Surrendering

[Canuck_para]

What will make a nation surrender? Is it just the lose of the capitol are more. Can Italy be knocked out without Rome being taken (as historically). Can Russia withstand the lose of Moscow and fight on?

[Hubert Cater]

Surrendering will be determined by the loss of the capital plus the number of units remaining in the field. This assessment varies from majors to minors and reflects the idea that some countries would have fought (at least temporarily) despite the loss of their capital.

The USSR will in this case be a tough opponent as they may relocate their government (Urals) several times in order to keep up the fight!

[Canuck_para]

Are there any other penalties for losing your capital, like morale lowering and units losing action point?

[Mr. Clark]

WOW! Another fine job!

Why isn't this game coming out tommorrow!!??

I NEED it!

EDIT:

Actually a question now comes to mind, to go along with Para's.

Somewhere it was stated that production can only occur in cities that can draw a direct (land) link to a capital. Does the capture of a capital affect production then?

[ April 24, 2002, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Clark ]

[Canuck_para]

Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

WOW! Another fine job!

Why isn't this game coming out tommorrow!!??

I NEED it!

I keep getting more impressed as I read this forum and ask questions. This game will fill that Stategic level void I have suffered through.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

Somewhere it was stated that production can only occur in cities that can draw a direct (land) link to a capital.

If this is so, then I'm wondering how the UK gets production from Egypt, etc.

[Mr. Clark]

If I remember correctly, the production thing was for building actual units... so you could still get "points" for other territories, just not build there if there is no direct line. (I could be wrong, but I think I'm correct.)

Para - I totally agree! I'm more impressed with every new question answered!

[Hubert Cater]

Correct!

[coralsaw]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

The USSR will in this case be a tough opponent as they may relocate their government (Urals) several times in order to keep up the fight!

Hubert,

What is the rationale, is it playbalance? I believe that the centralisation of most governments at the time was so strong, that losing the capital meant losing the country. Economic institutes, radios, government structures, transportation etc. Moving the government to a deeper territory (unlike the factories) would not have been possible in the few months the first phase of Barbarossa lasted.

Moscow, AFAIK was no exception, which is why Hitler thought he could end the war in 8 weeks.

/coralsaw

[Canuck_para]

Originally posted by coralsaw:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

The USSR will in this case be a tough opponent as they may relocate their government (Urals) several times in order to keep up the fight!

Hubert,

What is the rationale, is it playbalance? I believe that the centralisation of most governments at the time was so strong, that losing the capital meant losing the country. Economic institutes, radios, government structures, transportation etc. Moving the government to a deeper territory (unlike the factories) would not have been possible in the few months the first phase of Barbarossa lasted.

Moscow, AFAIK was no exception, which is why Hitler thought he could end the war in 8 weeks.

/coralsaw</font>

[vonManstein39]

Moscow was the center of the Russian rail network, so losing it would have been a severe blow to them, but not enough to make them surrender. Plus everyone on both sides at the time was remembering Napoleon and how he took Moscow and lost the 1812 campaign anyway.

If Britain had been invaded in 1940, she would not have given up if London had fallen. Losing Bristol and Liverpool, the main supply ports for the Atlantic convoys, would have been far more serious.

But for Germany and France, losing Berlin and Paris virtually shattered the morale of their armies and they lasted only a week or two longer before disintegrating.

[handeman]

How are you going to handle the Fall of France? Historically, it fell without the fall of its capital.

Thanks

[Hubert Cater]

You will have to take Paris, but it is the least likely to fight on once you do (similar to Italy)

Hubert

[handeman]

Will there be a creation of Vichy France and will there be any sort of variability as it applies to the colonies? (Morroccom, Algeria Tunisia)

Thanks

[BloodyBucket]

Will there be a cheese eating surrender monkey rule?

Real Question: In a PBEM, will the player have the option to surrender? A little more graceful if done in game, rather than with the "You are beating the pants off me and I just can't take it anymore" E-mail, not that I have ever sent it or anything.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by handeman:

Will there be a creation of Vichy France and will there be any sort of variability as it applies to the colonies? (Morroccom, Algeria Tunisia)

Thanks

Handeman,

Yes, there will be a Vichy France. As far as I know, the colonies go to the conquerer. Hubert can verify that.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by vonManstein39:

Plus everyone on both sides at the time was remembering Napoleon and how he took Moscow and lost the 1812 campaign anyway.

[snip]

But for Germany and France, losing Berlin and Paris virtually shattered the morale of their armies and they lasted only a week or two longer before disintegrating.

The Napoleonic analogy is not perfect, because Moscow wasn't the capital in 1812; St. Petersburg was.

And, as someone pointed out, Paris wasn't captured militarily in 1940.

I think it does make sense for some countries to fight on longer, even if their capitals are captured, particularly if the capture of the capital doesn't mean that most of the country is captured.

For example, in France, even though Paris wasn't captured, almost all of industrialized northern France was captured, including the channel ports. This was much more devastating than simply the capture of Paris would have been.

By the time Berlin was captured, almost the entire rest of the country was under Allied control as well, so there wasn't really any way that the country could fight on.

On the other hand, if you consider England, because of the location of London, it might be possible for invading Germans to capture London while leaving 90% of GB unoccupied and undamaged. Given that the main industrialized areas are in the midlands, that GB has plenty of other ports, and that the rest of GB is pretty defensible, it makes sense that GB wouldn't automatically surrender of London were taken.

Some of these same issues apply to the SU; it is so vast that a narrow focus on the capture of Moscow would leave much of the rest of the country unoccupied and ready to resist. In this context, it's worth noting that in Stolfi's "Hitler's Panzers East," (a book describing how the author believes that Germany could have defeated Russia in 1941 had Germany done some things differently), Stolfi believes that Germany needed to capture both Moscow and Gorki (on the Volga) to have ensured defeat of the SU. (Leningrad is also captured; the south (east of Kiev, I think) is sort of neglected IIRC).

But certainly capturing an enemy capital should be a severe blow and an important step on the way to capturing the country. First there is the severe psychological blow, and second, there is the fact that moving the capital of the country to another location is time consuming and distracting.

One reason why countries surrender is because they believe that there is no point in fighting on. For this reason, it may be relevant to consider when the country's capital is captured. I.e., if Moscow is captured in August 1941, the USSR might be more willing to surrender than if it were captured in May 1942, since by May of '42, the Russians would have learned that the Germans can be defeated. This point would not have been as clear in August of '41.

[Mozzer]

I agree with Andrew. Losing your capital will be important but should vary in its effect from country to country. I have got Stolfi's book on my bookshelf and he makes a convincing argument that the capture of Moscow was the move most likely to lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union but only if other objectives had been captured too. I think that COS models this well by saying that you must capture Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad and some other optional cities (Gorki, Sevastapol, Baku, etc) and this starts to accumulate Russian 'collapse points' which when they go above a certain level will cause the USSR to collapse. I think that worked well. For the Soviet Union to collapse just because one PzIII gets into Red Square seems a bit unrealistic but the capture of Moscow in its strategic and psychological impact would have meant something big.

As for the UK it could be argued, convincingly, that even if the UK had been captured the British would have fought on from the Empire, protected by the Royal Navy. Serious contingency plans had been set for this eventuality. Therefore the capture of Cairo (the middle east was seen as an alternative base in the event of the collapse of the British Isles) or even the invasion of Canada (getting into real 'what-if' land here!!) would possibly be needed. Actually, I hadnt thought of that. Sorry if I am asking something asked elsewhere or something that is in the FAQ, but can the Axis player invade the USA or Canada? What fun! If the Germans had defeated the USSR in 1941, knocked us Brits out in 1942 or 1943, it might not have been unrealistic (especially as this game seems to promise the potential to explore some real alternatives- ploughing lots of cash into a huge German navy, post-USSR collapse ala Z-Plan) for an invasion of America!!!

[Hubert Cater]

Invasion USA is possible

[Straha]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Invasion USA is possible

Gee! :eek:

But ok, it will be lots of fun.

Straha

[BloodyBucket]

Wow. That would be interesting.

[Canuck_para]

The US does not have to worry, Canada will protect you.

[BloodyBucket]

Is it possible to force a country into one camp or another via political pressure?

[Canuck_para]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

Is it possible to force a country into one camp or another via political pressure?

Is this not based on how well the war is going?

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Canuck_para:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

Is it possible to force a country into one camp or another via political pressure?

Is this not based on how well the war is going?</font>