@Slip-Capone If you need a player I’ve been dying to get back into axis and allies. If you have triple a I’m available.
Larry Harris 1914 Tournament Rules ( "potential rules" using his language)
-
@Uncrustable:
I don’t think you collect any income while under economic collapse
You just don’t lose what IPCs were in your hand when the collapse happensYeah, I just heard from Krieghund over at Larry’s site. In a nut shell he said the effects of the econ collapse last through your entire turn, and the recovery would take place upon your next turn if indeed you (or your allies) regained and held enough homeland territory to pull you out (this is explained better in the example that Larry gave on the first page (following the rule I took the quoted from).
I do think that it might be cool for you to be able pull yourself out of an economic crises though during your turn (like you can do to avoid a political collapse now), and this could be done with a couple of tweaks to the rule (see below). I’m not sure that an economic crises should completely shut down your new recruits, and equipment either (should restrict your builds though).
When your turn starts, and you are in econ collapse:
- You forfeit part of your income to the bank (maybe 1/2)
- You can use your remaining income to buy new units, or save it.
This would give you a chance to reinforce your homeland territories some (much less then OOB), and could reduce the income that your side has overall. It could also reduce the loot passed on the other powers (friend or foe) if you go into political collapse. Of coarse I guess it could also increase the the size of your bank as well if you are allowed recover, and collect income in the same turn (even if you forfeited 1/2 when your turn started).
-
I agree wild bill it should be at the end of your turn when you check for both.
-
Yea, but in a recent game played allies usually try to bail that player out of collapse so having extra time to get out of collapse just makes it harder to go under.
-
Since the Economic Victory condition seems to favour the CPs (I’m making an assumption here based on the fact that most of the fighting takes place on Allied or neutral soil) I’ve considered some alternatives to prevent the CPs just grabbing a lead in victory points and sitting on it.
The idea is that at the end of each completed round the CPs have a Victory Points target; if they hold it they win, if not the Allies win by default.
The winning target will get higher after each round of play to encourage the CPs to keep on attacking; I’ll assume the targets come into force from about round 4 onwards.
Anyway, thrown together a rough map of how the points might be attained from each Allied and Allied-alligned tt (not counting neutrals), based on considerations such as proximity to capitals and so forth:
-
Played w/the new tournament rules this weekend. It played very well. A lot better than the OOB rules. The new tournament rules may be the best rules to play with, tournament or not.
-
Did the Central Powers play differently, bearing in mind that the Economic Victory condition means they have to take rather less tt, and can be defensive and play for “time”?
Or didn’t you play with a time/round limit?
-
The Allies perform a coastal contested route into Germany. Usually by leapfrog with UK-USA. I prefer now to avoid taking Holland as a buffer until Russia is finished
-
Did the Central Powers play differently, bearing in mind that the Economic Victory condition means they have to take rather less tt, and can be defensive and play for “time”?
Or didn’t you play with a time/round limit?
The CP’s played pretty much the same. Germany and AH threw a ton of resources at Russia. Got a Economic collapse in Turn 3. Russia did not overturn the Economic collapse because that would have given Germany even more money in Round 4 when they took Moscow. So, Russia moved all it’s remaining Inf and Art into Moscow on Turn 3. Germany attacked on Turn 4. Took Moscow. Then, AH and Germany diverted their resources to attack India. However, by then, Britain had made the Ottomans do a Political collapse. So it was a race for the Germans and AH to take out India before France, Italy and the US could make headway into Germany and AH.
Unfortunately, someone knocked a pad of paper on the game board and the pieces went flying everywhere. Had to quit at that point. But, I think it was pretty even at that point. Seems pretty balanced. Would have been interesting to play out. I think the strategy is, Germany and AH still have to take out Russia, while the Brits take out the Ottomans. Then, it’s a rush to see if Germany and AH can take out India before the Allies take out Germany or AH…
-
Like the report Commando only one problem I thought Paris was a must in this one. I realize you could win an economic victory I am guessing that is what you guys were shooting for. Thanks for the report. I am getting my buds together in a couple of weeks and we will be using these rules.
-
Am I correct in assuming that if a port is “neutralized” it cannot be part of an extra naval movement point.
I’m beginning to think that the sea movement bonus should only be between 2 friendly naval bases.
-
Your sea units can move one extra sea zone if they start at a naval base that is in a territory that is either controlled by you or a friendly power or is contested and was originally controlled by you or a friendly power.
-
“The surrendered power’s IPC treasury will be claimed by the first enemy power to gain control of its capital.”
So if Italy suffers a political collapse with neither side having troops in Rome, it becomes an uncontrolled territory (kind of like a colony since no defenders will pop up). The Italian player holds onto the IPCs for the moment.
The Americans land a transport in Rome and take control, increase the US IPC marker up 3. But since it is an allied player, it doesn’t get the IPCs?
If AH attacks and gains control, they get the IPC income AND the IPCs the Italian player has been holding because they are the first ENEMY power to gain control.
Since the Americans can take control instead of liberating Rome, shouldn’t they get the IPCs held by the Italian player?
I will by trying these tournament rules in about 9 hours and will post the results on the Harris Games website.
-
I don’t think Larry should have written the rule that all land units get removed when a power collapses.
You should instead remove all non-infantry units that power has, as well as all units outside of their original territory.This to prevent Russia from collapsing and a single unit wandering around mopping up and establishing dominance over each territory.
Or in the very least….treat all territory of a collapsed power as an independent neutral power. So if Russia collapses, if finland were attacked it would spawn 3 infantry and an artillery.
but whatev…
-
Yes, the TR is still messed up on what happens after political collapse. Most especially in that the dead power’s money is grabbed by the first enemy power into the capital; the former allies being forbidden from doing this!
I’m still waiting news on the British infantry who were aboard the Russian transport moored off Karelia when the said transport was removed due to the efects of political collapse.
Political vacuums were very quickly filled, so it should be assumed that there is always some kind of government (with some kind of armed forces) in a country, even if its a local nationalist group proclaiming independence.
-
It would be kind cool to roll dice for each unit once a power falls into political collapse.
roll 1 stays the color of the fallen power, but can only defend (can’t move) and is now hostel to both sides
roll 2 stays with that side (pick a power/color)
roll 3 joins the other side (pick a power/color)
roll 4, 5 or 6 remove it from playWould need to work out what power a unit would join (change color) when a 2 or 3 is rolled. Would be the power with the most influence in the region starting with the power having units in the same territory or sz as the collapsed power (if applicable).
Kinda like some Vichy rules I’ve seen.
-
Like the report Commando only one problem I thought Paris was a must in this one. I realize you could win an economic victory I am guessing that is what you guys were shooting for. Thanks for the report. I am getting my buds together in a couple of weeks and we will be using these rules.
Yes, Paris was a must for the CP’s to win. However, I believe by the time that Germany got around to going after Paris, it would have been impossible for the CP’s to win because Britain and the US would have had enough units to defend Paris and eventually start pushing back the CP’s. I guess it’s a race to see how quickly Germany and AH can take out Russia w/out having the Ottoman’s taken out by Britain. Unfortunately we didn’t get to finish the game. So, no real reasonable conclusion to who would have won. I’m playing a WWI/1914 game via Battlemap using the new tournament rules. I’ll let everyone know how it turns out…
-
This is why I’ve suggested that in limited round/time games a victory city system is used to determine a winner.
Since the war is fought (mainly) on Allied soil, the CPs only have to build up a reasonable good lead in occupied enemy homelands, then defend that for the rest of the game to hold out for an economic victory.
Under my system they have to keep attacking, as their winning conditions (in VCs held) increases after every round or so.
-
House rules in House rules. Not here please.
-
It not a house rule - its a suggestion for making the Potential Tournament Rules work effectively, which the Economic Victory conditions clearly don’t, since they’re in effect a default Central Powers win.
It takes a long time for the Allies to occupy more CP homelands than they have lost of their own even when the Allies are doing well in a long game. The CPs have to be encouraged to keep attacking somehow. -
All suggestions outside of these and OOB rules are house rules by definition.
Suggested Topics
