SC2 - Russian Surrender

[Edwin P.]

Currently, after Russia surrenders, the Axis player can safely operate all of his units from Russia to the Western front.

I believe this to be unrealistic. Axis should be required to garrison this country in order to forestall a revolt.

1> I would allow Post-Surrender Russian Partisans to be created per turn based on the following formula (or something similar to it).

+2% Per UnOccupied Russian City/Resource

+10% Per Partisan Occupied City

+5% Per Existing Partisan Unit

+10% Per 4 Liberated Cities

The more cities that Germany occupies the less chance for a revolt. The more partisan units/liberated cities that exist the greater chance that more partisan units will spring into action. If there are several liberated cities the chances for a partisan uprising increases even more.

So if 15 cities/resources were left ungarrisoned there would be a 30% per turn for a new Partisan unit to be created that turn. These partisan units would appear next to any unoccupied city/resource hex.

If there are 10 cities ungarrisoned and 5 liberated cities occupied by 5 partisan units then the chance for a new partisan unit being created is 20+25(5 paritsan units)+60 (liberated cities bonus) = 105% to create a new partisan unit each turn.

Furthermore, if 4 or more Russian cities are liberated I would;

1> Give the Russian Partisans a Free HQ Unit reflecting the rise of a new leader skilled in guerilla warfare. (the ability of this unit should be created randomly with a chance for a 3 to 4 Medal Leader with a 5 to 9 Supply rating).

2> Allow the Allies to declare 1 Liberated city as the New Russian Capital.

3> Give the Russians a free Armor unit (of 2 to 4 medals), reflecting the tanks salvaged from the battle field and hidden in forests and barns and staffed by experienced veterns of the lost war.

This would make life really interesting for the Axis player.

Just a thought.

[JerseyJohn]

EdwinP.

Excellent revisions to the present vague Russian partisan and collapse rules.

[ March 22, 2003, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[John DiFool]

At that point in the game it wouldn't really

matter. Germany will be rolling in the dough,

and would have lots of extra units even if G.

decided to attempt a Sealion (I know I usually

do). Not worth Hubert's time to code IMHO...

JD

[Edwin P.]

I agree that by the time that Russia collapses that the Axis is swimming in dough, and I too usually launch a SeaLion at this point.

Perhaps(?) the plunder that Germany gets from a conquered Russia should be greatly reduced, reflecting the greater level of destruction inflicted on Soviet Industry (and the soviet scorched earth policy) as opposed to other plundered countries that were quickly conquered?

What should the Russian Plunder be?

Perhaps only 325 MPPs(?) or Nothing(?) considering the Soviet Scorched earth policy and future income from all the Russian cities.

Any thoughts? Am I totally off base in reducing Russian Plunder?

[Edwin P.]

I just visited Liam's old What If thread (recommened by JerseyJohn) and saw a proposal that if the UK Falls, Gibralter goes to the US.

Thats a good possibility, but what if;

If the UK falls to an Axis Sea Lion then all UK & Commmonwealth units outside of Great Britain become Free Brits (aka Free French) and allied with the US. This seems to be realistic to me, as the Brits afloat would never surrender to the Jerrys.

Any thoughts? Or is this too unrealistic? What would the effects on play balance be?

[JerseyJohn]

Good idea.

It would take Churchill at his word on the We Will Fight them on the beaches, in the fields, in the halls, in the parlour, in the bathroom, backyard and then Canada etc . . .. speech

[Edwin P.]

Jersey John, thanks for the quote,

Any thoughts on my thoughts reducing Russian Plunder due to Soviet Scorched Earth Policy and the overall destruciton of Soviet Russia.

Ie should Russian plunder be reduced to perhaps only 350 MPP or even Zero?

[santabear]

I think Russian plunder is too high considering the mess that the war left in that country. As historical fact, occupied Russia was more of a drain on the German economy that a help--though that was due to the stupid occupation policies of the Nazis for the most part.

There should be some but it should be in the 100-200 MPP range. Even at éxpert level against AI Russian plunder is usually significantly higher than that.

[JerseyJohn]

EdwinP.

I think santabear has it about right. The Germans always managed to utilize something, so 100 MPPs seems about right. In Russia it would probably have been in the form of salvaged artillery and tanks more than industry and mines which, as you've said, would have been burnt or blown and in ruins.

Historically the Germans didn't get much use of the Ukrain's mineral resources. The blown dams made it difficult to utilize heavy machinery. Most electricity had to come from either generators or ad hoc power plants. By the time they had things rolling again the Soviet Army was retaking Rostov.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn and SantaBear

Thanks for your comments. I agree with your assessment of 100 MPPs.

Reducing Russian plunder to 100MPP and adding the rules for Post Russian Partisans would also make the end-game more interesting. No longer would Germany gain such a lead in MPPs that its victory is a foregone conclusion. It would also be forced to garrison Russia or risk the chance of facing a revived Russian bear.

[Edwin P.]

Another item, that was mentioned in other threads, would be increasing the productive capacity of US cities by 1 every six months after it enters the war.

Thus by the time that Russia fell US production capacity would be about 1.5x its starting capacity (1.2x Jan43, 1.4x Jan44, 1.6x Jan45, 1.8x Jan46) This would vastly increase the chance for a allied comeback and more accurately reflect the growth of the US war economy.

It would also vastly increase the importance of building naval units to escort/sink transport units. My only concern about doing this is that the AI is not programmed to handle this, being fixated on the UK/France, ignoring Iberia & Italian front.

----------------------------------------------

PS: Another Item to consider is that after Japan falls couldn't the US have sent reinforcements to Russia via the Siberian Railroad, think of it like an off map route to Suez, and imagine the shock of the German generals when US units start to appear in Russia and not the Western Front. (this option would only be available after the historical fall of Japan, and after Japan falls souldn't the US MPP double? if the US is still in the war at that point in time).

ie:

Sept 1945 - US MPP Doubles, US Gets 1500 points of plunder reflecting troops & naval ships in Pacfic Theater that are now available for use.

Oct 1945 - Off Map Route to Russia via Pacific and Siberian Railroad is activated. Transit time is 6 turns reflecting presence of troops already in the Pacific.

"General, you said the Americans were coming, you didn't say via Russia!"

Just an interesting What If?

[ March 26, 2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Edwin hello,

I agree with your hypotheses about leaving German troops in Russia after it's collapes. But I do believe that Germany would have made territorial troops of the Ukraines or Belurussians to control the mobs. They did that with the Lithuanians and the Cosacks, plus the satellite allies, Romania etc. would be used to control the regions next to their territories.

If Hilter would have controlled Lenningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow, I believe he would have left the rest of Russia alone (Because of Mein Kampf).

Thirdly, many Russians were in the Wermacht already, (I've read up to .5 mil) and they would have been willing to police the motherland.

So, what's my point, with SC not able to produce Satellite troops or russian/wermacht troops maybe not having to control Russia is okay?

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin & SeaWolf

Good points all around. Maybe leave the plunder as is with the proviso that Germany needs to leave 1 corps in each of the following cities: Moscow, Lenningrad, Stalingrad and Kiev. That would represent a strong German regional presense with the idea of bolstering the local militias and would negate a large part of the plunder.

Another idea might be a second form of Soviet Conquest, USSR continues at war and remains in Asia. Let's say that would require the garrisons listed above and a corps in each of the Ural cities. The idea being that the Soviet Union is spent for serious offensive purposes but still a threat having to be watched. This keeps Germany from shifting everything back West.

Edwin

Your what-if of American soldiers appearing in the Urals is interesting in game terms but in historical terms I really can't imagine it, not even hypothetically. It isn't just Stalin, no Soviet premeir would have allowed foreign troops to fight in Russia and I doubt the U. S. would have trusted the U. S. S. R. enough to put it's soldiers in it.

When the war ended in Europe and the Soviets had already agreed to attack Japan, there was no talk of sending U. S. troops through Russia to fight in China.

Can you imagine some unfortunate Soviet general attempting to plan a campaign with Patton? Stilwell might have been even more antagonistic.

[ March 28, 2003, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Jersey John

Getting back to the historical game, would it make sense for the US to receive a large MPP bonus in Sept 1945 (if it is still alive) to reflect the end of the war in the Pacific?

And secondly, how large should this bonus be?

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

Interesting.

Some of the Pacific troops would have been assigned to occupation duties while others would have been discharged. I don't think any ground troops would have been earmarked for Europe.

New warship construction would have been halted along with most new aircraft production.

Most air and naval units would have been transferred to the Atlantic. Many of the older or severely damaged ships would have gone to the scrapyards. The most obsolescent aircraft would also have been scrapped.

American Industry, with only one front to concentrate on, would have cut back drastically on it's war production.

Assuming the Marshall Plan, or it's equivalent, would still have been in the works, a shift toward agriculture and building materials would have been emphasized; taking the place of America's Pacific War effort -- Japan and her former possessions would have been earmarked for relief production. As would the liberated areas of Europe.

With servicemen being discharged and goods such as rubber, steel and gasoline being freed for civilian use, at least some American industry would have begun gearing down to more of a peacetime economy.

Over all, I think there'd be an initial overflow of war goods from the last production orders intended for the Pacific, then it would drop, which would be seen as the maintenence of the normal SC USA level war production. This would be perfectily represented as a one time MPP boost combined with normal production.

I think it should be very large as it represents not only overlapping military production, but also the transfer of at least part of a huge fleet and airforce from the Pacific.

A very good idea.

[ March 27, 2003, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

I read the posts above which would require a limited german garrison to avoid all partisan activity and must disagree.

During WWII the Germans mistreated the Russians and their was a great deal of hatred for Germans amoung the Russians.

I feel that Germany would have been forced to commit a sizable resource of its own forces (primarily corps units) or minor power forces to occupy Russia (which is larger than all of Western Europe. Without this garrison partisan bands would have started multiplying to drive out the invaders. The larger and more widespread the garrison the less chance for partisan groups forming, as such groups tend to form where the occupying force is weak.

Thus if the major Eastern Russian cities were garrisoned the partisan groups would form in Western Russian cities.

[xwormwood]

Would Britain / the US really fought any longer against a 3rd Reich that conquered Russia???

With all the experienced troops from the east in Fortress Europe, would the US / the UK really dared the invasion?

They didn't invaded Japan, and what is the japanese Mainland against a 3rd Reich dominating europe incl. russia, with ALL it's forces to counter any invasion?

And what if the invasion (D-Day) would have failed in a bloody, catastrophic way, would the Allies have dared another try?

Wasn't there a possibility that even after a german victorious "Battle of the Bulge / Ardennenoffensive" Britain / the US would have entered peace talks?

I wonder why everyone always have tons of extra rules against the axis player, but so very few concerning the handicaps of the allies in WW2 (public reaction on extensive troop losses and war-tiredness).

:confused:

[Edwin P.]

Good point,

Would the US have continued the war if Germany conquered the UK, I mean its one thing to invade from accross the English Channel, another to invade from accross the Atlantic, but of course this is just a game.

[JerseyJohn]

I don't think the U. S. would have continued fighting if the UK were conquered and the Soviet Union were no longer in the war.

Regarding the USSR. I think it should be assumed at it's surrender that it would have still existed in Asia and would always have been looking for a way to get back into Europe. Additionally, as was mentioned, the nazis did a great job at making themselves hated throughout Russia. So, I think it would be a good idea to require an army in each of the two Urals cities and a corps in each of the others. The Finnish Isthmus Army should be allowed to garrison Lenningrad with it's three corps having to remain in Finland.

Shortfall of these conditions should lead to partisan activity. In the Urals undergarrisoning the two cities should risk the appearance of a Soviet Army Group entering from the East with more to follow.

For garrison purposes Sevastopol would be regarded as a city.

[ March 27, 2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Jersey John

I like the concept of requiring Germany to garrison the two ural cities with an Army and a corps in the other cities.

To me that sounds like a realistic deployment plan, as Germany would not garrison Russia with only corps sized units.

[santabear]

Hello again (by the way, my name is Mike...I didn't realize I'd be Santabear forever when I picked this handle). Some responses to the above:

1. I think it almost 100% certain that Britain and the US would have continued fighting against Germany after a USSR defeat. Britain fought alone against Germany when Russia was almost a German ally. With the US (and with air superiority), I can't envision Churchill making peace with Hitler--nor could I envision a change in the British government without a major, catastrophic defeat (Sealion).

2. Roosevelt and the US military would probably have WANTED to continue to fight against Germany after the defeat of Britain, but practical considerations might have forced them to make peace. A trans-Atlanic invasion would be nearly impossible, I think.

3. I agree with Edwin P that even if the Soviet government surrendered to Germany, the Russian people would likely have carried on some kind of guerrilla (hope that's spelled correctly) campaign--especially if encouraged by the British and Americans. Though there was no great love for Britain & the US from average Russian citizens (where was the second front?), they truly hated the Germans and likely would have continued to work for their eventual liberation.

So: Germany should have to garrison some/most/all Russian cities in order to get an MPP bonus from Russia. And there should be a continued chance for partisans. Thought the 'partisan in every swamp' that happens during the summertime is a bit much in my opinion. I'll start a new thread on this one, though.

[xwormwood]

I agree with everyone about the fact that germany did so endless many cruelties that every average russian man / woman had enough reason to hate their evil led occupiers.

But on the other hand it were the soviets who killed even more russian people in the years before and after the war, so many russians had reason enough to hate the bolsheviks as well.

Even in late 1944 / 45 there was this huge voluntary army (russian pows) under Gen. Wlassow who fought against the red army (and it wasn't anymore the time where a german victory would have been possible). If the germans would have installed puppet regimes like vichy, these regimes would have fought against any red army supporters.

I am not really sure that the allies would have fought any further after the fall of the USSR. If the 3rd Reich would have offered reasonable concessions to the allies, hmm, i like the patriotism of everyone here, but why are you sure they would have fight further more?

After the surrender of the USSR even Japan would have been a harder enemy.

I hereby suggest that the allies (or better: the US) should have less mmps after the fall of russia (because of an stronger japanese enemy). Or at least it should retreat some corps or battleships etc to the pacific theatre.

I may be wrong, but i got always this smile on my face thinking about the following:

"It seems that it had to be a player from an former "axis" country to demand negative effects for the allied players while it have been often writers from an former "allied" country who demanded negative effects for the axis player in SC".

[santabear]

Xwormwood: Hi. I'm a citizen of a 'former Allied country (US),' who enjoys playing the Axis side more in SC (though I still feel sad about invading New York). So I for one hate to penalize the Axis (But I would be a much kinder Dictator of the World than Hitler, trust me).

I think SC gives the axis certain advantages to make the game an fair contest rathen than an "Allies win unless the Axis really screws up" kind of game. Here is how I see that the war would have really looked after a Russian (USSR) defeat in 42-43:

1. The US Navy/airforce coupled with US industrial capacity had the US ready to dominate the Pacific after May, 42 (Midway). In the face of Allied naval/air superiority, Japan could not get food or raw materials to make armaments, nor could it move troops and supplies to defend its Pacific empire.

There was NEVER a question of whether the Allies could defeat Japan. It was only a question of when. The Pacific war took a lot of resources and time because of the fierceness of Japanese resistance and the huge scale of the combat area. But in the end victory in modern warfare goes to the strongest economy (provided the country has a stable political will to continue the war--and don't underestimate how much the Americans hated the Japanese after Pearl Harbor); bravery and self-sacrifice are valuable only if the soldiers have the tools they need to fight. The Americans never really beat the Japanese, we buried them with overwhelming material superiority.

[Just ask Robert E. Lee how much superior generalship counted in the American Civil War--he was the best in the business and still lost. All of the factories were in the North.]

2. The British navy with a strong assist from the US navy/airforce were winning the "battle of the Atlantic" and were winning the "MPP war" in the skies of Germany.* Supplies and troops could reach Britain, and from there Europe. Although shipping capacity was an unending problem, there was enough to get the job done.

*big difference here between 42 & 43!

3. The allies controlled the skies over the English channel (and France, and the Med, and were working on Germany). Coupled with the British navy, this meant that the Germans could not invade Britain, but Britain could (and did) blockade Germany (Europe).

So there was no reason that I could see for Britain and the US to ever consider surrender after the fall of Russia, especially with some kind of ongoing Russian resistance movement sabotaging the "MPP potential" of the conquered USSR.

Allied air/naval superiority made Overlord successful and could have done so even with more helpless German ground troops to kill. German reinforcements were slaughtered before they ever had a chance to fight the invasion. The German army kicked the American army around pretty well from Africa to the Hurtgen forest to the Ardeness--as long as the US Army Air Force wasn't around. Once the US air (and artillery) got into action, the Germans were faced with overwhelming force.

Germany needed some things they just couldn't quite get to be successful:

1. Better fighters (jets)

2. Better submarines (schnorkel boats)

They had both on the way, but they ran out of time. Beating Russia wouldn't have given them enough extra time to do it--they didn't have enough industrial capacity. A Russian defeat would have prolonged WWII; and I guess any unusual twist of fate could have been possible. But barring some unforseen event the Allies were in command of the situation, not the Germans. The Allies had an overwhelming economic advantage from December 1941 on. Imagine, Hitler attacked Russia and declaring war on the US in the same year--he was either supremely overconfident or he knew that he was in a desperate situation as early as 1941. I think the latter is true.

There are three reasons the game of SC doesn't always follow this historical path:

1. The 'unlimited manpower' issue (discussed at length) that allows unhindered production in addition to armies that occasionally exceed a country's entire male population. [sC's "Lebensborn" program must be fantastically successful!]

2. Out of whack MPP values and plunders, that allow Germany to get a much bigger advantage in 39-41 than she actually got in reality.

3. The ability of the axis to get jet aircraft in 1942. If Germany can control the skies over the English channel Overlord will fail. And the entire German army heads East. (Actually, I like to get MPPs for Italy and have Italian jets whomping the Brits while the Germans do the Russians. The image of Italy as the "great arsenal of Facism" always gives me a chuckle!)

[xwormwood]

santabear:

Thank you for your answer. I agree with you that Japan never had a chance against the US, never before and never after midway. I also agree that economic power is a vital instrument to win a war. But when we take a look at the Vietnam-wars (France, USA) we see also that even a weak army can find a way to win against an enemy with bilions of mpp's (to speak in SC terms...). In a free country every single persons life has it's high value, but in countries like Japan, Russia etc. the generals didn't bothered about human losses (in the 1930 -50's). This can balance out much industrial might, as history showed us.

When I mentioned Japan than only to mention that the allies would have had an stronger oponent in the pacific theater after a possible russian capitulation. They still would have surely won the war against japan, but only at the price of higher losses in men and material. Material would have been no big problem for the USA, but what about the loss of life? I believe that at a certain point (maybe 1 million dead americans, just to write a specific amount) the american people would have been fed up with further losses only to achieve TOTAL victory over japan, demanding a peace (maybe pre-war borderlines).

---

In late 1942 Germany had lost the war in the atlantic and was loosing the war in the air as well as in the west. But even while air superiority is absolut nescessary to win a war and german airforce was not to see on d-day the landing could have failed if a)the german tank reserves would have been placed nearer to the coast, what p.E. Rommel ALWAYS demanded Hitler wouldn't have been sleeping (nobody dared to wake him up for MANY hours) and after waking up permitted it to bring them to the battlefield (he refused for days to believe that this was THE invasion).

When the reinforcements finaly arrived, it was to late. The allied have had enough time to bring in THEIR reinforcements, suplies etc. Maybe it would have been possible to stop the allies, but only in the first couple of days, and only with a general staff able to decide, command and act like they've learned it. With a wannabe-general like Hitler pulling the strings it was surely impossible.

*big difference here between 42 & 43!

agreed. But this change would have been slowed alot if the german airforce wouldn't have had to fight the red army in the east any longer

the Germans could not invade Britain

agreed! germany would have never been able to invade the UK after declaring war against the USA

reason that I could see for Britain and the US to ever consider surrender

agreed again. I've never mentioned a total german victory, just peace talks. Germany wasn't able to survive a "2-front-war", but with only one front left, hm, difficult yes, but impossible?

--as long as the US Army Air Force wasn't around

you ment: as long as the US Army Air Force wasn't able to achieve total air superiority, am i right?

Germany needed some things they just couldn't quite get to be successful

they needed MORE planes and pilots, not better planes. "Schnorchel" (snorkel) were installed to give the old subs a fairly better chance to survive, you ment the "Walter"-Subs, which were the first "true" submarines

Russian defeat would have prolonged WWII

the Allies were in command of the situation, not the Germans

Agreed, agreed, agreed. My question was, if a prolonged war would have brought the allies to a point of war tiredness, from which they would have been already satisfied with a peace treaty instead of complete victory. At least the Brits, suffering from 1940 to 1945 from german bombs and rockets wouldn't have been too happy about another year of war. Churchill was very soon after the end of the war replaced by Attlee, even though it was Churchill who brought the UK through the war.

Hitler attacked Russia and declaring war on the US

I think he wanted the japanese to do the same: declaring war against russia (NO siberian army Moscow '41). And on the other hand the USA were already attacking german subs, lend-leasing the UK (all without their own declaration of war against germany, just like Syria seems to do right now["lend-lease]), but no german sub was allowed to attack any US ship before the declaration of war, even when it was attacked by this US destroyer who tried to sink it.

Out of whack MPP values and plunders, that allow Germany to get a much bigger advantage in 39-41 than she actually got in reality.

germany looted every countries gold reserves (germany was printing money without the nescessary gold, it needed this gold BADLY), it transfered food from the conquered countries to germany, so that at home no one would have to starve like in 1917/1918. Starving has been always and everywhere quite unpopular.

This plunder did happen.

The ability of the axis to get jet aircraft in 1942

The first german jets flew 1939 (August 27th), before the war even had started), It was Hitler who prevented further reseach. Jet aircrafts could have been ready en masse in 1942.

Germany started war because of Hitler and Germany lost the war because of Hitler.

SC does ignore this fact. There is no Hitler for the axis player in SC. That is the most unhistoric part in the game. Clash of Steel had at least a (stupid) rule which prevented sometimes german movement from east to west in russia (no retreat by Fuehrer's order). Unfortunatly this rule also prevented any ADVANCES if your troop came from east border of the map (Afrika Korps conquered Baku and had only enemies west of their position, but wasn't able to advance because of a "no retreat-rule"...

PS: in my opinion Germany would have (and was...)never been able to a) rule over a conquered russia for a longer period of time win against the USA (Lee was a nice example, lol) c) win the war at all

[ April 01, 2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[santabear]

Xwormwood:

Thanks for your answer, and I see we do agree about the course of the war...on such a vast and complex subject there will always be many ways to interpret some details, I think.

On the political side, though, almost immediately after the US became involved in the war, Churchill and Roosevelt met and came up with the famous "unconditional surrender" statement. This was at a time when Russia's continued survival was still in doubt (Churchill gave them a 50-50 chance).

In addition, this statement made opposition to Hitler within Germany very difficult during the war. Don't you think Churchill and Roosevelt realized this? This was a considered move to ensure that there would be no diplomatic room to give in during the reverses that they knew were coming in 42, and to let the Germans know that they were in for a long war.

It is interesting to ponder "stalemate" scenarios. But the only way to justify the enormous expenditures of money and lives was to paint the "enemy" as inhuman monsters. It becomes very difficult to "turn off" these kind of wars politically. If the US and/or Britain had been reduced to the level of 1945 Japan, I could see them being open to discussions. But after the revelations of German evil and a public committment to "unconditional surrender," it would have been difficult in the extreme to reverse course. I think a political end to WWII was virtually impossible--it was going to continue until the combatants were physically unable to fight any longer. Russia got battered to a pulp and continued to fight; Germany fought until it couldn't fight any longer; Japan as well. Why would Britain and the US have been different?

Both the American and British publics did become "war weary," but everyone knew that the war would continue. This war weariness was also induced, I think, by the feeling of "we know we've won, but how much longer will it take?" If there were really a question of national survival the mood of "blood, toil, sweat and tears" would have been the order of the day, not "home alive in 45."

The only kind of war that the Germans could never win was a long war; in the short haul they were unbeatable but there was not the national staying power (population and economically) for a long war. They needed a way to force a decision in 42, and, of course, didn't have it.

(Again, game imitates life: In SC, the war is won or lost between the fall of France and June 41--unless there is a mistake or lucky research outcomes. What happens during that time is critical--in real life the Germans couldn't get enough done either economically or diplomatically.)