Russia

[RandomAttack]

So, what does it take to beat these guys?
I hold Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow and a bunch of other stuff. Kinda figured after I got the "Big 3" they would surrender. But WAY over on the east edge of the map there is a MSS and several VP cities. Conquering all the way over there seems kind of silly, so I assume there are other considerations. Couldn't find any in the event files.

[doomtrader]

You have to take it all.

[RandomAttack]

Ok, thanks!

[gwgardner]

Now you know what the Germans felt like - darned Soviets just didn't know when they were whipped.

[RandomAttack]

I'm not complaining, just seems (at this scale) a little tedious to have to take it down to the last village that has 3 guys and a rifle.  Germans never managed to take ANY of the "Big 3", much less ALL of them.  Murmansk, etc., is WAY off the beaten path.  Of course, a judicious editing of the "cities" file to adjust which ones actually have VPs would do the trick I guess.  [;)] 

[Anraz]

3 guys and a rifle

I doubt Stalin would surrender even if Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad felt. As in XIX century taking Moscow didn't help Napoleon, in XX it wouldn't ultimately tip the balance in favour of Germany. Even with Moscow in hands Germany would control only no more then 10% of USSR territory! Before the war over 40 % of soviet armaments factories were placed behind the Ural. During the war this value jump up to 50-60%. So if after taking of "the big 3" Russians have only "3 men and 1 rifle", we have to boost up soviet PP output from eastern cities.
This was one of reason why Hitlers thought about building "Easter Wall" along AA line instead of going to Siberia (anyway later he changed his mind and started to think how establish a puppet regime in Japan, but this is the other story).

[RandomAttack]

A great item for discussion, but I believe Stalin WOULD have come to some kind of surrender/ceasefire (if only to save his own skin) if the "Big 3" and the surrounding areas were taken.  Moscow by itself may not be that big a deal, but add the other two and all the areas in between and it is a VERY big deal.  % of total land area means little if you hold all the major population centers and the "breadbasket".

[PDiFolco]

Stalin may never have surrrender, but I think that if most of "national" Russia is taken Stalin may have been overthrown and the new government will have surrendered. Hitler never surrendered too ...

[jimh009]

It's easy to forget about those Russian cities buried way up north (not just Murmansk, but there is two other cities up there, too, if I remember correctly). Those cities are a long ways from the nearest supply point...so your Axis units will have "lots of fun" slogging through the woods to reach those cities!

[Fintilgin]

Patroopers can help here. I took Murmansk via paratroopers.  It would have been a lot easier up there, but Finland didn't join me, and I didn't have the DP to bring them in.

As for the map-edge cities, you can push east from Moscow and northeast from Stalingrad, and I found the Russian AI so scattered and their units so weak that it was a single summer campaign to go from holding Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad to a Soviet collapse.

Of course, I was playing on normal, took England in spring 1940, invaded Russia in June 1940, and forced them to surrender late around July/August 1941.  Your millage may vary.

[cpdeyoung]

In RtV you had to take all the VP cities. Has this changed?

Not all cities are VP cities, but there are plenty on the east edge of the map, and, as mentioned, Murmansk.

Chuck

[swatter555]

I have played many eastern front wargames, and most of those games end with the big 3 being taken plus maybe Gorki. This is kinda the same deal with France, total defeat is the only solution. This is very a-historical imo.

Also remember that the Soviets came to a peace with the Germans and Austrians in WWI. While that situation is not exactly related, it could be a good indicator that some peace short of total defeat would be likely. In games terms, these victory conditions are beyond tedious and likely hurts the German AI greatly.

[doomtrader]

I have played many eastern front wargames, and most of those games end with the big 3 being taken plus maybe Gorki.

Is it possible all of them were wrong?
Russians didn't surrender when Poles took Moscow and when the French took Moscow, why they will do that for Germans?

Also the Russians make a peace with Central Powers in WW I because the country was falling apart by revolution. I can't imagine anybody who would revolt against Stalin and take another breath.

[Anraz]

In the late 1930s in Soviet Union has 170-190 millions of citizens (depending on sources). Germans took territory with almost 40 % of population . Event if they took 60% Stalin still would had an area with something like 70-80 millions of people... In 1941 and 1942 Soviet army lost something like 16 millions of soldiers (due to various reasons). Most of theses soldier were from the area taken by Germany so reserves in the east still were quite solid. Also even before the war half of of soviet oil production was from non-Caucasian oil deposits. So Stalin without Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad (the city was totally destroyed in 1942 and was no economical value) still would have men, arms (~60% of armaments industry) and oil to fight. The only only problem would be lack of food ( before the war in the area controlled by German 60% of Soviet food was produced).
Anyway I can imagine situation when Stalin would surrender (or rather beg for peace) after losing "big 3"(btw in 1940 Kiev was bigger then Stalingrad, also Tbilisi should be checked) e.g. if German had the other occupation policy and/or if the Allies would not supported (fed in fact) Soviet regime.

[patchogue]

I tried to take Murmansk (or Archangel) by amphibious assault - only it appears the adjacent coastal hexes aren't coastal despite the fact the the sea area does connect to the ports. Presumably the map hasn't been told they are coastal hexes. It's a boring walk through the woods! Busy building up my airborne forces.

[swatter555]

I think this is an issue that could be debated by scholars endlessly. One could reasonably believe either point of view, so lets look at it from a gameplay perspective. Why make the game so tedious? The same thing goes for French conditions, they are tedious and somewhat a-historical. The game in which I conquered France, the question was truly decided in 3 weeks (meaning that after 3 weeks, France had no chance to come back). Yet, I had to fight it out and conquer the entire country in a period of 6 months. This type of gameplay reminds me of the worst things I hate about some game designs, hunting down every last friggin unit on the whole friggin map. This is why I HATE the "Steel Panthers" series. It is a great game except for the fact that each battle takes way too long because your hunting down every last squad and crew running off the map. The scenarios simply did not end elegantly and became tedious very quickly.

If you all are going to do some history interpretation on your own, please take gameplay into consideration.

[gwgardner]

Perhaps setup some conditional events, for example if all the big 3 cities are taken, but not all VP cities, give a percentage chance of surrender.

Or if those cities are taken, and USSR PP production is less than 1/3 of the German, then a percentage chance of surrender.

[Champagne]

The requirement to take every single VP hex before surrender seems mechanical and not necessarily historical.

[oldspec4]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Perhaps setup some conditional events, for example if all the big 3 cities are taken, but not all VP cities, give a percentage chance of surrender.

Or if those cities are taken, and USSR PP production is less than 1/3 of the German, then a percentage chance of surrender.

I like the idea of an increasing chance of surrender as the larger cities are captured.

I'm having fun w/ the game but the surrender method, depending on the country, definitely seems tedious.

[RandomAttack]

Russians didn't surrender when Poles took Moscow and when the French took Moscow, why they will do that for Germans?

 
Doomtrader,
You are fixating on MOSCOW, and disregarding ALSO taking Leningrad and Stalingrad.  I say again: the Axis never even took ONE, much less all three.  Personally, I believe taking all three would have effectively gutted the USSR-- militarily, politically, the transportation network, and morale-wise. 
 
I think I will mod my version at some point to the above and maybe one other VP location, and ALSO tone down the effectiveness hit just a tad-- which should make it tougher to take the Big 3 to begin with.  I haven't played yet as USSR, but if I have a bunch of 6 SP units that are suddenly worth crap for some indeterminate period as soon as (and just beacause) the Germans attack, I'm gonna be pissed!  ( As I'm sure Stalin was...[:'(]  )
 
Could do essentially the same thing with France by just eliminating Nantes as a VP location (would help the AI as Germany a lot too).