UK Surrender - A Realistic Alternative

[Edwin P.]

Proposed suggestions for the after effects of a successful German sea lion invasion of the UK.

1. Canada becomes a US Minor Ally

It seems natural that the US should benefit from Canadain production if the UK surrenders.

2. UK Fleets in US or Canadian Controlled Ports become Free British Fleets.

As I assume that the Brits sent their fleet to US ports to avoid capture by the Axis

3. UK Air or Land Units in the US or Canada become Free Brits

Similarly any other UK forces were sent to the US to avoid capture by the Axis

4. Canadian units do not disband.

5. Egypt becomes an independent nation.

As their independent nation is now truely free of the hated English domination.

6. Spain annexes an unoccupied Gibraltar and passage is open to all.

Spain has long claimed that Gibraltar should belong to Spain.

7. Free French Units survive as they fear the consequences of being caught by the Germans. If caught in Egypt they board transports for the South Atlantic.

8. Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran may sign a mutual defense treaty to guard their independence against another Colonial European power (10%, 1 in 10 games where a successful Sea Lion has occurred). A DOW against any one of them is a DOW against all of them. Announced via a pop-up window.

A random event to spice things up and make the game less predicatable.

9. Turkey annexes Vichy Syria (50%) and reclaims some of the territory it lost in the aftermath of WWI.

Another historically possible event that changes the map.

10. Turkey annexes Neutral Iraq and Neutral Syria (4% - 1 in 25 games where England has surrendered).

A bit more of that very rare spice. Denies the Axis MPPs from conquering Iraq.

[ April 20, 2004, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Over all I agree.

"9. Turkey annexes Vichy Syria (50%) and reclaims some of the territory it lost in the aftermath of WWI."

This is a recurring theme of yours -- which is okay, my great-great grandfather also owned land outside of Beirut through an Ottoman land grant. We've also been pushing for a return of the Turks so we can claim what is rightfully ours! We the disenfranchised must stand together.

Unfortunately I haven't got much hope of salvaging our once prosperous grapefruit plantation on the Bikini Atoll.

Oh well, win a few lose a few.

[Edwin P.]

I just feel that Turkey might decide to take advantage of England's and France's misfortune to right some of the wrongs it suffered 25 years earlier at the hands of the English and Lawrence of Arabia. Besides, not even the Germans would want Syria - its 80% desert - and it has no oil.

PS: It also changes the map and makes it harder for the Axis to take Iraq, thus slightly helping the Allied player (it would really help the allies if the Turks also annexed Iraq).

[ April 20, 2004, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

A reasonable premise, I agree.

"Besides, not even the Germans would want Syria - its 80% desert - and it has no oil."

You're right, the only thing I believe might have affected things would be a sudden move for independance, not only in Syria but elsewhere in the Middle East, preventing the Turks from simply occupying places.

Usually you cover these things with percentages.

Why not just have these states show up as Axis and a percentage chance that Turkey is then in the Allies so it can invade those territories?

Or

The newly released territories can show up as neutral and independant and Turkey remains independant.

As you also often mention, there are other variables such as the state of the war.

Regarding Syria and the Trans-Jordan, Mussolini also had eyes on those areas claiming many Italians had moved there during the ninteenth century -- a similar idea to Hitler's claim that Germans living outside of Germany were always Germans.

[Edwin P.]

True, but given the Italian performance during the North African Campaign and against the Greeks I doubt that they would have want to take on the Turks.

[Night]

I like Edwins Ideas, since it often seemed that if the allies lost England or Russia the game was pretty much over. Now there is atleast more of a challenge.

I would add 1 more thing, to represent what churchill told his people about how the empire would come home to free England if it was ever invaded by Germany, make 1 Free English Cruiser, 1 Free english army, 2 free english corps, and 1 free English HQ (all in transports) appear in the south atlantic 1-3 turns after the fall of England to represent this.

[JerseyJohn]

Regarding Mussolini and the Turks, there's no way to speculate on the matter. Mussolini before his military fiascos was a different man from the wreck afterwards. If he had don't things diffenently and prepared for the war, entering with adequate supplies, good weapons, well trained troops and an officer corps that was not watered down with political hacks, he might well have made a move on Syria. He went against the British, so why not the Turks?

[Edwin P.]

Excellent point. But he always seemed to pick on smaller countries when possible and Syria is in Turkey's back yard where Turkey had much shorter lines of supply. Of course, if the Italians took Egypt this would change.

[JerseyJohn]

Yes, you're right, he wanted the quick and easy victory. Unfortunately, for Italy, he happened to be militarily inept and was too vane to admit it -- what's worse, he cast his image as a great conquerer, another Caesar, something he could never fulfill even with Germany's backing.

Italy had several islands in the Eastern Med but Mussolini's ambitions there are very vague.

He openly talked about adding Nice (France), Switzerland, Yugoslavia and Greece to Italy. Albania was an Italian protectorate which he annexed during the Spring of 1939. One of his generals said it was like raping one's wife. With the war starting, and catching him completely by surprise, he naturally felt it would be good to unify his Africn Empire by adding Tunisia, Malta, Egypt and the Sudan so it would run contiginously from Tunis to the Indian Ocean.

I find Italy under Mussolini to be very hard to reconcile in game terms. If he had been just a little more sensible and less of a political hack -- I mean going back to the 1920s of course -- things would have been a lot different.

Then again, if he's have fit that description he would have stayed on his original course and aligned with Britain and France; it was the Ethiopian Invasion that drove them apart and the League of Nations that made it irrepairable.

[Edwin P.]

Can you write a script that will cause Canada to become a Minor US Ally when the UK Surrenders and then Become a UK Ally if the UK is liberated?

This would eliminate the unrealistic buildup of UK Mpps that occurs while it is ruled by the Germans and would give the US access to Canadian production.

[initpaul]

Hello All

I like the idea of Free UK Troops etc. But what also about UK Resistance? And,on the same theme, what about French/Dutch/Norwegian etc Resistance?

Also, if UK capitulated, why should UK lose it's presence in North Africa?

Regards

Paul

[Edwin P.]

In the new SC2 you can set Post Surrender Partisans on a country by country Basis. So to force the Axis player to guard the UK you would turn this setting on.

As for the Dutch resistance it was quite minor as Denmark is a very small country. The French did not resist on the same scale as the Yugoslavians. The French resistance was mainly sabotage. The Yugoslavian resistance was actual assaults on military units.

I think that SC portrays the French resistance in a realistic manner and the Germans must keep units in France to guard against an allied invasion, thus eliminating the need for partisan units in France.

[Edwin P.]

I thought about having the capital of England move from Manchester to Canada if Manchester and London fall to the Axis. Thus the UK can continue to produce units and their navy is not disbanded. The problem with this is that 1) anyt UK troops in Great Britain will continue to fight and 2) it unfairly deprives the Axis of the plunder that they will need to push back the Russian hordes. Which is the better option; scripting an event to have Canada become a Minor US Ally or scripting an Event to move the Capital of the UK to Canada?

Any comments?

[ May 05, 2004, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Liam]

UK would've fought on in her Colonies and with her Loyal Allies. Australia/Canada/New Zealand/India/South Africa/etc... Would've resisted the Axis temptation. South Africa being slightly ify, having mixed Dutch and German lineage. I don't say move Capitol to Canada, but I wouldn't allow her ships/units or overseas holdings to instantly surrender.

The MiddleEast was about might and if Germany moved in enough forces I think it wouldn't have been much of a fight. In fact a corps over many of the major cities there would be too much strength. maybe like a half strength corps over Syria/Iraq/Iran...Italy may have gotten tokens. Would Turkey have eaten Syria? Interesting Question, I wonder if Northern Iraq wasn't more of a focal point with the Kurdish Population?

[Roosevelt45]

I think it's a better idea for the gameplay to let Canada become a US minor,let the Brits who are on allied territory become Free Brits,declare independance in Egypt. But not to let Gibraltar or Malta be annexed since they are vital fortifications and it is very unlikely that the English would have given them up even if their homeland was conquered. As for the MiddleEast I would let Turkey join the Axis If the Germans agree with declaring war on Iraq,Iran and possibly with them annexing Syria.These things would really give an exiting new turn to the game.

But If you want to be more realistic I think that it is most likely that the UK government would have moved to Canada or the US with as many troops and ships as possible and continued fighting in all of their colonies.

[pzgndr]

I thought about having the capital of England move from Manchester to Canada if Manchester and London fall to the Axis. Thus the UK can continue to produce units and their navy is not disbanded. The problem with this is that 1) anyt UK troops in Great Britain will continue to fight and 2) it unfairly deprives the Axis of the plunder that they will need to push back the Russian hordes. Which is the better option; scripting an event to have Canada become a Minor US Ally or scripting an Event to move the Capital of the UK to Canada?

Moving the "Commonwealth" capital to Canada will be possible in SC2 and should provide a nice variant for the game. For point 1, the UK troops won't be able to fight long in England without a supply source. For point 2, plunder is likely to be revised to be less significant than it currently is. Either way, the Commonwealth would be crippled by the loss of England (and it's full production potential) but at least could remain in the game and continue research, building new units, etc. Germany would still gain some advantage from taking England, but would have to garrison it more seriously than before rather than shift everything to the USSR. :cool:

This is probably a better approach than trying to revise what happens to controlled minors when the parent major surrenders. However, event scripting may yet allow us to reassign minors and create "Free British" units, etc.