Governments in exile
  • << previous
  • 1
  • next >>
said on Feb 04, 2010 at 06:30 AM

There weren't that many nations that actually completely surrendered and did not have a government in exile. I think the Czechs were one and the Baltic states were another, but; nations such as Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and others maintained their governments in England. Also much of their gold and other assets were sent out of the country so that they would not fall into the enemies hands. So I think that nations should have the option to move their governments out of the country without having to completely surrender.

_________________
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
  • 00crusader
  • location: United States
  • joined: Dec 04, 2009
  • posts: 142
said on Feb 04, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Good idea. Perhaps as a government in exile, you can try to make Partisan Resistance more likely.

_________________
DEMONS
  • FDR
  • MHII, MH GOLD, MH
  • location: Montserrat
  • joined: Oct 17, 2009
  • posts: 1234
  • Banned
said on Feb 04, 2010 at 04:32 PM

Governments in exile don't really have any power

  • Carl
  • location: United States
  • joined: Aug 10, 2009
  • posts: 241
said on Feb 04, 2010 at 04:59 PM

That's not true, both the Polish and French governments in exile went into exile with tens of thousands of troops they became an effective fighting force in North Africa, Italy and even the liberation of France, not to mention that the Norwegian Government in Exile aided the British with commando teams and information about German nuclear weapons projects being researched in Norway due primarily to Norway's large heavy water supply. It was the Norwegian government in exile that proposed a joint British/Norwegian commando raid on a Norwegian Dam that was producing 94% of Germany's total heavy water supplies.

said on Feb 04, 2010 at 06:42 PM

If implemented realistically, troops of surrendered nations for all practical game purposes would join the military forces of their allies. Governments in exile don't have the economic capacity to supply their own troops.

The rest of those points are impossible to model in a video game.

  • Carl
  • location: United States
  • joined: Aug 10, 2009
  • posts: 241
said on Feb 04, 2010 at 07:41 PM

Again not true, while the Vichy French Government was in power in much of Northern Africa the Allied Aligned Free French Government continued to maintain large numbers of forces in Southern African colonies and the Americas. Secondly I agree that its impractical for a government in exile to support their troops however that is what the aid system is for, Governments in Exile should have some kind of modifier that guarantee's aid from allies.

said on Feb 04, 2010 at 08:43 PM

If Free France has territories, it would not be considered a surrendered nation

If the Vichy France event(s) in MH2 is realistic, Free France will have territories. Free France would therefore not be a surrendered nation

That being said, Free France was dependent on the allies for supplying them

  • Carl
  • location: United States
  • joined: Aug 10, 2009
  • posts: 241
said on Feb 05, 2010 at 02:48 AM

I think what some are missing is that France lost their true homeland and not just territory, therefore the economic/financial penalty was huge. I don't think that any of their territories had the capacity to provide even 10% of what they needed to operate effectively as a government. But; the fact that they had trained troops that followed the government into exile was a huge bonus, as raising divisions again from scratch is a huge undertaking as you have a very limited cadre to draw knowledge and experience from. They also had fleet units that were interred and were not scuttled, some of these were repaired and refitted in United States ports.

Refer to these links if you are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Navy#Second_World_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_French_fleet_in_Toulon http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6142

_________________
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
  • 00crusader
  • location: United States
  • joined: Dec 04, 2009
  • posts: 142
said on Feb 05, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Basing this idea on the whole government in exile thing, perhaps after a battle is lost, there cuold be a chance that some "dead" units could have actually escaped death and increase the likelihood of partisan resistance in that region. Or something like that, I don't know.

_________________
DEMONS
  • FDR
  • MHII, MH GOLD, MH
  • location: Montserrat
  • joined: Oct 17, 2009
  • posts: 1234
  • Banned
said on Feb 20, 2010 at 05:24 AM

This is a very likely scenario, given that most units are most likely never totally detroyed and become cadre for other forces or units. In the case of the actions in the Phillipines and also France, naval units and land units would join together to form defence forces. Supply personnel, cooks, military police, aviation engineers, truck drivers, plane crew/pilots would become ground troops. When your command and control structure is compromised, often times a unit will get lost or unaccounted for and will be subjugated to the next higher command authority. This is a point that is not covered in any of the MY games, but; with the new game coming out, perhaps this will be adjusted.

_________________
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
  • 00crusader
  • location: United States
  • joined: Dec 04, 2009
  • posts: 142
said on Mar 14, 2010 at 06:02 PM

Ya, you could ask a nation to "sponsor" you. You can organize operations. Pretty advanced though, it would have to be a patch.

_________________
Your kidding me...What do you mean you have no idiots left?
  • Mencarta
  • location: Unknown
  • joined: Dec 28, 2009
  • posts: 77
said on Mar 17, 2010 at 01:55 PM

Even if you had these troops still available to you after your nation was conquered or surrendered without an ample supply of arms they wouldn't be worth a whole lot. I guess what I'm saying is without a city still at your disposal producing arms your units would soon be fighting at 50% strength. The first engagement you sent them into they would be decimated so whats the point.

_________________
"Hurrah, boys, we've got them! We'll finish them up and then go home to our station."
General George Armstrong Custer
said on Mar 17, 2010 at 03:39 PM

Doctor_Nick said

Even if you had these troops still available to you after your nation was conquered or surrendered without an ample supply of arms they wouldn't be worth a whole lot. I guess what I'm saying is without a city still at your disposal producing arms your units would soon be fighting at 50% strength. The first engagement you sent them into they would be decimated so whats the point.

That's not totally true, you can request aid and you can be offered aid. So hopefully you can capture an industrial center that you can use. That also does not preclude a supporting nation from doing a territorial transfer so that you can stand on your own, with just a little more help.

_________________
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
  • 00crusader
  • location: United States
  • joined: Dec 04, 2009
  • posts: 142
said on Mar 17, 2010 at 10:56 PM

"a supporting nation from doing a territorial transfer" -00crusader

Haha, funny one.

_________________
Your kidding me...What do you mean you have no idiots left?
  • Mencarta
  • location: Unknown
  • joined: Dec 28, 2009
  • posts: 77
said on Mar 18, 2010 at 04:55 AM

I do it when I need a strong ally on my flank!!!

_________________
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
  • 00crusader
  • location: United States
  • joined: Dec 04, 2009
  • posts: 142
said on Mar 18, 2010 at 02:10 PM

I could see friendly nations giving aid, but to have a nation hand over control of it's territory is a little far gone. Do you think the Americans would have handed over control and governing rights to New York to France when it was defeated in 1940? No I don't think so.........

_________________
"Hurrah, boys, we've got them! We'll finish them up and then go home to our station."
General George Armstrong Custer
said on Mar 19, 2010 at 04:49 AM

I'm talking about nations that I have conquered and or I have made peace with and they have relinquished territory. Especially like Japan, I would never want them as a partner/ally, therefore I will give some of their regions to an ally.

_________________
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
  • 00crusader
  • location: United States
  • joined: Dec 04, 2009
  • posts: 142
said on Mar 19, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Now that you put it that way I dont see why the idea wouldnt be feasible.

_________________
"Hurrah, boys, we've got them! We'll finish them up and then go home to our station."
General George Armstrong Custer
said on Mar 20, 2010 at 02:19 AM

I hate being germany, and invading france, and italy comes in and snatches F...... Paris from me. Ohh woops off topic. Yeah, giving lands to allies would be nice.

_________________
"Friendly Fire isn't" Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them. All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers
  • TJelas
  • location: Unknown
  • joined: Feb 07, 2010
  • posts: 210
  • Banned
  • << previous
  • 1
  • next >>