Italian surrender?

[david12345]

I'm sorry, but the surrender rules in this game are just plain broke. I just took Rome, after slogging up the boot, and they moved thier capital to Venice? You got to be kidding.

In the real war, the Italians surrendered without even losing Rome!

Add to this the fact that France stayed alive a turn after losing EVERY city in France (and every unit).

Add to this the fact that I had all of Japan and they moved their capital to Korea?

Add to this the fact that I took just about every city in Russian and no surrender.

Seriously, what are you guys thinking?

Such a great game, but so many irritating things...

[Mabus77]

What campaign are you playing?

[Hubert Cater]

Hi David12345,

Regarding Italy I suspect this will be removed in the first in the first patch as we are overhauling some of the surrender rules to make it a bit more historical as well as transparent to the player. For example, for Japan to surrender from Korea will now be a DECISION event and even here for the AI it is only likely to select this 50% of the time.

For France and the USSR there is a formula that takes into account how many remaining French or Soviet units respectively are left on the map. After that and once the capitals are taken it is just a matter of time before they surrender. In most cases it is quick but the odd time you get a stubborn nation that simply won't surrender until you knock off a few more units.

From our side it was with the intent to create variety from game to game but I can see how when coupled with the other surrenders it can be irritating as it feels you've hit the jackpot in all the worst case surrender scenarios.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[david12345]

Thanx so much for your reply, Mr. Cater. I have been playing since the SC1 days, and I know that you are trying to make the best game possible. Your participation on a regular basis here proves it.

Not sure what you mean by a "decision" concerning the Japanese surrender. If I'm Japanese, of course I will decide to continue the fight. Probably, I misread what you were saying.

I do hope that you consider the possibility that, rather than adding more variety, you may be causing frustration. Players want, for example, to be rewarded for a swift victory (let's say taking Paris) as opposed to having to spend several turns "mopping up" a defeated opponent. But maybe that's just me, and maybe I have just been really unlucky so far.

dav

[PowerGmbH]

1) In the real war, the Italians surrendered without even losing Rome!

2) having to spend several turns "mopping up" a defeated opponent.

dav

1) not really, they annoyed the Allies some more until 45, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Social_Republic

2)As historically, this was the situation of the things from late 43 on..., for Italy see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Sasso_raid

[Colin I]

I quite like some variation in surrender - it stops you calculating rather more precisely than a real commander would be able to. If you take a capital city but ignore a strong force of enemy armour you can't be sure it won't counterattack rather than surrender. With Italy and France - both countries are fairly easy to take out - given the number of ground units remaining after the fall of Paris or Rome is usually quite small the chance of them fighting on is not that large. And if you take Rome with a single unit raid without landing any other troops then I'm not sure even the Italians would throw in the towel.

[Mabus77]

I agree, I like the variation as well. I one time was caught not thinking in PDE, and the Germans took Paris and I had tons of French troops left and the French surrendered. Very irritating, becauase I could have easily took the capital back on the next turn.

[Robby1]

I respectfully disagree with David. Variability adds to the game; it doesn't detract. So long as the variability is bounded by the facts on the ground, it is a plus. The formula which links surrender probability to the number of surviving military assets keeps the variability grounded.

Now, this may be frustrating at times when you don't get the quick surrender you had hoped for. But such is war. There are no guarantees. You can never be certain that your enemy won't decide to fight on. If you gamble on a shoestring operation to seize a capital, with no backup plan in the event of a recalcitrant enemy, then you should suffer the consequences.

[david12345]

Ok, I will agree that variety is the spice of life, but Japan completely allied fighting on from Korea? France lost every unit and every city and did not surrender?

I think that's taking it too far.

[Bill101]

Hi David

Regarding the surrender, could it be that France had units outside of metropolitan France, in Algeria and Syria for instance?

Japan's fighting on might seem a little far fetched, but not all Japanese accepted the surrender in 1945 and there was limited trouble in some sections of the armed forces. Allowing a chance of resistance continuing from Korea could also give the Axis player an extra chance of holding out until the end with Germany too, thus spicing up the end game slightly for the Axis player by giving them that extra little bit of hope, plus it shouldn't take too long to capture Seoul.

While I do understand your frustration, I think that in most games this feature adds something, and without it there is a danger of too much predictability. It may be that you were very unlucky on the % chances, because nearly always France surrenders on the capture of Paris, or at most within a turn or two.