The fate of UK and a soon end of War.

[Vlad123]

i Think the if the mediterrean are conquered by Italy (i not want start a discussion of italy can or no with their thing succeflus do it...but i think yes, because untile arrive Matilda tank, the italian CV can competitive angaist the other british tank...) the British surrender because: Lost malta, Lost the Vital Suez and Gibilterra for them are a hard hit and are very soon a landing on UK (if Italian fleet can out the mediterrean they can help the german fleet with the landing). After this appear the British Can accept a Peace (or Germany/Italy can propose).
-Reintegration of Luxemburg,danzic,poznan and Alsaze lorraine for Germany + War reparation.
-Tunisia,French and British somalia,malta and corsica + Saovy To italy. Egypt indipendent(pro italian) . War reparation.
-The French are liberated (but guided by Petain).
-Help angaist Soviet.
-UK gain a modifier can increse fascist.
If the British refuse, they have a drop of WS and stability and if one troops landing to UK they have 1 month to kick out of the island, or if before london are captured. the british surrender. With these terms:
The upper things plus:
British German, or italian puppet (depedend who have the control of london or have mor controlled land in UK)
Egypt italian puppet
-Middle est pro-axis.
-India indipendent pro axis(today they consider Hitler and Mussolini a Heros because have weakened the british empire)
-Canada,Australia,NZL can choose to remain to british or declare indipendence (if declare UK have a puppet Wargoal, or a decision like the uprising for the british Neutral/fascist branch)
-Malesya become a Japanese puppet.
USA gain a modifier: "AXIS VICTORY" can demage their WS and stability and increse fascist support.
Japan gain: Axis victory but increse their WS and Stability. Disallow them to declare war to USA, Allow them to declare war to URSS.
URSS: gain a negative Axis victory can slowvy decrese their WS and Stability and surrender limit.

 

[Treviranus]

This could be part of an event linked to the historical initiative by Lord Halifax.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

This should be part of the Italy DLC (when it is made).

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

Mechanics for a negotiated peace are fair to discuss, but the specific scenario you mention makes very little sense.

1) Even if we accept the premise of Italian armoured superiority (a pretty big stretch imho) the Italians still have massive supply problems and are unlikely to have been able to force the choke point at El Alemain. Although obviously history can unfold differently in any particular game so I digress.

2) Losing the Entire Mediterranean is not "vital" for the UK. It would have been a tough blow sure, but wouldn't have knocked them out of the war or even cut communication with India (would just have to use the Cape route which was seeing more use anyways for safer shipping lanes). The British heartland, industry, navy, airforce, and military would all be intact. They could continue fighting the Italians in Iraq and Sudan. Certainly not much reason to sue for peace, especially when Churchill is leader and/or US support is still on the table.

3) Italian fleet getting out of the Mediterranean would be a big pain for Allied convoy lanes but hardly threatens the Royal Navy in open battle or any credible invasion of Britain.

4) A lot of these demands suggested are very specific to a situation with historical sides/factions (Germany and Italy fascist and allied, UK and France democratic and allied, USA not in the war, Germany and Italy friendly to Japan, etc.)

5) Negotiated peace means relinquishing some of your gains, and won't usually be accepted if you are demanding everything you have and more unless the enemy is very desperate (unlikely)

6) Even if the British for whatever reason countenance such a peace, in what universe would they turn around and support the Germans establishing absolute continental hegemony against the Russians. If anything, after a brief "Amiens"-style peace like in the French Revolutionary Wars, they are going to turn around and either heavily support Russia and/or start the war up again to reverse losses once the Axis are so ocupied.

7) Why should refusing such ridiculous terms greatly hurt British war support, stability, or surrender threshold? Maybe if the Germans were to really pare down their demands (no demands on British Empire, Low countries freed, minimal annexations from France, and old German colonies, then maybe, but even that is a stretch).

8) If the Axis can't push the British out of Britain after Sealion (ie it is stalemated or they are losing) then why would Britain surrender, let alone under such harsh terms?

9) Why would Japan get anything out of such a victory? Maybe taking the opportunity to move in to occupy the region, but they didn't do so for the Dutch East Indies, so even that is debatable.

10) Why would either the UK or USA see an increase in fascist support? If anything you might see the opposite. Even if you could argue it might embolden fascist sympathizers a bit, what it should really do is kick American rearmament efforts into overdrive.

11) Why would a UK which is so defeatist as to give in to the Axis have any reason to consider uprisings/wars against the dominions?

12) Why would the Soviet surrender limit and war support be lower? Even if the British are for some crazy reason helping the Germans, if the Germans can't successfully push the Soviets out of their main cities, Stalin isn't even going to be contemplating throwing in the towel.

 

[Vlad123]

Mechanics for a negotiated peace are fair to discuss, but the specific scenario you mention makes very little sense.

1) Even if we accept the premise of Italian armoured superiority (a pretty big stretch imho) the Italians still have massive supply problems and are unlikely to have been able to force the choke point at El Alemain. Although obviously history can unfold differently in any particular game so I digress.

2) Losing the Entire Mediterranean is not "vital" for the UK. It would have been a tough blow sure, but wouldn't have knocked them out of the war or even cut communication with India (would just have to use the Cape route which was seeing more use anyways for safer shipping lanes). The British heartland, industry, navy, airforce, and military would all be intact. They could continue fighting the Italians in Iraq and Sudan. Certainly not much reason to sue for peace, especially when Churchill is leader and/or US support is still on the table.

3) Italian fleet getting out of the Mediterranean would be a big pain for Allied convoy lanes but hardly threatens the Royal Navy in open battle or any credible invasion of Britain.

4) A lot of these demands suggested are very specific to a situation with historical sides/factions (Germany and Italy fascist and allied, UK and France democratic and allied, USA not in the war, Germany and Italy friendly to Japan, etc.)

5) Negotiated peace means relinquishing some of your gains, and won't usually be accepted if you are demanding everything you have and more unless the enemy is very desperate (unlikely)

6) Even if the British for whatever reason countenance such a peace, in what universe would they turn around and support the Germans establishing absolute continental hegemony against the Russians. If anything, after a brief "Amiens"-style peace like in the French Revolutionary Wars, they are going to turn around and either heavily support Russia and/or start the war up again to reverse losses once the Axis are so ocupied.

7) Why should refusing such ridiculous terms greatly hurt British war support, stability, or surrender threshold? Maybe if the Germans were to really pare down their demands (no demands on British Empire, Low countries freed, minimal annexations from France, and old German colonies, then maybe, but even that is a stretch).

8) If the Axis can't push the British out of Britain after Sealion (ie it is stalemated or they are losing) then why would Britain surrender, let alone under such harsh terms?

9) Why would Japan get anything out of such a victory? Maybe taking the opportunity to move in to occupy the region, but they didn't do so for the Dutch East Indies, so even that is debatable.

10) Why would either the UK or USA see an increase in fascist support? If anything you might see the opposite. Even if you could argue it might embolden fascist sympathizers a bit, what it should really do is kick American rearmament efforts into overdrive.

11) Why would a UK which is so defeatist as to give in to the Axis have any reason to consider uprisings/wars against the dominions?

12) Why would the Soviet surrender limit and war support be lower? Even if the British are for some crazy reason helping the Germans, if the Germans can't successfully push the Soviets out of their main cities, Stalin isn't even going to be contemplating throwing in the towel.

1) no discussion.
2 pass around africa make more longer the transfer of resource(and maybay difficult). USA enter at the end of 41, if this appear they not surrender, and if capitulate become a exile government(Free UK/Mosley British Focus three?). But if UK are Alone they are Alone angaist the Axis. The People want the pace (Poland disappear, French capitulated, the stronghold in mediterrean are lost, suez lost, the Asian colony are in danger...
3 Doniz say can they need more sub, if they have italian sub, +normal navy can raid the convoy become more harsh.
4) I know but this "peace deal" are for a Hystoric game with axis prevail before US intervention.
5) the negotied pace are the first, a "sweet peace" lost territorial lose (rapported to the whole empire).
6) Because The anticommunism are very strong, and the all country not recognize the URSS (seriusly!) and until french invasion in the "high room" of all europe the think are "All angaist commie! Incluse italian and German". And Hitler, much time have tried to make peace with UK and much British Historian say "Hitler have dominated in europe, but The british have manteined the empire" (may bay less bigger but remain).
7) Because refuse a very favorable peace deal angers the pubblic opinion and soldiers (in EU4 if you refuse a favorable pace deal you lost stability).
8) Use the psicology (this unknowed) the British NEVER invaded until the Middle age...lost egypt,all axis fleet raid the convoy, more bombing in UK,The Middle Est in revolt (YES, becuse they wait the Italian like liberator! Strange to read, but yes!) AND ENEMY HAS LANDED and cannot are kicked out soon or have captured the capital...if you are a country cannot are invaded in their home territory...is a shock. Funny note: after the "dunkirk miracle" the Troops are sacked the museum for take the weapon because they not have weapon for all soldier!
9) With the Axis absolute victory, the Japan can occupy/receive this in name of their "liberation from the west/white man" the retoric of of mutual co-prospherity sphere...
10) A thing called "Wave"...this simulate the "wave of enthusiam" of all Pro-fascist/pro-nazist party in alla democracy country. The fascist in UK can accuse Churchill of not have accepted the favorable deal proposed by Hitler...(is very reminiscent of Hitler's betrayal for become elected,accusing the jew, the monarchist, the democracy etc...)
11) The land lease pass from nord and the UK make leand lease for URSS(i not know the number preciselly but a dimension good) at start. The british and Axis fleet sink much convoy of USA leand lease, and MUCH THING NOT ARRIVE! The USA not sended only weapon, trucks and thanks, but Prebuilded industry, Air fuel (fuel can the URSS not produce), normal fuel...with outh these the urss DIE! And for the Nazi without nothing can bomb their industry, withouth other front they can send all troops angaist invading the URSS are MORE EASY! The urss he was a giant with clay feet ... the USA only protected these legs with their LL, without the LL they would have lost
3

 

[Ketchup & friends]

While the Details may vary (and should depend on who exactly they are fighting) some kind of peace deal for UK if they are clearly losing is neccesary.

 

[Vlad123]

While the Details may vary (and should depend on who exactly they are fighting) some kind of peace deal for UK if they are clearly losing is neccesary.

Yes i prefer do a dettalied suggestion than a generic suggestion

 

[Happy Trigger]

After reading these ideas, i noticed that all of that could be addressed with a better system of War Support and Stability. Both should be affected by political (focuses and diplomacy) and war (bombing, raiding, etc) actions. They shouldn't be fixed bonuses, but fluctuate throught the game. Then, at the peace conference, you'd make claims in acordance with your WS and Stability.

High WS and Stability = Annex a country completely;
High WS and Low Stability = Claims and Puppet;
Low WS and High Stability = Only Core Claims (if you have any), and Liberation. Increased acceptance of peace deals.

Would be interesting, if your Ministers, Staff, and Economy had a impact too. Like, you're playing with UK and you choose Bomber Harris, should appear a event of him asking to start a strategic bombing campaign over Germany. If you accept the suggestion of Harris, you gain WS, but lost stability.

Or, if you're playing with Germany and you choose Himmler, and start expand the SS, Hitler would gain the paranoid "perk", where you would gain and lose WS and Stability at the same quantity over the time. Stalin would has the same perk at the start of the game, but would lose it if USSR won against Germany.

 

[Vlad123]

After reading these ideas, i noticed that all of that could be addressed with a better system of War Support and Stability. Both should be affected by political (focuses and diplomacy) and war (bombing, raiding, etc) actions. They shouldn't be fixed bonuses, but fluctuate throught the game. Then, at the peace conference, you'd make claims in acordance with your WS and Stability.

High WS and Stability = Annex a country completely;
High WS and Low Stability = Claims and Puppet;
Low WS and High Stability = Only Core Claims (if you have any), and Liberation. Increased acceptance of peace deals.

Would be interesting, if your Ministers, Staff, and Economy had a impact too. Like, you're playing with UK and you choose Bomber Harris, should appear a event of him asking to start a strategic bombing campaign over Germany. If you accept the suggestion of Harris, you gain WS, but lost stability.

Or, if you're playing with Germany and you choose Himmler, and start expand the SS, Hitler would gain the paranoid "perk", where you would gain and lose WS and Stability at the same quantity over the time. Stalin would has the same perk at the start of the game, but would lose it if USSR won against Germany.

And if exist a diplomacy in the game not only win or lose (like ck2)