yeah, but we are still fooling around with new-ish ideas after a years break for Gencon 2017 42.2 so its not just–-> deathblow
Capitol loss in game not as bad as real life?
-
The capitals which fell in real life were Paris, Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo.
When Paris fell the French territories in Europe and North Africa surrendered. In some cases the units themselves changed sides and opposed their old Allies.
Italy surrendered the first chance they got. Their army came apart. The Germans even felt the need to bomb their navy.
Germany’s capital fell to the Russians and an official surrender was signed. It isn’t like German forces fought to retake it from the Russians.
Tokyo surrendered to the Americans on the Missouri after the fire and nuclear bombing campaigns. W/O looking it up I assume as many Japanese infantrymen were on the Asian mainland as Japan. They just quit existing.
Turning over your income but keeping your units available seems reasonable.
-
how about once rome falls Italy loses all its units on the board but becomes an Allie and keeps its IPC’s
-
Capitol loss is a good way to end the game when the enemy is already weakened to the point of no return, but it by no means makes sense for every country. If London was captured the common wealth would fight on, led in the European theater by Canada. If Moscow fell it would not be the end of Russia, since their industry was concentrated east of Moscow in the Urals. But what really bugs me is “capital sniping.” Germany/Italy(as applicable) need a 10+unit stack sitting in their capital every turn once the US gets into the war, lest the allies forgo the outlying territories and just grab the capital. If this was attempted in “real life” it would never work, the landing would initially have good results against poorer defenses, but it would take too long to get far enough in land to reach the capital before a crap-ton of reinforcements from the rest of the front arrived. Currently the rules don’t represent the movement of forces for defence/counter attack. It would be cool if there was some rule like “if combat lasts more then two rounds, then the defender can move units from adjacent land territories into the battle”.
-
I do rather like that “if combat last more than two rounds” rule.
-
For the Axis, losing their capitals would be the end of the war……so i support gameplay that forces them to hold onto them at all costs with stacks. Its realistic to have a bulk of your force in your homeland.
But for the allies the loss of a capital would not have been the death kneel for the allies
For the US this is of little issue. I doubt we will ever see the US capital taken in AAG40
For the UK it is abusurd to think Canada would not continue fighting if London was captured. Also the UK overseas forces wouldnt give up the fight. I support a “Canada Fights On” rule
Likewise Moscow had been lost before to Napolean and the Russians valued it only sybolicly. If their infrasturctue was intact the war would continue. I support having Russia work like china when its capital is captured. Only able to mobilize in home territory, and infantry only…artilery in Archangel, Novgorod, and Volgagrad
-
This goes beyond the scope of Axis and Allies, but I disagree with you about the capture of Moscow. If the Germans would have captured Moscow I think it would have caused a political crisis within the USSR sufficient enought to result in a regime change and the balkanization of the empire. Stalin’s government ran on political suppression to quell devolutionary stress, I believe the Russian people, and especially the marginalized ethnic groups within the USSR, would have capitalized on the fall of Moscow and formed break-away republics. As it was, Ukranians and the Baltic peoples saw the Germans as liberators, so the fall of Moscow would have been disastrous for the Soviet Union - the communist empire would be in an irrecoverable state of disarray and I believe there would be at least a negotiated peace.
-
A fair point bantubob….and realistic, perhaps.
Yet, the fall of moscow in my gaming group sybolizes the end of the game. Why? Because Germany both gets a huge income boost, as well as, all units used to defeat Russia simply turn around
What I would like to see is a reason for German units to stay in the Moscow area, or complete the conquest of the USSR. Rather than a smash and grab at moscow. Only to see those units back in Berlin in 2 turns, leaving no hope for the western allies.
-
For the Axis, losing their capitals would be the end of the war……so i support gameplay that forces them to hold onto them at all costs with stacks. Its realistic to have a bulk of your force in your homeland.
Is it really though? To my knowledge, most(almost all) of the german fighting forces were at the front lines in France and Eastern Europe, not garrisoning homeland territory. The problem with the flow of the game is that it doesn’t properly account for reactionary defenses. If the allies landed first in East Germany, they would not be able to reach Berlin before every jerry from France to Ukraine had a chance to be recalled.
I’m also not a fan of handing money over either. I’d understand if all money was discarded to the bank, as the turmoil of capital loss would devastate the nation. But how does Germany capturing London get their resources from across the globe? I see no reason, for the sake or realism or game mechanics, to have it this way. I think it would make for a more tense and exciting game if capital loss wasn’t the game ender that it is, and that there was a (slight) chance for recovery.
I guess that’s two house rules I’m considering now. 1) defender can move units from adjacent territories into battle after two rounds of combat from occurred.(Makes one massive stack less necessary, Helps discourage “sniping”) 2) Capital loss changed to victim discard all IPCS(one time, collects again in further rounds to represent reorganization of secondary government. Helps to really put the emphasis on victory cities, as right now capital loss just means early conceding of game.).
-
I forgot to elaborate on why an axis power would crumble if it lost its capital….
because almost all of their other territory didnt want to be part of that power…it would be hard for germany to run a secondary government from paris or warsaw…easier from the Ruhr no doubt
And on the issue of having most of their armies in their homland…remeber A&A is an abstraction. There is no way to represent the inherent impossibility of attacking “West Germany” other than by having a stack of infantry there.
I once had a house rule where when you lost your capital you gave half to the conquerer, and half back to the bank.
I never thought of nominating a victory city as your new capital…thats neato. You should be forced to choose the highest value originaly controled victory city as your capital. (UK then must pick ontario)
-
I see the logic behind that as well. Good statement about the disposition of german troops.
Sometimes in text it is difficult to get across that i meke contrary points for the sake of conversation. Dont think i’m being obstinant
-
I do rather like that “if combat last more than two rounds” rule.
Why not after any round?
First the defender, then the attacker can “bid” higher by feeding more units in until both are satisfied.
Only applies to units from tts not involved in battle this turn, of course.
Relates to defender retreat rules, in that you cannot send one infantry to attack a big stack just to prevent it from reinforcing, or from receiving retreating units.
-
I think only tanks and mech infantry should be able to respond rapidly like this. So that in doing so you arent moving in fodder, you are moving your expensive units that are actualy equiped for rapid redeployment.
It makes your armored defense squad more of an asset because it can be in paris and defend both normandy and holland/belgum….hmmm, just like the real war
then again the problem with this is…if you move units from paris to the coast…then after they successfully have defended, on the german turn they move back into the interior…which is kind of lame. And you just keep bouncing back and forth, the allies unable to hurt your prize units
And an important asside why infantry shouldnt be able to do this…the defense of ‘2’ for INF comes from the fact they were there fortifying before the attack, and not just thrust into the battle as a stop gap. Seems unfair if you have a stack of INF in paris and empty coastlines, and move in “just” enough units to win each battle…as ive said before, why not just play revised if your doing this.
Or limit movment by IPC values on the map. Then its a neat tactic…not an abusive tool.
-
I never thought of nominating a victory city as your new capital….thats neato. You should be forced to choose the highest value originaly controled victory city as your capital. (UK then must pick ontario)
I think you should still give some income to the conqueror otherwise it would be nearly impossible to kill them especially if the are the UK because if they are forced to say Ontario the Axis must then move forces from Europe to a suicide attack on North America because the Americans would move units into Ontario. Even if the Axis manage to capture Ontario and Hold it! the British can then move to Cairo assuming they held it now the Axis have to move to Africa and capture it.
But what about other powers such as Italy that have only one VC do they get removed straight away and then what about Germany their capital would move from Berlin to Warsaw and they would probably lose it next turn as it is right beside Berlin. This would just prolong the Axis defeat. Then what about Victory conditions would have to change because the capital loss would not be as important.
@oztea:I never thought of nominating a victory city as your new capital….thats neato. You should be forced to choose the highest value originaly controled victory city as your capital. (UK then must pick ontario)
This just gives the Allies a another huge advantage with TWO capitals in North America.
For the US this is of little issue. I doubt we will ever see the US capital taken in AAG40
As this quote says the US capital would probably never be taken this would also mean that Ontario will probably never fall as the US will reinforce it or if it does fall send a strong hit team next turn to recapture it. As I said:
“I think you should still give some income to the conqueror otherwise it would be nearly impossible to kill them especially if the are the UK because if they are forced to say Ontario the Axis must then move forces from Europe to a suicide attack on North America because the Americans would move units into Ontario. Even if the Axis manage to capture Ontario and Hold it! the British can then move to Cairo assuming they held it now the Axis have to move to Africa and capture it.”
North America is the best place on the board to have your capital it is cut of from the rest of the world and so when one power/side has control of it they will not lose the IPC values are massive, the time it takes to get there allows the controller to build forces there in time and not worry about a blitz attack(Not tank blitz).
-
The advantage for moving capitals really dose only favor the allies, as they have the majority of victory cities. I cite China as the ideal way for a country to function without a capital, as they are a country without a capital. Then I think its up to the individual players to decide what kinda “burma road buys you arty” rule they want, if they even want it at all.
In our games, if London falls, we allow the UK to continue to purchase normally, but we split their economy ie, Canadas economy is seperate (and we usually throw in scotland if it hasnt been occupied). Then Africa is seperate and based out of south africa, and we usually group the middle east in with africa. This way the UK player is weakened but not totally out of the game. West India is combined with the rest of India, and depending on the players, we either group the middle east in with India or Africa.
-
In our games, if London falls, we allow the UK to continue to purchase normally, but we split their economy ie, Canadas economy is seperate (and we usually throw in scotland if it hasnt been occupied). Then Africa is seperate and based out of south africa, and we usually group the middle east in with africa. This way the UK player is weakened but not totally out of the game. West India is combined with the rest of India, and depending on the players, we either group the middle east in with India or Africa.
I can’t what for the Canada Aids to come out because it would have them as a separate power following the same rules as the ANZACs. Also rather than split it as Africa and India combine them if There is a road that combines them so that all territories between any African territory and India is made up of neutrals or ally controlled territories. Give UKP half of UKE income to spend but keep it separate so if London is liberated they can get their money back. Also with this give any money earned from UKE territories to the UKE pile but money can be spent on either side of the board.
-
@The:
I can’t what for the Canada Aids to come out because it would have them as a separate power following the same rules as the ANZACs. Also rather than split it as Africa and India combine them if There is a road that combines them so that all territories between any African territory and India is made up of neutrals or ally controlled territories. Give UKP half of UKE income to spend but keep it separate so if London is liberated they can get their money back. Also with this give any money earned from UKE territories to the UKE pile but money can be spent on either side of the board.
I dont think having Canada as a seperate is a good idea, it really only further weakens and complitaces the British and the allies in general. I also dont think combining the remainder of the UKE economy with British India is a good idea, because it may give them too much of an advantage over Japan. The loss of London should seriously hamper the allies, and espically the British. By dividing up its economy you make it very difficult to concentrate offensive forces against the axis, but still defend what they have and make limited counter attacks. It sufficently weakens Britian without making them useless.
-
Just allow defenders to retreat after first round of battle like the attackers can do. That’s one of the rules of axis and allies that don’t make sense to me, defenders can’t retreat. If they are surrounded, I can understand they must make a last stand however.
Suggested Topics
