Refusing Brest-Litovsk? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I


mdsmall -> Refusing Brest-Litovsk? (3/18/2021 8:42:51 PM)

Has anyone playing the Central Powers chosen to refuse the offer from the Bolshevik regime in Russia to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? I would be interested to know what happens if the CP side decides to fight on and forces Russia to surrender in the usual way. Do the Central Powers get any significant economic, territorial advantages or national morale benefits for choosing that to end the war with Russia that way, compared to signing the treaty and having Russian withdraw?

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Refusing Brest-Litovsk? (3/19/2021 12:06:09 AM)

I had it done to me once...and my opponent complained it was sub-optimal for him. He had never did that before, and was pissed that Germany didn't get the Baltic States at least. I never did that...I always have choose Brest-litovsk Treaty when playing CP and managed to get into that situation with Russia. So, I am not sure if its better or not...but it seems to me at least that choosing the Brestlitovsk Treaty hastens Russia's end. Still, it would be nice to hear from anyone else their experience not doing the treaty and pursue a total conquest of Russia.

One time...and this was cool as heck, I managed to get Russia to break up when they surrendered soon after Lenin took control. So, the Trans-Caucasian Republic was formed with the rest of the successor states, and I managed to take Baku with the Ottomans. This was a boon! I had all these units that had to walk all the way back to the rail heads or Mesopotamia..but when I saw that prize, I wardec'd this state and moved east with the bulk of the Ottomans. I can't remember for sure, but I believe it took about 4 or 5 turns to accomplish it due to weather, supply, and terrain.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Refusing Brest-Litovsk? (3/19/2021 6:38:07 AM)


ORIGINAL: mdsmall

Has anyone playing the Central Powers chosen to refuse the offer from the Bolshevik regime in Russia to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? I would be interested to know what happens if the CP side decides to fight on and forces Russia to surrender in the usual way. Do the Central Powers get any significant economic, territorial advantages or national morale benefits for choosing that to end the war with Russia that way, compared to signing the treaty and having Russian withdraw?

I do remember something else about that match, which was done in March 2020 on.. My opponent went for a total conquest of Russia instead of the Brestlitovsk Treaty because he wanted the Plunder MPP's. He said he did that because he wanted to finance his assault on the West by using the money for the mobility research he had was around late 1916.

If you force Russia out of the war..with the Brestlitovsk Treaty...the CP (Germany) doesn't get plunder because it doesn't officially 'surrender'.The Germans do get a modest stream of MMP's from Ukraine though, as long as a sufficient amount of units are left around Warsaw as 'garrison guards' to ensure order and the wheat from there.

He still complained about lack of territorial changes..jokingly I think.

When he showed up with some of his eastern troops...they, and a lot of his other forces had the mobility upgrade. He gained an AP with these corps, which became decisive when the truly titantic battles begun from The Netherlands to the Swiss border...and in Italy. He even railed German and Bulgarian mobile Infantry down to Palestine...and saved the Ottomans there.

On the western front, this upgrade meant he could rinse and repeat his Infantry without shift/switching a lot...which means he kept his readiness higher. Also, he was able to pull badly damaged units off the line that otherwise would of been prone to counter attack.

Anyway...all that was the result of his total conquest of Russia...and that was accomplished with the first units I ever saw that had the mobility upgrade...a truly expensive upgrade to do for an entire Army.

What the amount of the plunder was for conquering Russia, I don't know and forgot to ask. Maybe someone else knows.

mdsmall -> RE: Refusing Brest-Litovsk? (3/19/2021 6:43:14 AM)

Also, if Russia withdraws following Brest-Litovsk, my guess is that the other Entente powers will not suffer the NM penalties that would happen following a surrender by Russia. I'm not sure what the NM benefits are to the Central Powers if Russia surrenders.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Refusing Brest-Litovsk? (3/19/2021 7:01:08 AM)

I remember UK and France got NM hits in that match when Russia 'surrendered...and I had another whammy with France because I wardec'd The Netherlands earlier in the war to get him off Russia. The good that did was eliminating the 60 MMP's that Germany got and getting Maastricht Fortress. After that, I was stopped cold and couldn't get any meaningful NM boosts except killing some land units and a few straggler subs.

This was a year ago..but I have notes for all my matches and tests to learn stuff or borrow what my opponents have taught me. Old habits haha.

hottegetthoff -> RE: Refusing Brest-Litovsk? (3/19/2021 2:01:50 PM)

If CPs refuse, they need to finish off russia once more. The best way to do it is to rush Sankt Petersburg, with navy and army. If you capitulate them a second time, you will ocuppy all of russia, get a ludicous amount of plunder, for a cost of about 7 required detachments. If you do it and the entente hasnt destroyed anybody, its a game over, since your economy, even without industrialization research is massive.

Espejo -> RE: Refusing Brest-Litovsk? (3/19/2021 2:36:09 PM)

on the other hand you have to march to Moscow and Sankt Petersburg as far a s I remember and the Bolschevik disertions in the CP army are a real pain.

AS you are racing usally against the clkock against a human player I think its more a luxury postion if you can pursue a total annexion of Rusia

Bavre -> RE: Refusing Brest-Litovsk? (3/20/2021 4:40:59 PM)

I refused the treaty once in a game vs AI in an older version. Russian NM ran out before I reached Moscow+Petrograd, so I received nothing for the extra effort (Majors don't give plunder if they surrender due to 0 NM) and territory gain also seemed the same. Been accepting the treaty ever since.

Dazo -> RE: Refusing Brest-Litovsk? (3/22/2021 1:44:41 AM)

Accepting allows CP to redeploy lots of experienced units wherever they want but you'll lose NM and MPPs from all conquered russian locations so you'll be on a timer to achieve victory on other fronts. Those NM locations usually help to offset the NM hit from naval blockade for Germany and can also help with AH NM.
The other point is you may want the treaty if Russians have been doing well in the Caucasus vs OE since this can drain OE NM pretty quickly.

I think the only good reasons to refuse would be:
1) if you're already close to russian capital
2) if you're in bad NM shape and need to squeeze evrything you can from Russia
3) if you're already doing well on other fronts and don't need more units (unlikely :p)

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Refusing Brest-Litovsk? (3/22/2021 5:01:16 AM)

The one time I experienced an opponent refusing Brest-litovsk Treaty I cited above was a strange situation for me. He had made a huge push past Minsk and Riga and took Smolensk...but I had a huge army south of the Pripyats..and owned all the Austro-Hungarian NM towns, and was deep into Hungary and Anatolia. They though, were pinned holding that front down..even though I managed to peel a few off and operate them up in from of the rushing Germans.

Russia's NM didn't seem to go down when he made the choice..and he told me he was going to do it on top of that! But what he had was German Inf with the mobility upgrade plus cavalry...and I couldn't operate anything out of Anatolia and Hungary because of lack of railroads. I got totally out maneuvered. On top of that..he just rolled over new replacement corps as they tried to block..I had no Hqs up there and my units morale and readiness were way low.

It must of been a race between Russia surrendering because of 0 NM and taking Moscow and St. Petersburg, in his mind, because Russia's NM was like 4 or 5 % as I remember.

Still...this was an expert player, and it was a year ago last Feb-March 2020. I wasn't screen shooting turns back then, and was still learning the ropes..but it did happen. Never seen anything like that again :)

In retrospect..I still wouldn't recommend not excepting Brest-litovsk Treaty. What happened to me must of been an anomaly of the norm.

mdsmall -> RE: Refusing Brest-Litovsk? (3/28/2021 6:46:21 PM)

I just completed a game against the AI to test out an East-first opening for the Central Powers. That worked very successfully: the Bolsheviks seized power in late September 1915 and offered to withdraw Russia from the war. So, I decided to test out what would happen if I declined to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Russian national morale immediately rose from 8% to 39% with the infusion of 15,000 NM points. But the Central Powers still had a huge advantage in manpower, generalship and unit morale advantage over the Russians. So, I pressed forward towards Moscow and Petrograd. The going was slower going than before because the vast spaces in Russia made it harder to bring my artillery to bear on Russian corps entrenched in towns along the way. But I offset the reduced tempo of land combat by sending the German fleet into the Gulf of Finland to slaughter the Russian navy, which had been kicked out of all the ports in now independent Finland.

By early 1916, I was beginning to doubt the wisdom of this strategy as successive waves of defections struck the Central Powers units in Russia, due to Bolshevik agitation. It must have happened at least three times and affected 10-15 units each time, each losing 1-2 strength points. Nevertheless, I was able to capture Moscow and then was just able to capture Petrograd, just before Russia surrendered due to their national morale dropping to zero.

It was like winning the jackpot in a casino. The Germans plundered an eye-popping 2650 MPPs from Russia. Plus their economy shot up from generating 700 MPPs per turn to about 1150 per turn. There were no break-away republics - all of Russia became CP territory. And while the usual Bolshevik agitation decision-events continued to slightly affect German and Austro-Hungarian national morale for the rest of the game, the defections from the CP armies stopped. Plus the UK, France and Italy all took a bit hit to their national morale.

I used this colossal windfall to build every capital ship that Germany could purchase (5 dreadnoughts and 3 battle cruisers) and used them to completely destroy the Royal Navy the following year. With the German economy producing 1150 MPPs a turn, the research engine could run at maximum capacity every turn in all three Central Powers. It was as if the MPP cost of any move ceased to be constraint on decision-making.

It must be said that I was playing against the AI on the intermediate setting, so I could afford to take the 10 extra turns to completely defeat Russia without worrying about a destabilizing counter-attack from the Entente. A human opponent would have found ways of making me regret not having the units tied up in Russia available to shore up other fronts. But based on this experience, the pay-off for refusing Brest-Litovsk is so huge I would certainly consider trying it in a MP game. I will be interested to hear if anyone else experiments with this option.

Page: [1]

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI