UK Surrender Event, if they run out of convois

[unmerged(404260)]

Hi,

I tried to defeat UK (as Germany) by cutting of their convoy-routes.

It worked fine and when the number of their convoy-transports was at about 75 they had an event after which they did not recive any more lend-lease-shippments.


In my opinion there should be an event in which UK surrenders if they don't have enough convoy-transports left, as the UK in the late 30s and early 40s was really dependent on oversea-imports.


Or is there an event like that and I'm just missing some conditions for it to fire?

 

[Gort11]

Perhaps it should be a chain of events starting with dissent hits to warn the player of the danger, and escalating until the final event causes surrender. A similar event chain should be made for Japan.

I would also like to see strategic bombing events where if a certain amount of infrastructure is destroyed in a country they start taking dissent hits that may lead to surrender.

 

[unmerged(404260)]

Perhaps it should be a chain of events starting with dissent hits to warn the player of the danger, and escalating until the final event causes surrender. A similar event chain should be made for Japan.

Totally agree with that.


"The only thing that ever frightened me during the war was the U-Boat peril."

Quote of Winston Churchill

If he doesn't know, nobody does...

 

[unmerged(82211)]

+1

 

[lanodaka]

they get a decent ic penalty already....

 

[unmerged(404260)]

they get a decent ic penalty already....

Which does not make them surrender.

In my opinion it should be possible to make GB surrender without an invasion or the use of nukes.

Of course such a surrender event must be really hard to reach, but still it should be possible if GB runs out of convoys...

 

[Gort11]

Which does not make them surrender.

In my opinion it should be possible to make GB surrender without an invasion or the use of nukes.

Of course such a surrender event must be really hard to reach, but still it should be possible if GB runs out of convoys...

Yeah, we're never going to see anyone pursue a historical war of resource starvation and carpet-bombing of cities if there is literally a zero percent chance of it winning them the war.

Of course, if you could knock out the UK in this fashion, people might notice how brutally overpowered submarines are.

 

[unmerged(404260)]

Yeah, we're never going to see anyone pursue a historical war of resource starvation and carpet-bombing of cities if there is literally a zero percent chance of it winning them the war.

Of course, if you could knock out the UK in this fashion, people might notice how brutally overpowered submarines are.

It wouldn't be a problem to change the subs.

But it would be way more realistic if it was possible to defeat GB with a big sub-campaign.

Just read Churchill's quote I postet in this thread at 05-12-2012 20:08.

 

[Limith]

Lost IC increases chance of surrender in some surrender events. Not sure if it is written in UK surrender, but it is a check in many to prevent death spirals of rebels due to AI lacking IC of supplies.

 

[Gort11]

Lost IC increases chance of surrender in some surrender events. Not sure if it is written in UK surrender, but it is a check in many to prevent death spirals of rebels due to AI lacking IC of supplies.

Yeah, but you still need to put troops into the UK's victory point provinces to get to the point of a surrender event. You should be able to defeat the UK and Japan with a sustained strategic bombing campaign, even without nuclear bombs.

 

[Faulty]

I think, rather than outright surrender, strategic bombing and loss of convoys should make nations more susceptible to coup attempts. The wartime governments had the power to cut off information and relocate people at will so there was no chance of popular dissent removing them. That dissent should instead be exploited by unfriendly nations infiltrating the governments.

 

[lanodaka]

Yeah, but you still need to put troops into the UK's victory point provinces to get to the point of a surrender event. You should be able to defeat the UK and Japan with a sustained strategic bombing campaign, even without nuclear bombs.

japan definitly did not surrender with massive bombing, that's where the not 1 but 2 A-bombs come in...

 

[unmerged(404260)]

japan definitly did not surrender with massive bombing, that's where the not 1 but 2 A-bombs come in...

That's right.

But GB is not Japan.


You can also add some more conditions.

I think the status of the USA and the SU should influence the way GB acts.

For the USA there are two options:
1) At war with Germany
2) NOT at war with Germany.

For the SU there are three opions:
1) At war with Germany.
2) NOT at war with Germany and NOT defeatet by Germany
3) Defeated by Germany.

So there are 6 combinations how the relations between Germany and USA/SU can be.

Depending of the current combination it shold be harder or easyer for Germany to force GBs surrender if they run out of convoys.

In the for GB best combination (USA at war with Germany, SU at war with Germany) GB should only surrender if they really have (almost) no transport-ships left.
In the for GB worst combination (USA NOT at war with Germany and SU defeatet by Germany) GB should surrender if the number of their transport-ships falls under a certain number.

In the other combinations the critical nummer of transport-ships should be somewhere in between the best and the worst case...

 

[Gort11]

japan definitly did not surrender with massive bombing, that's where the not 1 but 2 A-bombs come in...

I think they would have surrendered without the nuclear bombs. There's no way their situation was sustainable. They had put out feelers for peace before the first bomb had been dropped.

I think the atomic bombing hastened the surrender, but I think that the surrender was coming anyway.

 

[lanodaka]

I think they would have surrendered without the nuclear bombs. There's no way their situation was sustainable. They had put out feelers for peace before the first bomb had been dropped.

I think the atomic bombing hastened the surrender, but I think that the surrender was coming anyway.

us army sure didnt wanted to do an invasion, fearing death of millions us soldiers

 

[unmerged(82211)]

us army sure didnt wanted to do an invasion, fearing death of millions us soldiers

And Japanese people too. Remember what Japanese civilians did in Okinawa and Saipan.

 

[Beryl]

In the for GB best combination (USA at war with Germany, SU at war with Germany) GB should only surrender if they really have (almost) no transport-ships left.
In the for GB worst combination (USA NOT at war with Germany and SU defeatet by Germany) GB should surrender if the number of their transport-ships falls under a certain number.

In the other combinations the critical nummer of transport-ships should be somewhere in between the best and the worst case...

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
Even without english transports ship, the Allies could have used canadian or US transport ships. The defeat/survival of the Royal navy major units (CV, BB) should also be taken in account.

 

[Gort11]

us army sure didnt wanted to do an invasion, fearing death of millions us soldiers

Thing is, they didn't have to. They could just carpet bomb cities until the surrender came, and there's nothing Japan could've done about it.