Free troops for ALL countries.

[Roosevelt45]

Originally posted by Panzeh:

Hungarian troops should get a significantly higher morale when fighting Romanian troops.

:confused:

I'm probably missing something here.

Why?

I would think they would be rather reluctant to fight their old allies.

[Retributar]

I didn't think anything to do with Hungarian or Romanian troops was really significant in any way, shape or form in the first place!.

This is one place where i have a serious lack of knowledge and a serious lack of interest in!.

[Roosevelt45]

I only know that Romania changed sides at the end and that they(Romania and Hungary) failed to stop the Russians at Stalingrad.

[Norse]

Free troops for all nations is a good idea, but not perfect imo. Because, troops that were used in the defence of the homeland, if they managed to get to Britain when their homeland were conquered, were not all that the conquered nations carried over to boost the British war machine with.

I am saying, when a nation was conquered, their government went to London in exile, and brought with them military resources that they injected into the British war machine. These resources may or may not have been used in the defence of the homeland, yet still became sizeable parts of the British war machine.

Example :

The norwegian government in exile in London, brought with them the huge norwegian merchant fleet. The norwegian merchant fleet has peaked as the worlds largest merchant fleet during the 20th century, though I can't remember if it was the biggest during ww2 - which would be easy to find out, it was definately among the top 3 iduring ww2.

The norwegian government in exile came to London, and injected this into the British war machine and became a big part of the convoys to transport things for the British war machine. Definately a MPP boost beyond mere Free Troops.

Look at any government in exile, and you'll find similiar examples of how they boosted the British war machine with MPP's (military resources), that they brought over and still had control over.

Fact : When Germany conquered a nation and sent their government to London, then Britain got MPP injections as a consequence of Germany conquering a nation.

There are so many other examples.

So I think Free Troops for all nations is a good idea, but it doesn't represent all the MPP that the government in exile injected into the British war machine.

When Germany conquers a nation, I think about 10% of the MPP sack should go to Britain, and 90% to Germany. The figures can be discussed, but something should go to Britain, that would be realistic and true to the real war.

[Blashy]

I think the idea that you can "try" and move all troops to UK simulates that 10% gain.

Obviously not all will make it, 1st turn many will die and not all troops will be next to a port AND if the player managed to operate them all to ports, he would not have enough MPPs to transport them all right away.

So even though the option to send ALL troops to UK will be available, I doubt it will be possible for the majority of the countries.

[Norse]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I think the idea that you can "try" and move all troops to UK simulates that 10% gain.

Nah.

The minor nations troops aren't strong enough to stand up to Germany. Their mission, to defend their capital, to keep the MPP's away from Germany for as long as possible, gives MPP to Britain in the meantime.

To move the troops away from defence of the capital on expeditions will clearly make the capital fall sooner, thus reducing the MPP Britain gets, not simulating it.

[Blashy]

Yes but now you get these troops and you will be able to HQ support them, so they can become very usefull.

If you save 2 armies, that's 500MPP UK does not have to spend.

Like I said, if I player wants to go the full evacuation way, let him.

[Raven25]

Guys, this isn't always about what exactly happened. It's about what you can do. Perhaps some countries in real life want their troops to fight to the death, but if you're the Allied or Axis supreme commander, it's up to you to decide where they go and what they do. Shouldn't you be allowed to send them to the UK to preserve them? I mean, when I retreated my Polish Air Fleet to UK so that it could aid France, once Poland was defeated I lost that Air Fleet, even though it was safely nestled on the other side of the channel. Is it realistic to say that these guys'd just say, "Sorry Sir, I'm turning in my wings. Poland just got defeated and the Gestapo sent me a letter telling me to come back."

[Blashy]

Exacly my point, this game is about re-writing history, not about what they would have done or would have done.

Its about what YOU would do.

[Shaka of Carthage]

While its true that you as the player, are free to make decisions that may not have been made historically, you have got to put some limits on how far away from realism you want to go.

Abandoning your nation so your troops can fight on under some other nation, is just about as far away from reality as you can get. Its gamey, not realism.

Polish troops didn't leave Poland until after it surrendered, and those that did get away, mainly made thier escape as individuals, not a organized military formation (ie no artillery, no heavy weapons, etc). Some went to France, some with to Russia. Those units had to be reequipped to be employed as military formations again. While they may have been employed at battalion or brigade level, they didn't get much larger than that, to ease command and control in the Army they were in.

When France fell, the same scene was repeated with former soldiers fleeing to UK, colonial areas, etc.

In game terms, whats "realistic" would be the Free French option turned off, since its pure fantasy to have Corp or Army sized French units being "Free French" as soon as France falls.

[SeaMonkey]

So what you are saying Shaka is that the manpower pool for the Allies of the surrendering country should get a nominal boost?

[Roosevelt45]

All my respect for HC.

It must be hard to balance out historical correctness,game playablity and simplicity,the freedom of re-writing history,etc...

[Retributar]

Nothing is for FREE...and Whiskey costs money!.

[Roosevelt45]

Originally posted by Retributar:

Nothing is for FREE...and Whiskey costs money!.

Noooooo,

seriously?

[Panzeh]

Romanians and Hungarians hated each other so much that they could not put their armies adjacent to each other, thus the Germans usually put the Italians between them.

The Hungarians did much, much better in 1944 than 1942.

[Raven25]

*Sigh* Guys, you're missing the point. In SC you have the option as to where you move your forces. People DO move their forces to other countries ingame, so why should they be disbanded after that country is captured, even if those troops are a safe distance away? Not only that, but your example of troops fighting for other countries DID HAPPEN. For example, German troops defended Italy. Canadian troops weren't defending their homeland when they attacked Juno beach. US Fighter Pilots flew for both Britain, AND China. D'uhhhhh.... Some of you guys seem to be ignoring facts and fabricating your own opinions as to the behavior of a country's military.

[With Clusters]

OK, time for some realistic "deployment" limits. Designate where units from different minor countries are allowed to operate, while their nation is still independant (not talking about "free" units that might come into existance after their contry has been occupied).

Time for my olbigitory 3R reference again. In 3R, most minor countries had limits as to where they could move to. One such consequence was the irritation of not being able to move German allied Hungarian units through Rummania (that hatred thing Panzeh mentioned), so you either had to move them the long way around, or strategically redeploy them (think 'operate' in SC terms) to get them to the front in Russia. If we think of it that way, that there are some places a nation's units wont go (its hard to immagine any Polish governement ordering or even allowing its entire airforce to fly off to London while it was still in Warsaw fighting for its life), under any circumstances, re-writing history aside (unless we want to go completely alternate reality - "In my universe, the Hungarians and Rummanians are total buddies!"). So no, I don't think 'evacuations' should be allowed, at least not until say the capitol has fallen. That might be reasonable. So if Warsaw has fallen, and by some miracle, its airforce is still in the field, maybe then (and only then) it could be evacuated.

[Roosevelt45]

Raven25, I know all those facts and am in favor of evacuation possibilities and I think that most troops should just keep on fighting if they're fighting abroad at the time of the caputilation.

But I don't like the possibility of full evacuation of a minor country immediately after the DOW, it's just too unrealistic that a minor country would allow that before the capitulation.

[ev]

Those which oppose a free for all on free units are concerned with last minute massive evacuation of all fighting units. So, for example, the Benelux armies could move to France instead of defending their countries.

This is a serious concern. Good common sense does not always make good politics.

I propose the following compromise:

Units that left the "fallen" country within the two turns immediately preceeding the fall of that country will be lost, but units that left the country at least three turns ago will become free units.

Any comments?

[Raven25]

It would have to be less than that. Mainly because it usually only takes two turns (or one) to capture a capital and defeat that nation.

For example, think about the Low Countries. If Germany plays their moves right, they can take the Low Countries in one turn. But suppose they didn't, and they were facing certain defeat. Wouldn't it be good to be able to evacuate the corps on the capital, send it accross the channel to London, unload it and be able to keep it? Then I just put either a french army or a corps on the capital.

It's not realistic to have units that were moved tactically to be disbanded after their country was captured even if the unit is a safe distance away.

[ev]

Originally posted by Raven25:

...But suppose they didn't, and they were facing certain defeat. Wouldn't it be good to be able to evacuate the corps on the capital, send it accross the channel to London, unload it and be able to keep it? Then I just put either a french army or a corps on the capital.

This is precisely my concern. Under these circumstances it would not be politically feasable to evacuate a full army.

Now say we are in France 1940, do you propose the week before the Armistice to ship to England three or four armies, a tank group of 50 - 100,000 men, two air fleet, four fleets, and an HQ?

Try to imagine the situation in France a few days before the armistice. Your whole country is in utter panic. Those who want to fight, if any, are thinking of a counter attack. The high command is lossing control over the army and the country. Even if you could give such and order, and somehow coordinate such a major shipping effort, the mere fact of giving the order would only add to the panic and defeatism. It would be paramount to the captain yelling hte order to "abandon ship". This in turn, would only accelerate capitulation.

In evacuate of entire armies, any warring country would have to disguise these troop movement as something else: say you pretend you are going to invade Norway, or attack Italy. This would take some time; definetly not a last minute "abandon ship" type of order.

[Roosevelt45]

Luckily, panic is not a factor of SC yet, so I dwon't have to worry about that when I will be evacuating France

[Raven25]

Exactly Roosevelt. This game is about tactical warfare, not political warfare. If a supreme commander says to have something done, than it's gonna get done. No matter what the consequences (just think of how big a risk D-Day was. But Eisenhower (wait, it was Ike wasn't it?) said go and they went).

[Shaka of Carthage]

SeaMonkey

Yes.

[With Clusters]

Originally posted by Raven25:

It's not realistic to have units that were moved tactically to be disbanded after their country was captured even if the unit is a safe distance away.

That's why there needs to be limits on where a country's units are even allowed to deploy. French units should not be allowed to go into any English territory as long as Paris is still Allied (I would say that after that, if there are still unsurrendered French units in existance when Paris falls, only then would they be able to move into UK territory, and thus 'evacuate'). Polish units should not be allowed to leave the Eastern Front until Warsaw has fallen (again, units existing 'post Warsaw' could be allowed to 'evacuate').

To allow countries to move their units wholesale to 'foreign parts' while thier country is still fighting for its life is not historical fiction, its historical fantasy! That is above and beyond any historical animosities that may have been between supposed 'allies' (like the Hungarians and Rummanians as previously mentioned). IIRC, while the UK and France were allies, there was still a lot of distrust and rivalry between them.

I just can't immagine that in any other but the most flighty 'alternate reality' (where the world is square and Superman goes by the name of Bizzaro) would the French (or the Poles, or any other self respecting country) send loads of troops to the UK (or any other foreign nation) while still trying to honestly defend their nation!

Its not just a matter of "I'm the boss of the Allies (or Axis) now, and they will obey my orders like they were the word of God!". If we want to chuck history totally out the window, we might as well be playing "Nazi Space Rangers vs Super Space Geeks" (or whatever that brilliant Desert Dave quote was!).