@Vlad_Dracul1989: You you have any academically essay or text that will support your theory? We had to think of different situations when we have to talk about the capitulation of a "big nation". First of all it should be a challenge to defeat this nation. AI vs Human is already a problematic game because the human player is much better compared to the capabilities of the AI. So the AI need time and space to react. A fighting english AI is out of my view much better then a capitulation after a successful landing. And by the way; I think the british people would have fought for their homeland. An other aspect is the "magic of numbers": You think that the number of casualties should be taken into the capitulation event. Out of my view such an idea is a problem because create loses in manpower is an easy way because manpower is calculated different for the AI. The AI has more manpower to compensate loses. The AI didnt know how to fight a retreating war. The AI can only attack, attack and attack. Im comparison with the history numbers of casulties will always be different and no indicator for a capitulation in TRP. And the last point we have to think about is the scenario of a multiplayer game; human vs human. We try to organise a mp group with each new version. You cant image the different ingame situation in a mp game. So all events of structures for a capitulation need always this "human" aspect too. Events have to guarantee an fair and balanced multiplayer game. All this stuff - and even more - had to be taken into our calculation when we have to make or rework capitulation events.
Lord Rommel, TRP-Dev.
Well, I can hardly offer anything but many 'what if' scenarios, be it tv documents, essays or whole books of contrafactual history. I can totally recommend 'It Happened Here' movie from 1965. It's about fascist Britain as german puppet state. It was funny how Britich were enraged by depiction, how generally 'fine' they would be with New Order. Truth is, that Germans would be hardly so harsh in England compared to Poland, Yugoslavia or Greece, be it during warfare or after surrender. Actually, if British land army would disintegrated soon (not seeing British having guts to make London a Leningrad), British could expect very lenient occupation (for German standards).
From more detailed sources, 'If Britain Had Fallen' from Norman Longmate is very known source too. Essays are mostly from officers in military academies about Operation Sealion itself.
But what I saw in many years, is general assumption, that if Wehrmacht actually, succesfully landed on island, actually marched to London and both RN and RAF would be crippled, there is nothing which would prevent surrender.
Because, as I said, British never really thought that Germans would be able to land there, with more than questionable capability of Wehrmacht to cross Channel and still untouched Royal Navy. RAF's losses were actually not so important as visible German disadvantages. That's not only my opinion, literally in every military essays it's mentioned (for example
'Operation Sea Lion: A Joint Critical Analysis', Lt Col Randy McCanne,Ltc Greg D. Olson Olson,Cdr Dario E. Teicher). That's the reason why they could afford to boast 'never surrender'.
Yes, island nation with BBs and CVs (which enemy doesn't have) and modern air force, for many centuries not seeing succesful foreign invasion, could more than afford to 'resist'.
But I seriously doubt that Churchill would offer same tough words, if U-Boats destroyed in first months 50% of whole Royal Navy, 90% of battleships and carriers and British/Commonwealth losses during French surrender would be already million dead, wounded and captured.
Anyway, I conquered both France and Britain in 1940 despite everything. It just looked ridiculous, that British offered ridiculously great and stubborn resistance like some pocket-USSR-like state or better to say, like oversized Switzerland.
