Russia surrender?

[wargameplayer]

The least likely countries in terms of fanatacism (people just killing themselves rather then getting capture) and least likely to give up/in or out..were the Japanese and the Germans. Certainly no western democracy...and I am from a western democracy.

Learn to be objective guys.

[Avatar47]

Don't agree with alot of surrender opinions here, so here are mine:

UK: Churchhill's gov't would not have surrendered. A post-Sealioned UK with a pro-Nazi puppet regime would have. That same regime would have ordered the colonies to lay down their arms. Whether the colonies would have done so is not something I will tread on. However, I suffice to say that without the grand Isle of Great Britain, Canadians and Australians would be hard-pressed to find the will and sacrifice to 'rescue' mother-england. I believe they would also have found an agreement with Nazi Germany had it come to that point. Both Aus/Can would be driven into the welcome arms of the Americans (which happened anyways in the real time line, just only after the war, and gradually). In AWD, I think a nice arrangement would be that every turn both Scotland and England are Axis occupied, England (but not the colonies) has a 5-25% chance of surrendering (the % I don't want to nail down) every turn. Eventually the USA will come into play and most likely liberate England, so if Axis gets a good Sealion in say Sp41, and hold England until what, 1944, then at 12 turns x 5%, that's a fair chance of surrender. You could even have additional modifiers depending if North Africa is overrun, Gibraltar fallen, Spain joined Axis, or even negative modifiers for the Axis (ie Barba started, minus 2%/turn). Again, UK cannot surrender if USA has joined.

Russia: I do not agree on a Russian surrender. The Auto Victory is IMO, part of the simplistic (and rightly so) abstract method of overall 'surrender' from the WAllies and Russians. Once the Axis hit 78, bang, game over. That's enough IMO, I like the game as is. However, if some are really being picky. I would recommend that once the Axis has occupied ALL zones west of the Urals, Russia has a ~50%/turn 'collapsing'. It would then turn into a China-like state, where its remaining factories, although still producing, produce only every third turn. This would symbolize the political chaos that would most likely have ensued had Germany actually reached all or most of its goals in Russia (Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad-Astrakhan). Russia would still remain a 'threat' per se, and still occupy a part of the Wehrmacht, but this would certainly still be a nice perk for the German player.

India/Australia: India should surrender if both South/East India are occupied. Surrender means a one-time loss of all Indian nationality troops. For Australia, the occupation of Victoria, even once, should force an Australian surrender (all units removed). These are one-time only surrenders. I guess my reasoning is that these surrenders rules force the WAllies to be especially vigilant in SW Asia, which many players let slide because they simply aren't as important theaters as elsewhere.

Any opinions?

[GKar]

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer

Learn to be objective guys.

I agree. It's very hard to tell what people do - individually and in their organizations - when the situation looks dire.

[Rabbitman]

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.
 
Well put and I am trying to rack my brains for a plan/theory that would possibly have seen Australia giving up a portion of the country to wear out an invader and make them easier to keep in check.[&:]

[JanSorensen]

I dont see how adding new surrender rules would improve gameplay. Taking any of the areas mentioned is already worthwhile so it would only be adding a snow ball effect where the Axis player thats doing well gets yet a bonus. The AV rules cover whats needed nicely as far as I am concerned.

[wargameplayer]

1) Because people don’t won’t to spend 8 turns running across Siberia chasing down a lone Russian a tank which is really boring for a lot of people. It’s also not a realistic view.
2) The Axis have surrender rules, the French have surrender rules, there is no reason others shouldn’t.
3) If you look at other games of the period, most of the best ones have surrender or peace rules for Allies. Not just Axis powers. IT makes those games a lot more dynamic.
4) It’s more fun. Takes mundane chasing of wayward units out of the game. It’s more realistic. If done right it should add to risk taking and game play.
5) Most WWII strategic level games of the period have them, why should this one be an exception?
6) It’s better than a simplified surrender rule –the AV which just ends the game.

It’s also funny seeing all the –but my country would never surrender threads. It’s hard for people to be objective particularly when it’s their own country. “My country would just have fought the Germans for 50 years” etc…

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

I dont see how adding new surrender rules would improve gameplay. Taking any of the areas mentioned is already worthwhile so it would only be adding a snow ball effect where the Axis player thats doing well gets yet a bonus. The AV rules cover whats needed nicely as far as I am concerned.

[JanSorensen]

1. Chasing across Siberian for 8 turns makes no sense - you would have won by AV by then almost certainly.
2. The AV is the Allied surrender rule though.
3. Which games are you referring to? I dont see how it would make AWD more dynamic at all. Probably less dynamic if anything.
4. You are repeating #1.
5. You are repeating #3.
6. And having Russia surrender would not lead almost directly to an Axis AV?
 
I simply dont see how giving an Axis player thats already doing well even more by having an Allied nation surrender would improve gameplay. Sure, it might be more realistic if done right but realism in itself and at the cost of game play is rarely a good idea.
 
I suspect we just have disagree though.

[JanSorensen]

I am from Denmark btw so you wont get any "my country would never surrender" speech from me

[wargameplayer]

1. On your #1. Try reading the first post of this thread. Did you?
2.On your #2 "The AV is allied surrender". That's the argument I use for people who say there shouldn't be surrender for my country when there already is. That said, people want something more fleshed out than hey your game is over.
3. Lots of people don't even like playing with the AV because they believe the allies would keep fighting a little longer before peace, this would give them rules to do that. I am sure they will probably still let you keep AV on if you want.

If you need other games with examples of surrender and peace rules check out Hearts of Iron 2.

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

1. Chasing across Siberian for 8 turns makes no sense - you would have won by AV by then almost certainly.
2. The AV is the Allied surrender rule though.
3. Which games are you referring to? I dont see how it would make AWD more dynamic at all. Probably less dynamic if anything.
4. You are repeating #1.
5. You are repeating #3.
6. And having Russia surrender would not lead almost directly to an Axis AV?

I simply dont see how giving an Axis player thats already doing well even more by having an Allied nation surrender would improve gameplay. Sure, it might be more realistic if done right but realism in itself and at the cost of game play is rarely a good idea.

I suspect we just have disagree though.

[JanSorensen]

I certainly did read the first post. Its a far cry from your hyperbole. 8 turns? A lone Russian tank? Thats not whats mentioned in the first post by any means. So, did you read the first post?
 
HoI2... I havent played that myself but isnt that the game where any tiny nation can end up a major power? If so then I find that an odd example to use when claiming you want realism. 
 

[wargameplayer]

No it isn't. How many zones do you count to Vladivostok. What is that 7 turns? That's not an exaggeration at all. The Original poster raises what in my view is a vary valid argument. Many games end up with Germans chasing a rag tag defeated Russian force across Siberia.

And No on HOI2. You are thinking of another game.

Try playing some other WWII strategy games and then get back to me.

[JanSorensen]

Why would you want to take Vlad though? If you control all of European Russia you simply repair and have enough to AV unless the WA has already landed in force - but then the Russians probably would not surrender anyway. Sure, its not as easy as just taking the areas - you also have to repair them - but I fail to consider that a problem. So claiming that you need to chase a single Russian tank for 8 turns across Siberia is either gross hyperbole or a case of not understanding game mechanics.
 
Hmm, I know that HoI had that problem from being told by very experienced HoI players - if its fixed in HoI2 then thats splendid. I never played either game myself so its possible I was thinking of HoI rather than HoI2. 

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
I dont see how adding new surrender rules would improve gameplay. Taking any of the areas mentioned is already worthwhile so it would only be adding a snow ball effect where the Axis player thats doing well gets yet a bonus. The AV rules cover whats needed nicely as far as I am concerned.

This nicely hits a couple of key points. Snowball effect and relationship to AV.

Is taking India or Australia worthwhile without the Strategic Point benefit?

For the Australia and India surrender, I consider them desirable precisely because of the snowball effect. The point as I see it is to give them slightly more realistic political/strategic importance, instead of simple SPs, which is rather artificial.

Actually, I was thinking of them precisely because I was trying to find a way, any way, to give increased political/strategic importance without SPs, so any other ideas would be of interest as well.

Just because New Delhi is taken wouldn't really mean that Russia and the USA are more likely to surrender (AV rules), but it does mean it is more likely for an Indian nationalist movement to rise up, perhaps resulting in more secure Japanese position in India, certainly resulting in a much worse WA position in India. This has a snowball effect which requires a proactive WA defensive stance. To me, without having played it for direct experience, it seems more fun than SPs.

Since SPs only impact AV and End-Date games, they have no impact on no-AV no-end-date games. Clearly, there are some people who prefer to play without AV. Maybe such rules are only for them.

As for Russian surrender or cease-fire, that one is probably only appropriate for no-AV play.

[Avatar47]

I agree very much with Jan, the Axis getting an AV is abstractly getting the Allies to surrender. The goal of the Axis isn't to get to every russian square, it's to get to 78 points, and doing that is a much easier feat.

[wargameplayer]

Some Axis players don't play with AV on. They feel like they Allies would fight on. You like the easier, simpler, keep AV on. Just play with it on. Your problem is solved.

On HOI2 being a bad example because minors can become Majors:

Again. You are thinking of a different game. There is no provision for a minor power to become a major one in Hearts of Iron 1 or 2. Nor was there ever. In Europa Universalis also by Paradox-- a minor power can become a major one but that game is meant to simulate hundreds of years not the decade or less that spans WWII.

It's by the same publisher but it's a totally different game. Just because the game is by the same publisher, I don't think rules in one game they did on another period should be mixed up in their WWII game.

Also you keep minimizing the original posters concerns and the concerns of a lot of other people that posted. You also assume everyone plays with the AV option on. Not everyone plays the game the same way as you do. Not everyone likes playing with AV On either because the Axis player often wants tougher victory conditions. I'm definitely in the camp that plays Axis a lot and wants something a little tougher and Russia surrender after just strategic points taken seems too easy me.

If you want the simpler easier way and an abstraction of a surrender is easier for you to swallow--Just play with the abstract AV version on.

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Why would you want to take Vlad though? If you control all of European Russia you simply repair and have enough to AV unless the WA has already landed in force - but then the Russians probably would not surrender anyway. Sure, its not as easy as just taking the areas - you also have to repair them - but I fail to consider that a problem. So claiming that you need to chase a single Russian tank for 8 turns across Siberia is either gross hyperbole or a case of not understanding game mechanics.

Hmm, I know that HoI had that problem from being told by very experienced HoI players - if its fixed in HoI2 then thats splendid. I never played either game myself so its possible I was thinking of HoI rather than HoI2.

What WWII games have you played other than WAW? Have you played World in Flames or Third Reich. I am pretty sure from your comments you have not played HOI.

[Joel Billings]

I will just throw in that the game was made with AV in mind, especially in a game between two equal human opponents. Turning AV off to give a more difficult game against the AI is certainly understandable. Given the victory conditions of the game, a Russian surrender is very likely to always lead to an Axis victory (probably Decisive), so I'm not sure that the Russian surrender is likely to have much impact on the game. However, Australian surrender and/or some impact on India and possibly even a "British" surrender might be possible in a game without AV and still not always lead to an Axis victory, so perhaps they are more worthwhile to consider. We chose to go with a simpler more abstract system of AV but I can understand the interest in other options. Gary is one that believes that in the long run the Axis were much more likely to lose than they were to win, and that's why we ended up with the victory conditions that we have, as opposed to balancing the game so that either side had an equal chance of ultimately defeating the other.

As for HOI, I too have read many references to players taking Argentina (or another minor country) and taking over the world (or at least becoming a major factor). I think this is what Jan is talking about, although like Jan, I have never played HOI and this may be bad information.

[Uncle_Joe]

In HoI1 it was indeed possible to play a 'Minor' power and have huge impact on the outcome of 'WW2'. I considered HoI1 more of a '1940's simulator' than a true WW2 game. The 'what ifs' could be really extreme. Some of this was tweaked in later patches.
 
As for HoI2, I never picked it up since I was happy with GGWaW. From what I've read though, HoI2 addresses many of the completely ahistorical/unrealistic plays from supposedly Minor nations.

[wargameplayer]

I have played HOI and have it loaded up at the moment and am playing a game as germany. It’s not really a minor power focused game like Europa Universalis where there is a provision for small powers to be classified as major ones with new technologies and whatnot and there is time for a country that is very small to get bigger. Both games have tons of scripted events and have communities that mod events that total design hours that are probably greater than the original design of the game. Maybe it was a heavily modded version of the game by someone who lives in Buenos Aires--Argentina took over the world.

But if you don’t like that example-- Try another WWII game. World In flames which is also a Matrix game. Check rule setion 13.7.6 of the original paper manual. Links to it are here in the forums. Peace rules are pretty common for all the powers the more complicated the WWII game.

To me the heart of the game is having trade offs, not having things happen the same way every game. I think the peace events—if they can be added so that they include and incorporate principles of being trade offs rather than zero sum events that can only add a lot to replayability, fun and the life of the game. So we all have more people to play it with.

Anyway --That’s why I said—hey just look around at some other WWII games because they pretty much all have some kind of peace or exit rule for every major power. It’s not a really super controversial concept as it is to the moderators here...

[JanSorensen]

Its funny you should mention WiF (the boardgame by Australian Design Group). While I never played HoI I most certainly did play WiF - probably in excess of 1000 hours across several versions.

In terms of Russia there is no special surrender rule in WiF - only a generic one that requires that you control every single (printed) factory in Russia - including a couple in the Urals and Vlad. So in terms of AWD thats basically the same as controlling every single area in Russia. As such WiF most certainly does not provide an example of what you are asking for - not with respect to Russia atleast. Personally I dont recall ever seeing Russia surrender in WiF though the player may have done so in a game where it could eventually have happened.

Concerning HoI it sounds to me like what I and others have heard could be from the stock version which has later been patched and you are referring to the patched game where those issues have been fixed. In that case we may both be right.

Its not that I find the issue in any way controversial - I just disagree with you that it would improve AWD in a meaningful manner.

[GKar]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

In HoI1 it was indeed possible to play a 'Minor' power and have huge impact on the outcome of 'WW2'. (...) Some of this was tweaked in later patches.

(...) From what I've read though, HoI2 addresses many of the completely ahistorical/unrealistic plays from supposedly Minor nations.

Both points are true. You could conquer the world as almost everyone in HoI 1 V1.00 (given that you know how to play the game of course). It became more and more difficult if not impossible to do with the later versions and with HoI 2. HoI is much more prone to ahistorical developments (when playing without house rules) than WaW, but actually it's more the limited capabilities of the AI than the game design itself that allows these things to happen. A human played major would crush you once you annexed a few neighbours with your minor on world conquest tour.

As for those unhappy with AV and the lack of surrender rules for the Allies: I understand the point but I don't think it'd add much to the game as it is. You might consider playing without AV or modifying the AV settings and/or strategic points in the game files though, it's pretty straightforward to do.