Russia surrender?

[invernomuto]

Hi to all,
in AWD if Germany controls some Russian key provinces like Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow is there a chance of "russia surrender" event? In my game as Germany I conquered Gorky, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad and I'm still chasing russian units across Siberia. Quite unrealistic IMHO.

Bye

[Tom Grosv]

ORIGINAL: invernomuto
in AWD if Germany controls some Russian key provinces like Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow is there a chance of "russia surrender" event? In my game as Germany I conquered Gorky, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad and I'm still chasing russian units across Siberia. Quite unrealistic IMHO.

No, don't think there is a chance of russian surrender.

Unrealistic? Hitler made it a war of annihilation - why would they want to do anything except continue fighting?

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: Tom Grosv

No, don't think there is a chance of russian surrender.

Unrealistic? Hitler made it a war of annihilation - why would they want to do anything except continue fighting?

In Hearts of Iron there was a similar event, I thought there was one similar for AWD. A Russia surrender event should be implemented by the game engine. While I agree with you that Hitler wanted the annilathion of Soviet Union and Communism, Stalin Government was on the verge of collapse during the first months of Barbarossa. At the beginning of German invasion of Russia, Stalin was more worried by traitors than by german panzers.

[Joel Billings]

Just curious. What would a Russian surrender look like to those that want one? Would a Vichy type government be set up for Siberia? I thought Germany wanted to achieve the A-A line Archangel to Astrakhan. Would everything up to A-A become German controlled and anything east of it become an Axis Minor country like Vichy? Do you see all Soviet areas becoming German controlled?

Also, some have wanted an England/Commonwealth surrender as well. What would those look like? I'm not saying we would make any of these changes, but it's possible if we end up making the game more moddable down the road that these kinds of changes could be made (we are looking at adding more moddabilty). In order to make them though we'd need some agreement on what people think are reasonable surrender conditions (and the rules detailing surrender) for these major powers.

[wargameplayer]

it a war of annihilation - why would they want to do anything except continue fighting?

There is no provision or chance of a script event for a russian surrender.

I think a random event if the key provinces are taken does make sense. I wish we had one:)

[JagdFlanker]

the soviets would never have surrendered, especially given the fact that hitler never intended to go much beyond moscow, to the urals max. at that point the front would have been so long it would never have been defendable and the germans would have been pushed back the same way they were, albeit the soviets would likely have not ended up taking so much of eastern europe. hitler massively underestimated the soviet's military capabilities and in the end that front could never been won even if he had not made the massive amounts of mistakes that doomed the invasion right from the start. of course in this game the germans do not have the same problems and once they are up to the urals the USSR almost ceases to exist as a military power (as i found out the last 2 games playing the USSR - of course it didn't help that the western allies AI still hadn't done D-Day by the end of 1944 and i got left out to dry)

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
I thought Germany wanted to achieve the A-A line Archangel to Astrakhan. Would everything up to A-A become German controlled and anything east of it become an Axis Minor country like Vichy?

This is the implementation I would have suggested, although maybe the neutral eastern zone would be better "balanced".

If the Vichy surrender rules were made generic (i.e. nothing hard coded to define them) then obviously this could be done. The most awkward thing might be damaged infrastructure. No Vichy infrastructure is ever damaged, so it is not an issue there. But with Russia it would be an issue.

I think that this would be a very large coding effort, very ambitious.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
Also, some have wanted an England/Commonwealth surrender as well. What would those look like? I'm not saying we would make any of these changes, but it's possible if we end up making the game more moddable down the road that these kinds of changes could be made (we are looking at adding more moddabilty). In order to make them though we'd need some agreement on what people think are reasonable surrender conditions (and the rules detailing surrender) for these major powers.

I think if Russia were implementable as above, then this would be easy. The flexibility to do a Vichy-like surrender would be enough to do stuff in between.

I've considered just splitting the Australia and India into separate nations, and giving them surrender rules like Italy (the units disappear). I think that might even be implementable in the data files right now, but I'm not sure.

That's a bit harsh, but then Australian troops would be likely to be called home with this implementation, so the outcome of the harsh rule seems reasonable.

This would require that the unit nationalities be distinguishable.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Flanker Leader
the soviets would never have surrendered, especially given the fact that hitler never intended to go much beyond moscow, to the urals max.

With the existing leadership, if it survived, yes.

But it is easy to imagine a complete breakdown of government and the flimsy economic system that somehow teetered along through 1942, which is effectively the same thing as surrender in game terms.

[wargameplayer]

The Soviets were just as likely to surrender as any other power or any other Russians. Remember, the Russians did sign a separate peace with the Germans in WWII under far less pressure (moscow was far from occupied). If enough big targets are lost there are always people inside a government that decide to save the day, change the government and work out a deal.

ORIGINAL: Flanker Leader

the soviets would never have surrendered, especially given the fact that hitler never intended to go much beyond moscow, to the urals max. at that point the front would have been so long it would never have been defendable and the germans would have been pushed back the same way they were, albeit the soviets would likely have not ended up taking so much of eastern europe. hitler massively underestimated the soviet's military capabilities and in the end that front could never been won even if he had not made the massive amounts of mistakes that doomed the invasion right from the start. of course in this game the germans do not have the same problems and once they are up to the urals the USSR almost ceases to exist as a military power (as i found out the last 2 games playing the USSR - of course it didn't help that the western allies AI still hadn't done D-Day by the end of 1944 and i got left out to dry)

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Just curious. What would a Russian surrender look like to those that want one? Would a Vichy type government be set up for Siberia? I thought Germany wanted to achieve the A-A line Archangel to Astrakhan. Would everything up to A-A become German controlled and anything east of it become an Axis Minor country like Vichy? Do you see all Soviet areas becoming German controlled?

The first option is better IMHO. If Barbarossa is successful (Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad are occupied by the Germans) there is a chance that Russia become an Axis minor country. About the extent of the german controlled regions, IMHO Russia surrender event should offer to the axis player a trade off: accept a Vichy Russia and be forced to give back some valuable regions (but ending war in the est) or refuse it and go for total conquest, but leaving Western Front open for an Allied D-Day.

Also, some have wanted an England/Commonwealth surrender as well. What would those look like? I'm not saying we would make any of these changes, but it's possible if we end up making the game more moddable down the road that these kinds of changes could be made (we are looking at adding more moddabilty). In order to make them though we'd need some agreement on what people think are reasonable surrender conditions (and the rules detailing surrender) for these major powers.

I think that England would surrender (or, better, there could be a chance to) ONLY if London is captured (operation sealion is successful) *and* USA has not yet declared war to the Axis.

Bye

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: invernomuto
I think that England would surrender (or, better, there could be a chance to) ONLY if London is captured (operation sealion is successful) *and* USA has not yet declared war to the Axis.

What about Australia and India? Any thoughts there?

One of the reasons I liked the idea of Aus/Indian surrender rules is that it provides a strategic political reason for Japan to take them on, rather than relying entirely on Strategic Points.

[JagdFlanker]

the soviets would never have surrendered, especially given the fact that hitler never intended to go much beyond moscow, to the urals max. at that point the front would have been so long it would never have been defendable and the germans would have been pushed back the same way they were, albeit the soviets would likely have not ended up taking so much of eastern europe. hitler massively underestimated the soviet's military capabilities and in the end that front could never been won even if he had not made the massive amounts of mistakes that doomed the invasion right from the start. of course in this game the germans do not have the same problems and once they are up to the urals the USSR almost ceases to exist as a military power (as i found out the last 2 games playing the USSR - of course it didn't help that the western allies AI still hadn't done D-Day by the end of 1944 and i got left out to dry)

The Soviets were just as likely to surrender as any other power or any other Russians. Remember, the Russians did sign a separate peace with the Germans in WWII under far less pressure (moscow was far from occupied). If enough big targets are lost there are always people inside a government that decide to save the day, change the government and work out a deal.

unlike any of the other powers stalin got and stayed in power by destroying everyone that was even a remote threat to him so there was, in effect, nobody in the government that could decide or change anything. when the germans invaded, stalin was so shocked by the german betrayal that he went into deep seclusion for several days, assuming he would be ousted from power but the generals and party came back and BEGGED him to return to take control of the situation. stalin united the entire population (by fear and propaganda) better than any other ruler in russian history and regardless he would have ruled them until he died of natural causes.

and as far as any other possible outcome to the great patriotic war, being very intimate with the tactical and strategic situation of the entire eastern front (for the first 3 years at least) i can assure you that the only mistake hitler made that guaranteed the destruction of the third reich was the invasion of the USSR - once they went over the border there was not a single thing that they could have done to change the eventual outcome. it's fun to think so, especially when we play a fun game like a world divided, and it shouldn't be discouraged, but when you study the facts deeply there was only 1 outcome and only the details could have been different.

as far as london falling, the commonwealth was more like a collection of countries led but not so much ruled by england so i don't think it would actually changed anything on that end - the commonwealth would still have held together but they would have been led by the usa once they enter the war. actually at least some of britains fighting forces would have been outside of britain and they would have kept fighting with canada/ANZAC, containing germany in afrika at least.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Flanker Leader
unlike any of the other powers stalin got and stayed in power by destroying everyone that was even a remote threat to him so there was, in effect, nobody in the government that could decide or change anything. when the germans invaded, stalin was so shocked by the german betrayal that he went into deep seclusion for several days, assuming he would be ousted from power but the generals and party came back and BEGGED him to return to take control of the situation. stalin united the entire population (by fear and propaganda) better than any other ruler in russian history and regardless he would have ruled them until he died of natural causes.

Just because it DID happen that way doesn't mean it HAD to happen that way. There could have been a coup.

Hell, Stalin stayed in Moscow. We might as well allow that he might have been captured or killed by the Germans if Moscow fell, and if, as you say, there was absolutely noone else in Russia who could have led the country then that single, quite possible, event would 100% have brought about complete Russian collapse.

ORIGINAL: Flanker Leader
as far as london falling, the commonwealth was more like a collection of countries led but not so much ruled by england so i don't think it would actually changed anything on that end - the commonwealth would still have held together but they would have been led by the usa once they enter the war. actually at least some of britains fighting forces would have been outside of britain and they would have kept fighting with canada/ANZAC, containing germany in afrika at least.

I fully agree that if London falls the rest of the Commonwealth should keep fighting.

But what if Canberra falls?

New Delhi?

I think that the Aussie forces might well have been called home if the Japanese landed in Queensland.

I think that if British rule in India was destroyed, and Japan allowed the formation of a semi-autonomous Indian nation, it is quite likely that many Indian troops would stop fighting for Britain.

[wargameplayer]

History is full of strong men then get toppled by others for one reason or another. Ranging from bombs exploding under a desk or gunshots. Or just getting hit by a bus.

You think Hitler ruled with less of an iron fist than Stalin? You think he didn't purge people who had an opposition? Of course not.

And he had someone try and plant a bomb under a desk and if he had been sitting just a few feet to the right that would have been that. It would have changed the war, either ending it or making it worse who knows but it would have changed.

The point is not to say "that never would have happened" or to claim to have some knowledge of Stalin that historians 50 years later now claim to have but to allow for a random event in a video game to do the What if's. If say 10/12 factories were taken and Russia was lost most of it's key cities, yeah it's possible there might have been a policy change. And for all I know you might have actually been there (you write like you were) but the point is to allow for a different outcome. Because if everything is just going to happen like it did in WWII then what's the point.

More pointedly. What do you think the AV that's already in the game represents. Has total destruction occurred? Does AV even require half of Soviet production for a total Axis victory. Nope.

This is just asking for a more complicated version of AV to be introduced for other powers such as the USSR/the commonwealth countries or a change in the US war entry.

ORIGINAL: Flanker Leader

the soviets would never have surrendered, especially given the fact that hitler never intended to go much beyond moscow, to the urals max. at that point the front would have been so long it would never have been defendable and the germans would have been pushed back the same way they were, albeit the soviets would likely have not ended up taking so much of eastern europe. hitler massively underestimated the soviet's military capabilities and in the end that front could never been won even if he had not made the massive amounts of mistakes that doomed the invasion right from the start. of course in this game the germans do not have the same problems and once they are up to the urals the USSR almost ceases to exist as a military power (as i found out the last 2 games playing the USSR - of course it didn't help that the western allies AI still hadn't done D-Day by the end of 1944 and i got left out to dry)

The Soviets were just as likely to surrender as any other power or any other Russians. Remember, the Russians did sign a separate peace with the Germans in WWII under far less pressure (moscow was far from occupied). If enough big targets are lost there are always people inside a government that decide to save the day, change the government and work out a deal.

unlike any of the other powers stalin got and stayed in power by destroying everyone that was even a remote threat to him so there was, in effect, nobody in the government that could decide or change anything. when the germans invaded, stalin was so shocked by the german betrayal that he went into deep seclusion for several days, assuming he would be ousted from power but the generals and party came back and BEGGED him to return to take control of the situation. stalin united the entire population (by fear and propaganda) better than any other ruler in russian history and regardless he would have ruled them until he died of natural causes.

and as far as any other possible outcome to the great patriotic war, being very intimate with the tactical and strategic situation of the entire eastern front (for the first 3 years at least) i can assure you that the only mistake hitler made that guaranteed the destruction of the third reich was the invasion of the USSR - once they went over the border there was not a single thing that they could have done to change the eventual outcome. it's fun to think so, especially when we play a fun game like a world divided, and it shouldn't be discouraged, but when you study the facts deeply there was only 1 outcome and only the details could have been different.

as far as london falling, the commonwealth was more like a collection of countries led but not so much ruled by england so i don't think it would actually changed anything on that end - the commonwealth would still have held together but they would have been led by the usa once they enter the war. actually at least some of britains fighting forces would have been outside of britain and they would have kept fighting with canada/ANZAC, containing germany in afrika at least.

[gijas17]

Here's a interesting link to what might have happened if Hitler captured Moscow:
 
http://www.reddotbooks.co.uk/moscow-option-alternative-second-world-p-876.html
 
I do believe if Hitler would have launched Operation Barbarossa earlier (like in May or maybe early June) he could have captured Moscow, Leningrad, etc..instead of fooling around in Crete and crushing an uprising in the Balkin States/Greece. If this was accomplished then the Russians (Soviets) would have no where to go but backwards and any counter-offensive would prove just as coastly to them as it would have been for the Germans taking those cities in the first place. The Red Armies morale was extremely low at this point and would have been even lower by losing Moscow and Leningrad to the Germans so many Russian soldiers might have deserted despite being shot for it. Most likely, the war would have continued in Russia but in more of hit and run tactics for the Russians. Stalin knew if he lost the capital city then the war was over for Russia and with winter setting in any counter-offensive against Moscow would be too costly and useless with the Germans being dug in by then.
 
By Spring the German Army would have continued the war to crush the remaining Russian resistance to the East and thus Russia would be out knocked of the war. I then think Hitler would have concentrated on North Africa by invading through Iran/Iraq from Russia and re-supply Rom. to the West for the pincer attack on the Allies. If this was succesful then he could have concentrated on Britain again for a full scale invasion of the mainland or put more research into his U-Boat warfare to dismantle allied shipping and surround England in entirely. Britain would have then sued for peace with Germany. That's just my opinion though.

[JagdFlanker]

looks like a neat book - might have to look around for it!

for the record hitler used a very different method of ensuring rule - he was so charming and charismatic that everybody who met him loved him and wanted to please him, and also he always assigned 2 competing "bureaus" to do the same job for almost every task in the third reich so they were always so busy competing with each other for hitler's favor they didn't have time to plot against hitler. of course there were those who saw through hitler later in the war and started plotting anyways, but overall it worked surprisingly well until germany got in trouble...

[Tom Grosv]

[font=arial]

ORIGINAL:  invernomuto[/font]
[font=arial]I think that England would surrender (or, better, there could be a chance to) ONLY if London is captured (operation sealion is successful) *and* USA has not yet declared war to the Axis. [/font]
[font=arial]

[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]

ORIGINAL:  gijas[/font]
[font=arial]By Spring the German Army would have continued the war to crush the remaining Russian resistance to the East and thus Russia would be out knocked of the war. I then think Hitler would have concentrated on North Africa by invading through Iran/Iraq from Russia and re-supply Rom. to the West for the pincer attack on the Allies. If this was succesful then he could have concentrated on Britain again for a full scale invasion of the mainland or put more research into his U-Boat warfare to dismantle allied shipping and surround England in entirely. Britain would have then sued for peace with Germany. That's just my opinion though.[/font]
[font=arial]

[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Here's a speech you may have heard -[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Just hot air perhaps.....[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]..........but I don’t think so.  I believe Churchill articulated the mood of a Britain and Empire/Commonwealth (don’t want to ruffle feathers but the word Empire was still used to a large extent then) that were not at all likely to surrender.  And we were desperately alone after the fall of France in 1940 with no sign of our American or Russian allies joining the fray – did we surrender?  Not even with Hitler offering the temptation of Britain keeping its Empire while leaving Germany a free hand in Europe.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]If any changes to AWD don’t reflect a “Churchillian” spirit it’ll be teddy bears flung in the corner time I’m afraid.[/font]

[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.

[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.

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?

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

IMO, the surrender criteria themselves (this and that territory, whatever) are much easier to define than what _happens_ upon surrender. The criteria discussion could be deferred.

Personally, what I would like most about possible surrender rules would be being able to reduce the impact of "Strategic Points" and have victory follow more naturally from an actual political/strategic situation implemented in the game.

[gijas17]

[[font=arial][/quote][/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Here's a speech you may have heard -[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]Just hot air perhaps.....[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]..........but I don’t think so.  I believe Churchill articulated the mood of a Britain and Empire/Commonwealth (don’t want to ruffle feathers but the word Empire was still used to a large extent then) that were not at all likely to surrender.  And we were desperately alone after the fall of France in 1940 with no sign of our American or Russian allies joining the fray – did we surrender?  Not even with Hitler offering the temptation of Britain keeping its Empire while leaving Germany a free hand in Europe.[/font]
[font=arial] [/font]
[font=arial]If any changes to AWD don’t reflect a “Churchillian” spirit it’ll be teddy bears flung in the corner time I’m afraid.[/font]
[/quote]


Yes, I've heard the speech and it's really spirited but do you really think that speech made a bit of difference for the Allies, I don't think so myself.

War leaders make those wartime speeches to raise morale of their people and men through over-whelming odds but in Russia's case their really wasn't much to fight for except for Stalin himself or "The Motherland" when his people and men knew very well that once the war was over and the Russia triumphed over Germany that everything would go back to normal - facing the same hardships that they faced under communist rule so from the very beginning they had low morale.

The mistake Germany made was treating their Russia war prisoners so badly and even mass-killing many of them. Stalin used this mistake to boast morale of his own fighting men but if Moscow had of fallen to German hands then I believe most Russian's would have thought "why should we keep fighting when our capital city has been taken by the Germans." It might have fueled them even more in spirit who knows?

In the case with Britain it would have been hard to break the morale of her people. What I'm pointing out is if Hitler destroyed most of the supply ships coming in from the "New World" using U-Boat warfare then England would have been isolated from any foreign aid or fighting men and thus would have to choose between risking the lives of countless men and women civilians from German retaliation or end it in a more peaceful resolution and save millions of lives.