seathom wrote:I agree with you, or is the correct nomenclature "+1"!
I understand that the NM is to reflect the will to fight, but I can't even see Russia holding up its hands because they lost Petrograd (they still had Moscow and a lot of backbone). I understand that because of the Revolution, Russia did call it quits so their spunk wasn't up to its usual par (a la Napoleon or WW2). With NM at 11 and land combat PWR at 18, they were close, but arguably not quite ready to quit.
But the WE?? No way would they have quit! In my game, their NM was still in the low 30's with plenty of troops, even though so far I had been able to get enough WE battle losses to keep their land combat PWR between 67 - 75 with the USA in the war for 6 months. It is what it is, but it felt hallow. I don't think there would be any tears spilled if the "win" condition was scrapped, but I do understand keeping the "lose" condition, after all, wars basically end up with someone losing and often with no real winners.
Well, I'd say that, by what you have described, it makes a lot of sense for the russians to sue for peace, after losing Petrograd and being so morally and militarily weak. What I argue here is that, this mechanics of winning the war when you hit the 150 NM mark makes little sense, on the other hand, suing for peace after losing all the will to fight (in game terms, NM), makes sense IMO.
So in my opinion, the WE should've kept fighting and the game continued.
PS: Every situation is quite unique, so, both in the Napoleonic wars and in WW2 there were MANY factors at play, so it's never too simple to evaluate these situations.