by someone who will seek such an armistice.
3) Sometimes the leader refuses and is replaced (occasionally as a result of a 9mm headache, more often, peacefully. This is what happened in France in 1940 when Petain replaced Paul Reynaud, and in Germany in 1945.) Sometimes the military leader panics and demands that the civil authority makes peace (Germany, 1918). But the result is ALWAYS the same.
4) THE LOSER APPROACHES THE WINNER AND REQUESTS A CEASE-FIRE.
5) No matter how tightly this information is held from the losing country's citizens, it ALWAYS leaks out.
6) The losing army begins to evaporate because noone wants to die on the last day of a lost war. As a result, the military situation becomes more and more desperate.
7) THE WINNING COUNTRY OR COALITION THEN ANNOUNCES ITS TERMS FOR A CEASEFIRE. (These terms are usually the equivalent of more or less total surrender.)
8) THE LOSING SIDE THEN ACCEPTS THE WINNERS TERMS, AND THE WAR ENDS. (Because of the collapse of the armed forces morale which always follows the news that the war is lost, the winner's terms are ALWAYS accepted, no matter how harsh. Germany in 1918 was stunned by Wilson's treacherous replacement of what amounted to unconditional surrender instead of the "14 Points" he had been trumpeting since America entered the war. The High Command, which had totally panicked, tried to refuse the Allied term, but the Army literaly melted in it's hands. ) Most of you know that I am fairly well informed about such things, and I am here to tell you that I cannot think of a single example from modern history where a defeated country refused to accept surrender terms offered after it asked for terms.

This is really very easy to simulate in game terms. Make sure that the loss of VP cities effects the Social Unrest number. When social unrest reaches a certain level, the game should make a die roll to determine if there is a (more or less) coup by the peace at any price crowd. If there is, the losing power asks for an armistice. The winning power should be given a choice: offer mild terms (super-Vichy), moderate terms (Vichy) or demand unconditional surrender. The losing power is COMPELLED to accept the offered terms, so the choice should effect the victor.

For example, what I call "Super Vichy would negatively effect German social unrest but increase the chance that Germany could get the French to enter the Axis via diplomacy (Anti-comintern pact.) Unconditional surrender would give the Germans a positive social unrest modifier, but increase the number of French colonies that would declare for the Free French.

War in the West had an excellent table for determining the chances that a French colony would go Free French. It would be easy to recreate such a table for ToW.

[Michael the Pole]

I dont want to go on and on about this, but I'd like to give another example of how this system could work.

Things have not been going well for Winston Churchill and his National Unity government. It is the summer of 1941 and there has been a continuous drumbeat of disasters since the war began almost two years ago. Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgum and France have all fallen to Hitler, but, to make matters worse, they have all been granted remarkably generous armistice terms. This summer the Germans have sustained a stunning diplomatic offensive in the West and Spain has joined the Anti-Comintern Pact, and the monarchist regime in France is showing disturbing signs of joining also. What little remains of the Free French movement is fighting a civil war in Syria. But the last month has been the worst. First, Gibraltar fell to a surprise assault of German airforces and Spanish Tureg tribesmen who slaughtered every white person on the island. A Parlimentary inquiry developed a very shocking picture of attrocious neglegence and lack of cooperation within the Army and Navy high commands, and the inquiry had to be quashed which involved the secret arrests of several journalists. Then the Kriegsmarine staged a blazingly successfull operation by breaking out the Bismark, which together with 3 8 inch gun cruisers joined up with the battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in mid-Atlantic, sinking Hood, and Prince of Wales in the process, although Bismark and Scharnhorst were both sunk. Now as June opens, the blows continue. The German Luftwaffe has moved three Luftflottes to Sicily and southern Italy and the Mediterranian Fleet has been forced to evacuate the central Med and may be forced into the Red Sea. The Germans captured Malta by parachute assault and are reported to be sending an entire panzer corps to reinforce Rommel who has been promoted to Field Marshal and given command of Panzer Armee Afrika. Tobruk has fallen with the capture of 3 Commonwealth divisions and Rommel is expected to move on the Egyptian frontier at any time now.

Churchill has already managed to prevent a vote of no confidence after the Gibraltar fiasco, and has narrowly won such a vote following the loss of Malta. But it is clear that his majority is erroding like snow on a summer day, and the loss of Alexandria and or Cairo would make his survival doubtfull in the extreme. All ready, Lord Halifax is said to have met with representatives of the Royal Family, and the Duke of Edinburgh has reportedly disappeared from his home in the Bermudas. The Prime Minister has given two stirring radio addresses, but how long can he hold on?

In game terms, the loss of Gibraltar was enough to push the English social unrest number into a possible coup situation. The next week, the computer secretly checked for a coup at the begining of the English turn, but the result was favorable for continuing the war. The naval battles in the Atlantic were just favorable enough to push the English social unrest back above the coup point, so there was no check on the next two turns. But the capture of Malta and Tobruk has put the figure well beyond the trigger point and only Churchill's luck has kept him in power (although he only suspects just how bad the situation is.) The conquest of Egypt would certainly bring in a Peace Now government.

[doomtrader]

I'll take a deep look on that this autumn.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

I'll take a deep look on that this autumn.

Thanks, Doomtrader. As I've said, I'm afraid that we will continue to have this situation where the AI is consistantly taking a very important action that no human player would ever take. (You'll notice, that despite 2 weeks worth of questions on this topic we have yet to find anyone willing to humiliate himself by admitting that he accepted the creation of Vichy whi;e playing as France![:'(])
I'm running a France '40 scenario again to test my prediction. I'll let you know how it goes.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

It is known that Churchill considered offering joint nationhood of Great Britain and France. No one quite knows how this would work, but lets say that we do implement a chance that a human controlled France would ask for Vichy based on social unrest. If we had the British player pay PP to keep French social unrest higher, then the human would have to decide if having France is worth the cost, a continuing cost.

Chuck

If you know just a little how the french are, you know they would never accept to join nationhood with the english, even if their army was beaten or even they were desesparate. Churchill did talk about the joint nationhood, no frenchman was interested.

[PDiFolco]

As a French I can confirm what Michel said (he seems to be of French ascent only) [:D] !
Seriously, Churchill's proposal was a political gesture that had no possibility of being realized, he could have proposed the same to the Poles...

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

As a French I can confirm what Michel said (he seems to be of French ascent only) [:D] !
Seriously, Churchill's proposal was a political gesture that had no possibility of being realized, he could have proposed the same to the Poles...

The difference being that the Poles would have jumped at it for just long enough to eviscerate the Germans and the Russians. From the way that the Americans and their English running dogs treated Poland ANYTHING would have been better than the deal we got.
And as for the French,,, well, going to war without the help of the French is like going hunting without your accordian. The Polish nation has a thousand year history of leaping in front of speeding trains to save Europe from its blind folly, but taking on the Germans in reliance on the honor of France and England has to take the cake.

[PDiFolco]

Just to clear things, I didn't imply any "joke" at the Poles, it was rather directed towards Churchill... (btw Michael, are you a Texan Pole or the other way round ? [:D])
And I'm still shameful of the abysmal French behavior at the time.

[Michael the Pole]

Very gracious of you,Monsieur.[8D]

Polish by birth, Texan by choice.