Thank you.
Do We Need Special Capitol Capture Rules? Would We Be Better Off Without Them?
-
If we gave the money to the bank instead, it would certainly make Moscow and Berlin a little less dominant. I think people would still rush the center of the board, but it might be enough to deter an all or nothing strategy.
I think Moscow and the Capital rules, are only one half of the problem though. The other part, and in my mind the more important part, is the distribution of production/IPCs all across the board. These are weighted so heavily in favor of the Eurasian landmass, that changing the capital rules alone might not be enough. I really think the only way we’re going to see consistent fighting in the Pacific is if more IPCs are distributed there. Adjusted capital rules would definitely help though.
-
to answer the subject/question would be no.
-
I think that the current Capitol Capture rules need to either be eliminated or altered.
My group and I are currently playing an AA50 42 Setup game where the Axis took control right from the start and took Moscow strong, but by a fluke, America’s smaller navy outmaneuvered Japan’s navy and actually managed to capture Japan on the same turn while also destroying the last remaining Japanese transport. Now (with NOs) we have Germany collecting 60+ IPCs, Italy collecting 30+ IPCs, and Japan still at 30+ (no NOs because of not controlling their capital, and they don’t collect any IPCs either, so these 30+ IPCs are completelly wasted.), against the US collecting 60+ IPCs and UK collecting about 25 IPCs per turn. The game has somewhat stagnated, because America has to keep UK alive and can’t expand in Japan’s territory, because there is still a large Japanese fleet within striking distance of any transports that America wishes to build in Japan. Germany and Italy control all of the mainland but can’t get the Japanese IPCs because of the CC rules, but neither US or UK is strong enough to establish a beachead on the mainland to fight back with. Japan lacking the means to liberate his capital, but still having a lot of units on the board, seems a little silly. (They have a Manchurian IC, 10+ land units on the mainland, and a nice navy with 2 BBs, 2 Carriers (no Fighters though), 1 Cruiser, 2 DDs, and 1 Sub.)
There is definitely not a clear winner yet, but the game has now dragged out for such a long time that interest has waned. (We play our games over a period of about a week usually, but this game is now past 2 weeks with no signs of ending soon.)
-
You could simply say that plunder is remitted to the bank rather than the capturing player. The victor gains the future income as reward itself and would eliminate possible trading in some instances.
-
This question depends on what kind of abstraction is the intention of CC in A&A. Maybe Larry Harris sees CC like i.e. with sealion, which sometimes happens in AAR, then Churchill and the UK leaders under Churchill is captured or killed. If this is so, then the rest of the Generals etc. will flee to Washington or Canada. Or if Germany capture London, UK leaders included Churchill gives up London/Europe and settles in US or Canada.
If Germany captures Moscow, then perhaps Stalin and Zhukov is killed/captured and resistence will be minimal.
If UK takes Berlin, then Hitler is killed and Generals will negotiate peace.Another issue is time scale. AAR/AA50 one turn is probably 6 months or a year. 3 months is too short because many games, if not the majority, last maybe 4-6 rnds.
So if UK or US takes Rome in AA50, this means that allied forces is controlling Italy in 6 months before Germany can liberate it.
Even with a 3 months time scale, US soldiers in total control of Italy (or maybe even Berlin!) for 3 months is not same as Japan got expelled from the Philippines.Imo, the CC rules is one of the factors in A&A which is not bad or broken, there are other issues which could and should be improved.
-
I think it is broken, because it adds game ending punishment on top of something that is already extremely devastating. Does it have to give all the money to enemy and prevent full production in order to be effective?
What if the only special rule involved giving up your money to the bank but you can still produce out of small factories (though obviously with no money on the first turn after capture).
Isn’t that enough to produce whatever desired effect it is designed to produce? Is the full money turnover and lack of production element really required to generate the type of play the rules intend to generate? I guess that’s really a question that depends on what Larry and the other designers wanted the rule to accomplish.
-
An option would be to freeze the money and institute a simple “no buy” rule until the capital is liberated.
-
In AAR, probably over 95% of all games are lost, if: when a capital is lost, and it cannot be recaptured, and the player that lost the capital is unable to capture one of the opponents capitals. Period! This seems to be the same with AA50. I don’t think Germany can keep liberating Italy and at the same time winning against Russia, but maybe axis could hold out and Jap takes Moscow. Anyway, a capital in A&A is like the queen in chess.
Also, most players concede when they think they cannot win, and most (AAR) games I played, I or the opponent have often conceded before any capital was even threatened.I don’t think the “game ending punishment” argument is relevant in the discussion of what is good/bad with AA50.
I read the article, interesting, but A&A is a war game, not a fighting game, and changing things to make it more time to finish will not make the game any better. You have to come up with something else, even if usually, in AAR, game lasts 4-8 rnds, it can take much longer, my record in AAR is 19 rnds, was LL and multi!
If CC rules is changed then invent something else that makes a knockout possible. -
I agree, taking out the CC rules without adding another way to “end the game” wouldn’t work well for the game’s length.
However, i think the way to end the game is built in. Play to 12/13 VCs with no CC rules. I think that keeps the game at a decent length and adds more depth. The All for Berlin/Moscow strategy isn’t as powerful in this variant, leading to other possible strategies.
-
IMHO, I don’t think you should lose all your money when you lose your capitol. I think you just lose your capitol and maybe you can only collect 50% (round up) for your total income. (Neglects having to say "Well, i own W. Indies, so that’s 1 IPC, and Brazil that’s 2 IPC. Together they are 4 IPC, so you get 2.) Then, if you have an IC left, you can build there.
Otherwise, you have to use your cash for infantry ONLY and can only build in a territory up to that territory’s limit. Say Brazil could build 3 Infantry…though, if you had 18 IPC worth of land to afford the 3 infantry (remember you are only getting 50%, so 50% of 18 IPC is 9 IPC) you’d probably have a better place to build them!
-
I think the Capital rules are fine and for all intents and purposes it should be a “game ender”.
If you nerfed the Capital rules all it would do is prolong a game that was decided long ago. It might not matter that much for on-line play, but FTF games would just continue to drag on. Games that you could play in a weekend would take several weekends. And would the Rus/Ger player really want to keep continuing to play for the 10-20% chance (with new captial rules) they can come back from losing the capital or would they rather just start up a new game the next weekend where they theoretically have a 50% chance to win?
I’ve been on both the winning and losing end of plenty of 25-30 rd games in both 2nd Ed and Revised where a capital finally falls, but I’ve known the game was pretty much decided by rd 15-20.
There are also strategies that deal with vacating Capitals to protect your army (stack). The problem is many players leave their stacks in the Capital to get wiped out leaving nothing left, thus the Capital falls and the game ends.Also usually when Germany or Moscow get captured, not much is plundered. Germany at most should probably be down 10-16 ipc and Russia probably only has 8-12 ipc.
It is not like it is easy to take Berlin when they earn 40. -
I’ve been on both the winning and losing end of plenty of 25-30 rd games in both 2nd Ed and Revised where a capital finally falls, but I’ve known the game was pretty much decided by rd 15-20.
I feel the same way about this too. That’s why I’ve also adopted a 12 VC condition, to make sure the game doesn’t have to be prolonged unnecessarily through player frustration and stubbornness.
-
Honestly, almost everyone quits once they lose a capitol. Rarely do players even keep playing after a capitol falls and when they do, it’s probably because they are taking a capitol as well that same round.
However, I can see a few circumstances when the fall of Germany not being a “game ender” could be a good thing. Why shouldn’t Germany be allowed to recover? If they can do it, and it could very well be that the allies have to absolutely destroy their entire army and air force getting Berlin meaning Germany CAN liberate with a mere 3 infantry possibly.
What pisses me off is when the allies throw a hail mary and run for a 9 VC game because they cannot take Berlin or Tokyo. Meanwhile, the axis are playing a long term strategy to really win by taking out Moscow and London or something. (Feel free to reverse for the Axis running for a 9 VC win instead if you want.)
-
My thoughts:
First of all, I don’t believe Moscow falling should mean the death of Russia. The soviets would have relocated, hence the whole “Mobile Industry” advantage in AAR, which made no sense since you would be moving your complex East of Moscow and thus lose it, being unable to produce anything…
Second, lucky grabs are lame. Making a 50/50 or so assault against a capital can decide a game, and I personally don’t think it should. The IPCs aren’t destroyed, they are STOLEN. For making a lucky grab against a single territory, a player could be rewarded a good 50 IPCs or so. This situation IS rare, but still, putting so much emphasis on a single territory explains why we don’t see these “global wars” develop.
Finally, I think defeating a nation should be final. Germany shouldn’t stop fighting because Berlin has fallen, but because every single area in Europe has fallen. America shouldn’t surrender if Washington DC is captured, they should surrender when every single mile of American soil is under seige and no soldiers remain. You get what I’m saying.
So yeah, I’m all for trying a few games without special capital capture rules. In fact, I may add that to my little house rule list. Thanks for the idea!
-
@Rakeman:
Finally, I think defeating a nation should be final. Germany shouldn’t stop fighting because Berlin has fallen, but because every single area in Europe has fallen. America shouldn’t surrender if Washington DC is captured, they should surrender when every single mile of American soil is under seige and no soldiers remain.
In real life, Germany surrendered when they still holded Norway, Denmark and some zones of Netherlands and Austria. A country don’t fight until the very soldier is killed, they fight until there is no chance of even get a conditional surrendering.
Germany, Japan and Italy should surrender when their capital falls, at least as the game is now. Allies are another thing, because UK would continue fighting from colonies, USA would fight from West coast and soviets from Siberia. I’m pretty sure even commie China would continue the fight, rallying the warlords, even if Koumingtang’s capital of Chongquing were taken.
Still, I agree that capital rules as now are too hard. It would be nice having a rule for exiled goverments, even if you steal all the money the turn you conquer the capital
-
@Cmdr:
Honestly, almost everyone quits once they lose a capitol.
Even Moscow, with the UK and USA just a turn away from liberating it?
IL mentioned elsewhere that it’s common to see 4 nations hold Moscow on a single turn (though I’ve never seen all 5 it’s a possibility - or maybe even 6 now.)
I’ve been in too many games of Revised dominated by the taking and re-taking of Moscow to have anything but contempts for the traditional CTC rules.
If Moscow fall, Russia fights on from the Urals, the UK from Canada and so on. The game should not be all about just 6 territories.
As long as a nation has an IC it should be able to produce units there. And even without one it should still be able to place infantry in home territories. -
Remember that a capital manages infrastructure and IPC’s are representative of production and infrastructure. Even in war soldiers are paid as are the people who build their weapons. If Washington fell tomorrow how many of us can just get together with the nieghbors and build a tank? Not to mention the only thing of yours that would have value is hard goods and equipment. I f the Chinese invaded tomorrow do you think Canadians or Mexicans would except US dollars for guns?
That’s why I think the money should go back to the bank, or as cruel twist of fate, the assests are frozen and given to the loser’s allies as if they were a government in exile.
Suggested Topics
