Suggestion - remove Sov & UK surrenders, change vic conditions

[Guest Mike]

I doubt either would have actually surrendered - the Brits would have headed to canada, the Sov's to Siberia.

Clearly a country can "continue" without a capital since sometimes even minors struggle on for a move after it's lsot, so why not just delete these?

Also I suggest that the victory conditions should be based upon when/if there are no Axis countries left rather than occupying cities - hell hte allies can be just getting into their stride with London & Moscow captured in 1942.....

Something like Allied Major if the Axis is beat by end of 44, Minor if before mid 45, draw if before 46, Axis minor if in the 1st half of 46, otherwise an Axis major?

[Blashy]

I agree with UK, they would have moved to Canada for sure I'm 99% convinced of that.

But USSR is different

Stalin himself almost sent out an envoy to ask for peace with Germany at a critical point, that's how bad it looked to him.

So if you have everything up to the URALS, I agree with the surrender, it represents that USSR might have done what you said, sue for peace and move past the URALS to Siberia, so maybe not a surrender but a peace pack.

One thing I would like to be removed is plunder from Russian surrender, I think a peace would have been signed more than a surrender so no plunder for Germany.

[Blashy]

As for Victory conditions.

I think if USSR is out and Germany gets London and Manchester, that should be a major Victory.

I Minor would be the 2 first USSR capitals with London.

A Draw is if no German or Italian (mainland) cities have been taken by the time the game ends in 1947.

[Guest Mike]

Yes he "almost" sent ane envoy...but he didn't.

A peace pact perhaps with the USSR changed back to neutral and reactivating at some stage would certainly be interesting!

how can you be happy with a UK surrender if you're 99% sure the Govt would have gone to Canada?

[Blashy]

A Major Victory is not a surrender. Two different things.

It does not mean the USA or UK give away all the land they still hold. A surrender would require that.

[Guest Mike]

Yes I know that, but I fail to see how it is desireable, or different or why you mentioned it.

I stand by my statement - the only way victory should be determined is by when the Axis is defeated, if it is at all, because that was the only way the war would end - what's the point of declaring a victory when the war is still going?

[Blashy]

Because Victory means it is at a point that the Axis can no longer be defeated but they can not defeat USA and UK and the other way around.

Since it is a game you need a "winner", but you can call it a stalemate if that makes it better for you .

[Guest Mike]

Yes you need a winner, but you're making the assumption that the Axis cannot be defeated at that point

I say "prove it"!

[Sombra]

I think most of the people underestimate the moral impact if you lose your capital. The english are proud that nobody invaded succesfully their island since 1066 (battle of Hastings)

I believe if London had been lost and Rusia would have been in its death throws the US would have said why sacrifice our people for a lost cause . In the long run its not our concern.

Neither can I see that England would have moved its captial to Canada. I dont think that the rest of the commonwealth would have said yeah sure now the excile goverment in Canada is the boss. I dont thinkt the commonwealth would have survived without the threat of the working british empire.

If the germans had conquered London and installed a puppet government (like vichy) the british emoire would have desintegrated quite fast ( the commonwealth hasnt been a love affair back then)

I like the victory conditiosn as they are now and think even the moving capital from England to Egypt quite cheesey. Its like Hubert has seen that sealions are to easy in SC2 and looked for counter measure.

[jon_j_rambo]

@SomeBunta --- That's because you think like a German. Evil doesn't win, son. It's easier for a strongman to take a city of a 1000, than to change the heart of one man. All your "what ifs" are pipedreams.

Here's a better "what if" scenario. What if the USA never landed on Normandy, yet instead continued with supplying Russia & the USAF stepped up bombing only. Therefore, the Russians would own Europe back then. The Russians would have turned the ovens on the Germans.

THERE WAS NOTHING MAGNIFICANT about Germany.

Legend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OUT

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

the only way victory should be determined is by when the Axis is defeated, if it is at all, because that was the only way the war would end

I disagree with that.

There are many examples where a war was already over and all hosility stopped before any official surrendering.

For instance in the US succession wars : the US was independant from the UK, but no official treaty was signed for years.

And technically, today the war between South Korea and North Korea isn't over, both contries are officially still at war, even though there haven't been any hostility for ages. They even send joined teams to the Olympics, for what's it worth.

So the end of the war is something different then formally surrendering.

[Rolend]

TJ that is true about Korea, no peace treaty was ever signed, just a cease fire. If N Korea goes ahead with the launching of that long range missle things could heat up again, after all Bush has N Korea on his list of 'evil' and we know how triger happy he is

[Honch]

Play my Honch Expanded Scenario, UK moves to Halifax and USSR moves its captal to Novosibirisk. I dare the Germans to try and go that far.

[Guest Mike]

Churchill had already prepared the people forthe idea of losing London with his "We will fightthem on hte beaches" speech!

And I can assure you that hte Commonwealth was NOT ruled from London, and had not been for decades.

Only a few relatively small places did not have their own parliaments - new Zealand, Australia, Canada and St Africa had been effectively independant since long before WW2.

It wsa "the Crown" that bound the commonwealth together - and as long as the Royal Family got to Canada that would be all that was required.

Certainly the war would ahve taken a differnet tack - eg the uS would possibly have tried to stay neutral vs Germansy - but remember it was Germany that declared war on the uSA, and I see no reason why they wouldn't do so after PEarl harbour if they'd already conquered England - Hitler's dreams of world dominatoin would have been going in overdrive!!

Certainly some wars have reached stalemate such as Korea, and for a long timew the AWI - by the mutual consent of both parties.

I don't see the Commowealth as consenting to German occupation of the UK forever - especially since Commonwealth forces would still be fighting the Axis in Africa.

[John Hugo]

I would like to see the possibility of a negotiated peace with Russia. Instead of keeping what they already had, the Germans should give up some of their conquests in exchange for a peace deal, and keep, maybe 1/3 of conquered territory.

The give back, would be the negotiating incentive.

[Edwin P.]

Interesting Idea;

Germany conquers Moscow and Stalingrad then sees a Popup

- Soviet Union Offers Peace Treaty to Axis

- Choice: Accept or Decline

- Decline: Russia remains at War

- Accept: Russian becomes neutral, and controls all land west of Stalingrad and Moscow for 10 turns.

[Guest Mike]

Yes that's sort of like what Blashy suggested above.

However I'd see the border redrawn and hte Sov's setto neutral with perhaps a 25% or similar pro-allied weighting - just waiting their chance to get their land back.

Some things would trigger more - eg if the allies take a French city, or if Italy surrenders, etc.

[Edwin P.]

Agreed, the Germans might accept the proposal so they can respond to a D-Day invasion, knowing that the peace in Russia is temporary.

[John Hugo]

Russia should also keep its current research and mpp values after a negotiated peace, stockpiling for a possible Russian comeback .

[dicedtomato]

By Sombra's way of thinking, there shouldn't be any partisans in the game, nor De Gaulle and the Free French, not to mention the Free Polish, Norwegians, Dutch, Greeks, etc. Only fool or lunatics would have sided with Britain instead of Germany in 1940. Or maybe life in the New World Order wasn't so rosy?

As for Hitler and Stalin smoking a peace pipe, I think the rest of you are smoking something. We're talking two paranoid mass murderers here. Imagine scorpions in a bottle. Now imagine scorpions in a bottle signing a peace treaty.

I can't even contemplate the effects on play balance without feeling nauseous. If Germany can totally conquer Britain, which presumably means eliminating the entire British fleet, then I'd say it's worth delaying Barbarossa. And a Russo-German truce that allows all that German air to transfer to the Med or a late Sealion? Yippee!

Diced Tomato

[Sombra]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

By Sombra's way of thinking, there shouldn't be any partisans in the game, nor De Gaulle and the Free French, not to mention the Free Polish, Norwegians, Dutch, Greeks, etc. Only fool or lunatics would have sided with Britain instead of Germany in 1940. Or maybe life in the New World Order wasn't so rosy?

As for Hitler and Stalin smoking a peace pipe, I think the rest of you are smoking something. We're talking two paranoid mass murderers here. Imagine scorpions in a bottle. Now imagine scorpions in a bottle signing a peace treaty.

I can't even contemplate the effects on play balance without feeling nauseous. If Germany can totally conquer Britain, which presumably means eliminating the entire British fleet, then I'd say it's worth delaying Barbarossa. And a Russo-German truce that allows all that German air to transfer to the Med or a late Sealion? Yippee!

Diced Tomato

:confused: Diced I never said that I think that partisans are unnecessary. Still, as you noticed yourself a conquest of GB is strange . Impact on the British Empire "0" , its even an advantage for GB. You have better supply in the Med. US and UDSSR war readiness goes through the roof. I still believe that certain military dsisaters like losing your capital should have serious consequences. Rusias decision to move to another capital worked for parts because thaey had done it before aginst Napoleon in the rusian mindset Moscow wasnt as important (Still the impact on logistics would have been severe).

Inviting somebody to conquer England as a trap and a strategy is quite strange.

[Blashy]

Dice, Stalin was about to send an envoy to Germany to sue for peace, he came real close.

[dicedtomato]

I knew you were going to mention Stalin's envoy to Germany, Blashy. Do you know anything about it? I don't, which tells us how significant it was.

Think about it. If Russia was doing so badly that it needed a truce, Germany would have taken that as a sign of weakness and pressed the attack. Vice-versa for Russia. Neither dictator could make peace, if for no other reason than it would have made them look weak and eroded their domestic image of "infallability".

There were lots of peace feelers in WWII. But they never went anywhere. The Axis fought long past the point of hopelessness, and the Allies insisted on unconditional surrender. We're talking a war of Holocaust, terror bombing, 20 million Soviet dead. Compromise was not an option.

Diced Tomato

[Blashy]

What we are saying is that there is no way that Hitler would have went after Russia past the Urals.

But, there is no way that Stalin would have surrendered if Germany had all those resources.

So IMHO, if Germany takes ALL of Russia on the map, it should be a "game surrender" with no plunder for Germany as it is not a surrender per say. But Russia would be in a serious rebuilding phase for quite some time.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Yes you need a winner, but you're making the assumption that the Axis cannot be defeated at that point

I say "prove it"!

Easy to prove.

USA MPPs and Canada MPPs vs EVERY other country on the map with the exception of Iceland.

1- Axis will most likely NEVER be able to conquer USA or Canada.

2- USA and Canada will never be able to land successfully to make a stand and start pooring troops.

Hence, it is a stalemate but for game purposes an Axis victory.