Let’s just keep in mind that there is a difference between what one side’s objective was and what would have caused the other side to collapse. Paris having been the German objective or not really has no bearing on what would historically make France fall.
Correct-ish. Paris wasn’t the objective in the original planning, but it was something that had to be taken into account given there was a rather large garrison force that could strike out. But Paris did in fact turn into an objective in the autum of 1914, to the eventual doom of the Germans they thought they could do it, and so took divisions that originally were planned to march to the east and sent them south to Paris. In the end the German strike force was left with two avenues of attack with not enough troops for either, so they did differ from the original plan and made Paris an objective….not that the plan was ever going to work even if they didn’t.
Right. It is also true that if Paris falls, France falls so in a game design for light wargame, it is a simple solution that is both Historical and practical. France could have also fallen by other means, but taking Paris does the job just as well.
@Imperious:
Even in WWII, it’s really only Berlin that was directly captured, and this an extreme case due to the ideological extremes of the regimes involved. Tokyo and Paris were occupied after their countries surrendered, and Rome was captured from the Germans after Italy had flip-flopped.
Rome was captured and in two days the king told IL Duce to step down
Paris was captured and negotiations began right after.
Warsaw falls on Sept 28 and Polish enter surrender talks 27th
Berlin same thing.Capitals are important. Also, you cant count capitals that were never reached.
No, Mussolini was sacked when the Allies invaded Sicily. When Rome fell Italy was on the Allied side.
The Germans entered an undefended Paris; in other words the French were already defeated in the field before the Germans reached the capital. Taking the capital was a consequence of forcing the enemy to collapse, not an objective in itself.
This “capture the capital” thing is a lazy design standby, all credible variants allow a nation to continue fighting and building units as long as they control IPC income and a factory.
Too many A&A game have defaulted to who can pile the most units into Moscow; I thought we’d moved on from that.
The Germans entered an undefended Paris; in other words the French were already defeated in the field before the Germans reached the capital. Taking the capital was a consequence of forcing the enemy to collapse, not an objective in itself.
Surrender talks began right after Paris fell. I guess the other capitals falling don’t fit your criteria. I guess im not saying it right. Take the capital, and the nation that lost their capital either enter peace talks or surrender outright.
But the fact that France didn’t bother defending Paris proves that they already considered the war lost. There was no desperate attempt to save the capital because they understood that modern war is about defeating the enemy forces in the field, not marching into the capital.
OK, then, what happens afterwards? Do you make surrender automatic? What happens to surviving French forces - do they just disappear like Russians in 1918?
What about French forces in French tts which also contain UK units? What happens to the French fleet? What about French units in non-French Allied tt?
Do you, in effect, have Vichy France rules for 1915?
But the fact that France didn’t bother defending Paris proves that they already considered the war lost. There was no desperate attempt to save the capital because they understood that modern war is about defeating the enemy forces in the field, not marching into the capital.
OK then if the enemy gets within 20 miles of an undefended capital, they surrender. But the space of where Paris is located is large enough to state: When the capital falls, the nation falls.
OK, then, what happens afterwards? Do you make surrender automatic? What happens to surviving French forces - do they just disappear like Russians in 1918?
The Russians don’t disappear. Germany occupies the areas stipulated in the surrender treaty and other Russian forces remaining outside these areas just remain…they don’t disappear.
When France falls the army in France fights in place. They just stop building. Its just like Axis and Allies.
What about French forces in French tts which also contain UK units? What happens to the French fleet? What about French units in non-French Allied tt?
They fight but don’t research or build. Simple.
Paris was declared an open city on June 10th by the French government to prevent its destruction in battle, but they did attempt to defend the approaches to the city. The government had already relocated prior to its capture by the German’s, and the French prime minister did not want to surrender, but resigned due to lack of support in his cabinet. Petain became the new prime minister with promises of suing for an armistice.
Even if I conceed this one, it still means that in both World Wars there are only 2 examples of a major country surrendering as a consequence of losing its capital, the above example being dubious indeed.
And, in fact, it was Hitler’s suicide rather than the loss of Berlin that counted in the other example.
I am not saying they could fall by other means. Only that if the capital falls, its a sure and universal way of dealing with a game ending scenario in a light wargame. It is consistent and makes sense in a light wargame like AA14.
To me a defeated nation would be one that lost their last factory ( which simulated industrial base), but capital makes alot of sense too.
I would go with the last factory option, but while mentioning that I prefer every industrialized region to have a factory capability.
However, for a WWI game I still think a mechanism should be in place whereby a nation that is anywhere near losing its last factory area will have collapsed internally before this, like Germany in 1918 when it still had all the European tt it held in 1914 plus a large area of Western Russia. Otherwise, if the game is a realistic simulation of the war, it is unlikely ever to be fought to a conclusion, even given a limited number of turns and secondary winning conditions.
Well that brings back the “national morale” index, where a nation falls at any time when the support of the people are so far against it that they just collapse. I know public opinion means nothing to some people here, but in this war that reality was the result in at least two cases.
@Imperious:
Well that brings back the “national morale” index, where a nation falls at any time when the support of the people are so far against it that they just collapse. I know public opinion means nothing to some people here, but in this war that reality was the result in at least two cases.
:roll:
Just because I showed that public opinion was not the most important factor in determining when the USA went to war does not give you license to hypergeneralize that to make it look like I said that unrest in a country is irrelevant in determing a full-blown uprising.
Just because I showed that public opinion was not the most important factor in determining when the USA went to war does not give you license to hypergeneralize that to make it look like I said that unrest in a country is irrelevant in determing a full-blown uprising.
You still here? You didn’t show anything, public opinion gives the politicians the support to do or not do. Don’t be naive. Public opinion brought down Imperial Russia and Germany. Translation: mutiny and revolution.
Incredible.
Pouting now that your troll thread was deleted?
When you mock me like that (soon you will claim that when you were referring to those to whom public opinion does not matter, you were somehow not referring to me. :roll:)
We have seen your true colors. They include misdirection, poor/misleading/nonexistent sourcing, childish repeat-till-it’s-true argumentation, employing of a second account to agree with you, and encouraging violence and death to your debate opponents.
The real question should be why are YOU still here? Is there no one else with an elementary school education able to remove spam?
You sound like that guy who didn’t get Sanford and Son season 4.
I hope you don’t infect the other threads like this one since they took playground from baby.
New poster, but long time gamer.
In terms of National Objectives, I believe they are too restrictive and create a gaming experience that is heavily scripted.
what I’ve done in the past with other A&A titles and similar grand strategic war games is create a National Morale or Will Track.
For WWI, I would establish a 3 Theater Track - Western Theater, Eastern Theater, and Mediteranean Theater. Each starts at ‘0’ and moves in favor of Entente or Central Powers on a set critera, such as IPC’s gained or lost on a single turn in one of the theaters for example. Then set a prescribed turn to end the game on (say 10 turns). If no one has reached ‘immediate’ victory by gaining a certain number on each of the theater tracks) then the game ends and whichever side is ahead on 2 of the 3 theater tracks wins a conditional victory.
I’ve found that this creates a lot of tension and opens up strategies with many options and many different paths to victory. Obviously some conditions would be considered heavily on the tracks, such as the loss of Paris or Berlin, or the High Seas Fleet controlling the channel. Additionally, the game can be played out in 2 to 2.5 hours a big plus for me.
I’m in favour of a national morale tracker, but to decide when a power collapses into disorder and revolution.
I’ve suggested NOs for fear of the game getting bogged down with the defensive dominating and nobody prepared to launch attacks.
A further development of this is that the NOs actually become the victory conditions. Say you have 9 NOs per side; if at any time one side holds an agreed number of NOs at the end of a turn it wins. I agree this can seem scripted, but the NOs I’ve listed correspond with the actual pre-war goals of the major powers (or could be easily adjusted to do so), so I don’t think this is artificial.
Something else I’ve been thinking about is mandatory attacks. Larry has already fixed an (unhistorical) Austrian invasion of Serbia as mandatory on turn 1. I’m guessing that a German turn 1 attack on Belgium may follow the same pattern. So, in order to keep the meat-grinder turning, and stop everyone turning turtle, perhaps every player turn MUST involve at least one attack with a minimum number of units, or a battle involving a minimum number in total.
The NO’s then would give a VP to players rather than IPC.
That would feed the morale tracker up or down.
And probably each turn a nation would reduce the NM by X
Keeping NO’s raises a nations “resolve” above water
sort of like being in the red or black in business. and each nation with a different starting point ( e.g. a different ‘breaking point’)
Yes, one of the reasons I never really liked NOs is that artificial IPC income. Here it can be points towards victory conditions, and/or moving national morale levels up or down.
Lets work on this using the idea.
Idea: when a nation drops into negative integers it must sue for peace. Each NO you got on your list increases the resolve by one point per turn.
Each turn subtracts one resolve unit
Other events should also trigger ( not unlike a note) the resolve, like US entering the game, or losing a big battle, etc.
What would they be?
Remember KISS, not world in flames chrome rules.
