British Defeat

Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.

Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software

Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

British Defeat

Post by Capitaine »

What's the rationale for not allowing Britain to be defeated in this game? I can see the Manchester move, but once the main island is fully occupied I feel like they should be officially defeated. Maybe some units raised in Canada but continuing to get MPPs when they don't have their home country is pretty much a reach.

In a game like this I believe countries should be "knocked out of the war" when their home country has been conquered. It assumes quite a lot to do otherwise.
Bronze
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:12 am

RE: British Defeat

Post by Bronze »

You mean like Poland and France in real life?
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: British Defeat

Post by Jim D Burns »

India was a very big part of Britain's economy at this time and fielded a very large army by wars end. No doubt had the home island been conquered Britain would have carried on with its empire holdings as the Netherlands did before Japan took the DEI's. But unlike the Netherlands Britain had some powerful and rich territory outside its home territory.

Jim
dhucul2011
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:32 pm

RE: British Defeat

Post by dhucul2011 »

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

What's the rationale for not allowing Britain to be defeated in this game? I can see the Manchester move, but once the main island is fully occupied I feel like they should be officially defeated. Maybe some units raised in Canada but continuing to get MPPs when they don't have their home country is pretty much a reach.

In a game like this I believe countries should be "knocked out of the war" when their home country has been conquered. It assumes quite a lot to do otherwise.

Sorry but I totally disagree. A "Free Britain" backed by its navy in Canada, the resources of its empire and then also the USA would have still been a strong combatant. It would still have been a "major".
Hartmann
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2000 10:00 am

RE: British Defeat

Post by Hartmann »

I disagree too. Also, "in a game like this" having UK relocate its capital after Sealion is common coin actually, e.g. it was already like that in Clash of Steel.
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: British Defeat

Post by Capitaine »

What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior?
AmbrosioSpinola
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:26 am

RE: British Defeat

Post by AmbrosioSpinola »

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior?

Why are you asking this, Capitaine? Doesn't everybody know that Brits are superior to all other peoples? [;)]
User avatar
IslandInland
Posts: 1136
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:54 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE
Contact:

RE: British Defeat

Post by IslandInland »

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior?

The historical fact of France surrendering and the UK not surrendering would make it appear so. [:D]
War In The East 2 & Steel Inferno Expansion Beta Tester
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester
Strategic Command American Civil War Beta Tester
XXXCorps
1941 Hitler's Dream Scenario for WITE 2
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: British Defeat

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior?

I'll go with....Because they lost. And the UK didn't.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
AmbrosioSpinola
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:26 am

RE: British Defeat

Post by AmbrosioSpinola »

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
ORIGINAL: Capitaine

What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior?

I'll go with....Because they lost. And the UK didn't.

I hope nobody is making jokes here about the French always surrendering and so on, that's an old cliché and very disrespectful... [:-][:D]
User avatar
Hotschi
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:04 pm
Location: Austria

RE: British Defeat

Post by Hotschi »

I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. cannot be "knocked out" either in this game - for the simple reason that it's territory is not completely represented on the map.

The British actually had the plan - or at least WSC had the intention - to fight on in the case of the Home Islands being occupied.
"A big butcher's bill is not necessarily evidence of good tactics"

- Wavell's reply to Churchill, after the latter complained about faint-heartedness, as he discovered that British casualties in the evacuation from Somaliland had been only 260 men.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: British Defeat

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior?
warspite1

When war gaming there are things we know (because they happened) and things that we have to guess at (because they didn’t). Whilst there is, by definition, no certainty of what may have happened for those countries that fall into the latter camp – educated guesses can be made based on historical records for example. In addition, a decision as to what may happen could be taken on the basis of play balance. Or it could be a combination of both of those elements.

So to the first part of your question; as painful as it may be, the fact is Petain (for reasons outside the scope of this post) and his cohorts chose to surrender rather than have France fight on from North Africa. We know this – it happened. It is not contentious therefore in modelling this in a strategic war game.

For Britain and the Commonwealth the situation is different. The United Kingdom was not invaded (much less conquered) and so we don’t know for certain what would have happened if they had. What we do know is that, although a decision to surrender can never be discounted for certain, there were certain features of the British Empire that would make a continuation of the war by the Dominions of the Empire more likely even if the British had been conquered:

- The fact that Churchill was in charge – the author of the speech and the very embodiment of ‘we shall never surrender’. As mentioned above he had already made this point
- The fact that there were Dominions within the Empire – particularly Canada, Australia and New Zealand with a fledging (but soon to grow quickly) industrial base. India, although not a Dominion, managed to raise the largest non-conscript army in history.
- Unlike the populace of British and French colonies, the population of those Dominions still had a strong allegiance in many cases to the ‘mother country’. The strength of these ties was of course not as universal in parts of South Africa or one province of Canada, but it remained strong elsewhere. France had no Dominions. Algeria(?) was perhaps the only thing even remotely close.
- As per real life, the US was handily placed to provide assistance to those Dominions.
- With a large navy there was a good chance that many fighting age men and women in the UK (as well as the Poles, Free French et al) would be able to escape to Canada
- Finally for play balance purposes in a strategic war game it perhaps makes for more reason to continue a game even if the UK is conquered.

'Brits superior'? The British and French positions at the start of WWII were more similar than they were different. They were two imperial powers that, thanks to the ruinous World War I, had lost much of their power and wealth and, thanks to World War II and the emergence of a bi-polar world dominated by the two superpowers of the USA and USSR they were never to recover to their 'former glories'. Combined with this was a rapidly changing world where imperial empires had had their day. As was continuously the case throughout history, the British were better off because they were an island – the French as a land power bordered by Nazi Germany – were in a less enviable position and so had more chance of defeat to the Axis.

So let’s have less of the ‘Brits are superior’ crap please.

Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Goodmongo
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:56 pm

RE: British Defeat

Post by Goodmongo »

The Brits had a superior position to continue resisting.
User avatar
Mantis
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Edmonton, Canada

RE: British Defeat

Post by Mantis »

I don't think that a "full surrender" ala France was even possible. Suppose the UK is completely under Axis control and Churchill orders complete unconditional surrender. Do the Canadians simply mothball the soon-to-be 3rd largest navy in the world, stop producing war materiel* and paint themselves Axis grey on the map when there isn't a wermacht soldier within a thousand miles of our borders?

No, we align ourselves with big brother to the south and, taking a page from Mother England, we keep calm and carry on. The same would hold true for Australia/New Zealand forces.

* The UK had entered the war with 80,000 military vehicles of all types; however, 75,000 of these British vehicles were left behind in the evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940. We made good the losses - Canadian industry produced more than 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 40,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns, and 1,700,000 small arms.

The UK might have surrendered, but the empire would fight on.
Deepstuff3725
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:38 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA

RE: British Defeat

Post by Deepstuff3725 »

I think Russia had a "superior position to continue resisting" as well. A vast country with brutal winters.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: British Defeat

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: AmbrosioSpinola

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
ORIGINAL: Capitaine

What is the basis for France surrendering, and not Britain? The dubious assertion that Brits are superior?

I'll go with....Because they lost. And the UK didn't.

I hope nobody is making jokes here about the French always surrendering and so on, that's an old cliché and very disrespectful... [:-][:D]

Hey.I'm a big fan of Napoleon :)
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: British Defeat

Post by Aurelian »

double....grrrrr
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: British Defeat

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: AmbrosioSpinola

ORIGINAL: Aurelian



I'll go with....Because they lost. And the UK didn't.

I hope nobody is making jokes here about the French always surrendering and so on, that's an old cliché and very disrespectful... [:-][:D]

Hey.I'm a big fan of Napoleon :)
warspite1

Didn't he surrender too [:D]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
sveint
Posts: 3773
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Glorious Europe

RE: British Defeat

Post by sveint »

This must be the worst thread I've read on Matrix Games.
vaalen
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: British Defeat

Post by vaalen »

I have great respect for France, French culture, and the French people. And I am an American. This was the second time France was conquered by Germany, twice within a seventy year period.They did not lose for lack of courage, not in either war. They were overwhelmed by superior numbers, superior military technology,superior enemy leadership, and by being prepared to fight the last war instead of the blitzkrieg. They did not have a chance. The nations who make fun of France and French courage were never conquered by the Germans, and have no idea what it was like. They are in no place to judge.

I should point out that the Free French never surrendered, and fought with superb courage until their homeland was liberated, and beyond. My uncle, who fought in North Africa, was assigned for a time as a liason officer to some Free French units that fought the Africa Korps. He told me stories of their courage and ingenuity,how units that got cut off would simply refused to surrender, fighting to the last man or holding on until they were relieved. He had nothing but respect for them.

Nobody knows what Britain would have done had the home island been conquered. No one has conquered Britain since the Norman conquest, thanks to geography and the royal navy. Maybe they would have fought on under the inspiring leadership of Churchill, from other parts of the empire, maybe not. I think the game takes a believable position, as there were many reasons why it would have been more viable for Britain to continue the war from its empire, as have been described above.
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”