It is considerably better for the enemy to trade the Capital territories of one of your Allies than it is for you to take it back only to loose it your next turn.
Example. On turn UK6 England takes back France with a couple infantry. All the French territories in Africa you have liberated return to French control and yay France gets some free infantry. Italy purposely does not take it back on their turn. France then collects their 19 bucks on France6.
Well come Germany 7 they are going to just roll back in and retake it and collect the 19 bucks. Also the French territories England and America may have liberated from the Italians or Germans do not collect you money until France goes again.
You must retake them capitals with sufficient force to hold them through the next attack or have a darned good reason its soo important.
A sneaky trick - say the Axis took Syria, Morocco, and Algiers (all French territories) and the US liberated the territories while France/Paris was still under the Axis control - The US could collect income from those.
However, by doing the sneaky “loss/take back”, all those territories revert to French ownership, and the US is deprived of any income from them, until the Axis march back in and take them, and THEN the US can take them for income.
All of which very neatly sums up the absurdities of the capture the capital rules AND the collect money at end of turn nonsense.
Flashman is right……
This capital plundering and capturing buisness is the single biggest problem in the A&A system.
It is unrealistic and ends games prematurely
That’s like saying, rolling dice instead of actually sending troops into battle is absurd.
It’s a game, those are the rules.
If you lose your king in chess, you are fked. Even in “check” you have problems and different rules apply. What would the point of the king be? if it was just smash each others pieces to bits and see who has none left? CtC rules add another strategic dimention to the game.
That’s like saying, rolling dice instead of actually sending troops into battle is absurd.
It’s a game, those are the rules.
If you lose your king in chess, you are fked. Even in “check” you have problems and different rules apply. What would the point of the king be? if it was just smash each others pieces to bits and see who has none left? CtC rules add another strategic dimention to the game.
Yes, it is nice to give the players a game mechanic that encourages them to actually want to hold their capital….after all, the U.S. turned Washington into a kill zone and let UK take it in the war of 1812…and look what happened…the white house was burned(think of the IPCs to repair and clean that up)…That is not likely to happen a second time now.
So giving your opponent a pay raise for imprisoning your politicians seems like a good idea.
This makes sense for France - UK/USA liberates, then France Collects, then Germany recaptures.
England is a different manner. If USA liberates, Germany goes before UK collects. If they wait till the next turn, USA can land planes. Of course Germany can land in Scotland (if they’re boats are safe there) and send a double wave in after America reinforces. Me, I found it hard (post Sea Lion) for Germany to divert any more resources away from th Russian front - including enough to hold USA out of England.
What to do with those Germans?
