Unit Capture and surrender

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Unit Capture and surrender

      Two main suggestions:

      1) I think what should happen is that each army should have a modifier linked to their morale, if it gets low there is a chance that the army will defect to the closest nation you are currently at war with. meaning that you will lose some or all of the army.

      2) Linked to morale, armies need to also be able to surrender. For example, if someone is attacking an army significantly more powerful the unit may surrender rather than fight (similar to the defection suggestion) where they are absorbed but with lower morale than otherwise into the attacking force. In the event of a nation that has been completely taken over by one nation outstanding naval units should automatically surrender to the attacking nation once there are no more provinces left for that nation. If the nation is taken by multiple nations then surrendering units should be divided based on the percentage of territory each nation captured (two nations each take 50% of a country, then each attacker gets 50% of the surrendered units).
    • As argued elsewhere, nationalistic sentiments were strong in this period and it is unlikely that entire armies would just go over to the other side. For example, General Vlasov (a disappointed Soviet general defacting to the Germans) never managed to get a significant army together to fight for the Axis cause, despite being able to draw from a huge pool of severely abused prisoners of war.

      Surrendering troops could be in the game; after all, surrounded troops surrendered in the millions during the war (Barbarossa pockets, Stalingrad, Tunis, to name just a few). In game terms, they would just disappear though. It shouldn't be automatic though; plenty of examples of troops fighting on as well (Dunkirk, Courland, Falaise, Berlin).

      Fleets are a different matter; the fleets of defeated nations were always a subject of concern for (former) friends and foes of that nation... the Royal Navy attacking the French battle fleet after their surrender in 1940 is infamous, and the Italian navy was top-of-mind during the 1943 surrender crisis as well. So yes, a situation where fleets would "turn" is imaginable.
      Everybody has a right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege. - Josef Stalin.
    • I don't disagree with your comments about nationalistic sentiments, that said, I also feel like there should be some impacts.

      As you pointed out, many nations did surrender rather than being completely wiped out and fighting to the last man. But in the game in order to take a nation you are forced to fight every single army unit until in every province. There should be some mechanics where armies face attrition the closer that their home nation is to defeat, and that nations will potentially surrender if they are facing a situation where they are vastly outnumbered and being overrun.

      It could be balanced by requiring garrisoning of troops still in surrendered territories but I dont see why nations dont/wont surrender even when it is clear they will be wiped out because if you are going for some semblance of historical accuracy they did.
    • Think differently ;) : CoW is not a simulation but a strategic board game, and an important part of a successful strategy at CoW is the balanced use of the available resources.

      A surrender option for troops would be a disaster for all players who have built up an optimal ratio of their armies to their resource income.

      With every opposing army which surrenders, and which, in most cases, the new owner probably not want to have or need anyway, his ratio will unfavorable postponed and that, sooner or later, will lead to an economic fiasco.

      Worst case: the provinces can no longer be supplied and rebel in large numbers - defeat due to superiority.. :shit:
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Browsergames sind eine geniale, mehr oder weniger geschickt als Spielattrappe getarnte Geschäftsidee zum Kohleziehen :!:
      Also Vorsicht, es können überall Fußangeln, Stolperdrähte und Selbstschussanlagen lauern :00000156:
      Achtung!
      Texte oberhalb dieser Signatur können Spuren von Ironie enthalten ;)
    • See and I think that it actually increases the challenge level.

      Then it is not just about building an economy and army that are optimally balanced, its about pacing your battles and warfare so that you dont end up losing by getting too big too fast.

      You would need to be more aware of your provinces, more aware of your armies and would need to be concerned about the impacts of your invasions.

      Also, a unique option could be to allow people to select "no prisoners" which would mean they do not accept surrender of the armies they are going against but rather will kill surrendering units. This could have a negative impact on morale (which would be realistic at least) but would also not screw the balance of their armies.
    • fidget11 wrote:

      ...
      Also, a unique option could be to allow people to select "no prisoners" which would mean they do not accept surrender of the armies they are going against but rather will kill surrendering units. This could have a negative impact on morale (which would be realistic at least) but would also not screw the balance of their armies.
      Very nice - so when I already have an optimal army I have to accept a moral malus for every won battle. ^^

      But without joking, here another point:
      What would happen in a case, where I exposed units specifically to annihilation to cover other actions? Could I prohibit units from giving up?
      If not, I'm altogether oppose a surrender option, if so, the surrender option would be pointless anyway.
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Browsergames sind eine geniale, mehr oder weniger geschickt als Spielattrappe getarnte Geschäftsidee zum Kohleziehen :!:
      Also Vorsicht, es können überall Fußangeln, Stolperdrähte und Selbstschussanlagen lauern :00000156:
      Achtung!
      Texte oberhalb dieser Signatur können Spuren von Ironie enthalten ;)
    • Restrisiko wrote:

      fidget11 wrote:

      ...
      Also, a unique option could be to allow people to select "no prisoners" which would mean they do not accept surrender of the armies they are going against but rather will kill surrendering units. This could have a negative impact on morale (which would be realistic at least) but would also not screw the balance of their armies.
      Very nice - so when I already have an optimal army I have to accept a moral malus for every won battle. ^^
      But without joking, here another point:
      What would happen in a case, where I exposed units specifically to annihilation to cover other actions? Could I prohibit units from giving up?
      If not, I'm altogether oppose a surrender option, if so, the surrender option would be pointless anyway.


      No when you have an optimal army, you win the battles, but if you are devastating an opponent then you can either choose to accept their surrender, in which case you may gain a few units (weakened or not), but that will impact your army makeup. Alternatively, you can choose to not accept surrenders but that will mean that you suffer a slight hit in your morale of that army.

      It is a challenge, it forces you to be mindful of what you are doing with your troops and where you are invading. It can be a bonus to you if you plan well or it can hurt you if you are not careful. The idea is that it will make things more challenging than just mindlessly throwing units at someone.

      You can still win battles the old fashioned way, and if people are given an option to set "no surrender" on their troops they will fight to the death but that can be modified so that as the nation is taken over the remaining armies lose strength in relation to the remaining provinces. So a no surrender will still mean that your troops fight to the last man but are less effective if your nation is down to its last province. Again this is reflective of a more real world scenario.

      In the event of that you could have an army that takes no prisoners up against an army that will not surrender, just like it is now. Or alternatively, you can have an army that takes prisoners up against an army and nation that will capitulate and any other combo you can think of. Each scenario will play out slightly differently but will have an impact on the outcome or the game and will increase the challenge level involved. It means that superpowers need to work to maintain their status not just throw together a huge army and grab territory fast through a blitz. Now you will need to consider how your troops are going to manage the challenges and the enemy. It also may mean that you can finish off a nation faster without having to spend days driving your forces to a far off edge of the map territory where there is one province left because they have no chance of realistically fighting back against you anyway.
    • So we do not misunderstand each other, of course I know, that to surrender is a completely realistic option, and an army that does so will do it for itself, for its nation it will have no advantages but rather will weaken the nations morale.

      Sometimes, when you open a map, you read Stalin's order "Not one step back!".
      Here in the game everyone is his own Stalin, the troops are only game pieces without their own interests, thus a surrender option of own troops will always be no option for the Stalins of affected nations.

      All what goes beyond that is too much indirect ancillary calculation, remember, we don't play a simulation.

      As described, for the superior of a battle, it might even be unfavorable and a not desirable option.
      What I suspect further is, if a weaker army so or so gives up (could give up) when a particular morale or constitution is reached, which should have to be similar in a browsergame for all battles, depending the balance of forces in each battles; also all that what follows from it.. - ..but in the end it would be comparatively so that some randomly chosen opponents would have to be defeated instead of 100% only to eg 80%, so it's at least more gambling as strategy then.
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Browsergames sind eine geniale, mehr oder weniger geschickt als Spielattrappe getarnte Geschäftsidee zum Kohleziehen :!:
      Also Vorsicht, es können überall Fußangeln, Stolperdrähte und Selbstschussanlagen lauern :00000156:
      Achtung!
      Texte oberhalb dieser Signatur können Spuren von Ironie enthalten ;)
    • Restrikio, To comment on what you said earlier:

      Restrisiko wrote:

      What would happen in a case, where I exposed units specifically to annihilation to cover other actions? Could I prohibit units from giving up?
      If not, I'm altogether oppose a surrender option, if so, the surrender option would be pointless anyway.

      Those units you send out to be annihilated would just simply surrender to the other side instead of dying for no reason. I'd expect them to do that, after all, they don't want to die for no reason. That way you'd have to actually think when you play CoW, not just build up large armies and utterly destroy everything, while you have small forces going up against other things. That'd also help your cause; 5 HTs, 4 MTs, 7 LTs, plus whatever vs 2 Militia, 1 AC, and 1 Infantry, the OPFOR would surrender to you because they'd be obliterated. (I also think that large stacks of units should have a buff added to them, meaning if a unit is too large they start to loose combat effectiveness)
      "The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some ******** in the world that just need to be shot." - General Mattis (USMC)


      The post was edited 1 time, last by JCS Darragh ().

    • Restrisiko wrote:

      If not, I'm altogether oppose a surrender option, if so, the surrender option would be pointless anyway.
      @JCS Darragh & @fidget11: This is a war game. It is an abstraction and simplification of the reality of war, industry and diplomacy. A war game is won by eliminating your enemies and their armies and occupying their territory -- and, in this case, by accumulating the required number of victory points based on the variable points assigned to capitals, major urban areas and other strategic territories.

      If you want to surrender, you may already (a) give up and leave the game, or (b) offer to negotiate the terms of a surrender at any time, in any game, with any enemy. Your enemy, however, is not obligated to accept your offer of surrender nor negotiate with you, and if he prefers to annihilate your armies and occupy all of your territories, he may do so. No special software or programming function is required to surrender or negotiate with other players, but some skills in communication and negotiation are always helpful.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • JCS Darragh wrote:

      Restrikio, To comment on what you said earlier:

      Restrisiko wrote:

      What would happen in a case, where I exposed units specifically to annihilation to cover other actions? Could I prohibit units from giving up?
      If not, I'm altogether oppose a surrender option, if so, the surrender option would be pointless anyway.
      Those units you send out to be annihilated would just simply surrender to the other side instead of dying for no reason. I'd expect them to do that, after all, they don't want to die for no reason. ...
      So I can no longer use units as a block to save me time for other actions behind them? What a bad idea.. :cursing:

      JCS Darragh wrote:

      ...
      That'd also help your cause; 5 HTs, 4 MTs, 7 LTs, plus whatever vs 2 Militia, 1 AC, and 1 Infantry, the OPFOR would surrender to you because they'd be obliterated.
      In that case I would conquer 2 Militia, 1 AC, and 1 Infantry? What a horrible idea.. :wallbash
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Browsergames sind eine geniale, mehr oder weniger geschickt als Spielattrappe getarnte Geschäftsidee zum Kohleziehen :!:
      Also Vorsicht, es können überall Fußangeln, Stolperdrähte und Selbstschussanlagen lauern :00000156:
      Achtung!
      Texte oberhalb dieser Signatur können Spuren von Ironie enthalten ;)
    • Uh, Not meant to be an insult Montana, But we are talking about surrendering Units. Or Units just deserting. Things like that, I can use diplomacy. To me, It is just an interesting concept and I don't think it will be added in, Just a fun thing to talk about. But, I do have to agree with Restriko on a couple points, A. No large unit of infantry would just up and defect.
      B. People had a strong sense of nationalism back in the day and probably not just desert like that.

      Also, Restriko, you'd get some more units to add to ur current stack
      "The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some ******** in the world that just need to be shot." - General Mattis (USMC)


      The post was edited 1 time, last by JCS Darragh ().

    • Restrisiko wrote:


      So I can no longer use units as a block to save me time for other actions behind them? What a bad idea.. :cursing:
      Nobody is saying that a surrender has to be instant from a balancing perspective it would still allow you to use units to block an enemy for a short period (also you could do things like set to no surrender) which while it would take some morale/efficiency hit would guarantee they fight to the last man.

      =