Matrix Games Forums

All Victory points under controll. No surrendering? [&:]

By the way: A Full scale invasion of France took place in Jun 43.
Not bad for the AI. Only the allied airforce in south of England was passive in that operation.

I don't think they do. I read somewhere in the documentation that USSR and UK never surrender.

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

All Victory points under controll. No surrendering? [&:]

By the way: A Full scale invasion of France took place in Jun 43.
Not bad for the AI. Only the allied airforce in south of England was passive in that operation.

On the war panel the Soviet Union is shown to have "Endless" morale. Which I think means they will not surrender. Same for the United Kingdom,USA, and a few others.

I was considering them surrendering when all their cities are taken just so it feels better.

Gets my vote.

Gets my vote also.

Yes thats sounds better. Should go for both Brittain and Soviet.

The only thing about the UK is if you force them to surrender the Allies can never come back as the USA can't do it alone.

Mostly it's for the achievement. While historically the Russians would never surrender players need to feel good about winning.

I think something should be done to make capturing the Russian core more... meaningful? Satisfying?

Right now capturing Moscow feels no more meaningful an achievement then capturing Minsk. There's no morale/surrender benefit to conquest, so why spend huge resources trying to bust open Leningrad when you can just garrison some Finns outside and forget about it...?

I do think it should be possible to force a Russian surrender, even if there are strict garrison requirements for the surrendered area. Taking Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad/Baku (none of which the historic Germans took in reality) ought to bring the Soviets to the table.

I think beating Russia should be harder, but it should be able to 'win'.

EDIT: But there should be heavy garrison requirements.

Maybe have sort of a negotiated surrender with Russia where they move their capital east of the Urals and create a separate nation while Germany gets west of the Urals?
Kind of like Vichy France, Russia style.

If you make it possible for the Soviets to surrender, then I hope that the editor will still allow the 'endless' option to be selected, as this is the historical situation.

Apart from wavering at the beginning of 'Barbarossa', Stalin did not contemplate negotiation, nor surrender, as the war progressed and Hitler also had no interest in negotiation, but intended to set up an 'East Wall' for perpetual warfare with what remained of the Soviet State, East of the Urals, with the expectation that this would maintain the 'health' of the nation.

Endless is the historical selection for the Soviet Union.

Yes there is a setting in their "break point". If you set it to below zero it goes to "never surrenders".

I must ponder these situations...

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

The only thing about the UK is if you force them to surrender the Allies can never come back as the USA can't do it alone.

Mostly it's for the achievement. While historically the Russians would never surrender players need to feel good about winning.

Just want to say that maybe not all players want the Russians to be able to surrender. In fact, when I noticed that in Warplan Russia won't surrender, I thought this game is something special. It gets a crucial aspect of WW2 right. The German war against Russia just was not about surrender. Thus, also partisans should not stop to turn up.

But just to avoid WITE like heated debates about ... the War in the East, it's nature and games: Would it be possible to have a surrender/no surrender option? Arguably this also could avoid having the same discussion about China, when Pacific Warplan gets out.

Best regards

Russia would never surrender and the partisans are fine.

We cannot really know if Russia would surrender or not tbh, since that is a 'what if' situation.
We may speculate, agree or disagree.

In my first full game:
Mid of 43 all major cities in the USSR were captured.
After that (because the USSR never surrendered), it was only a boring end game in the east.
I found that not reasonable, because I was swimming in oil, production and everything else.
No way to question the Victory in the east!
During that time, still partisans were appearing. With the soviet side being practically defeated, I would guess, that no partisan unit would have ever appeared again
due to the pointlessness of resistance.

ORIGINAL: Cohen_slith

We cannot really know if Russia would surrender or not tbh, since that is a 'what if' situation.
We may speculate, agree or disagree.

Therefore it would be better to have both option.

Besides, arguably the more important question is if Nazi Germany was interested in a Soviet capitulation at all: (Generalplan Ost, siege of Leningrad). Due to the different archive policies we know much more about German planning than about Soviet planning.

You could argue, it's a game. Playing the Germans I decide to accept a Soviet capitulation. But that would mean to ignore the very precondition of the Russo-German war.

From my understanding I think the Russians (Soviets proper here) would have continued the war from the Urals and returned to Europe at one point.

However from a game's perspective I understand the points made. Thank the good Lord that the Russians did not capitulate and gutted the Germany Army and worked with (hesitantly) with the Western Allies to defeat Nazi Germany and Hitler.

Just mho...

The Russians would have NEVER surrendered. The Germans did have a surrender plan on the table. Arkhangelsk to Astrakhan. Whether the Russians would take that would be doubtful since all their industry was in the Urals.

I am still debating on my head the surrender option.