Capture the Leader

@FMErwinRommel I think that would be a good rule too. It makes more sense if you want to be as accurate as possible.

@Faramir
Thanks for your reply. I’ve considered this as an option too. It’s simple and easy to remember.
Damage can range between 4 and 20 though which is a bit inconsistent for my liking.
Thanks for sharing your ideas nonetheless

@CWO:

@taamvan:

I am not sure what the British government’s back up plan was anyways if Sea Lion was successful.

The British government may not have had an actual “backup plan”, in terms of something serious and concrete and specific.  My impression is that Britain’s civilian and military leaders were focussed on preventing an invasion in the first place, and on defeating it if it did actually occur, and that they were sufficiently confident that they could accomplish one or the other of those goals that they didn’t need to give any detailed consideration to what to do if Britain ended up facing defeat.  Hitler, similarly, didn’t give serious consideration to invading Britain until he was forced to admit that Britain wasn’t going to come to terms with him after the defeat of France.

It’s quite possible that British government considered the possibility of setting up a government-in-exile in Canada (or elsewhere), but “considering the possibility” isn’t the same thing as preparing a functional contingency plan.  And in fact, there would have been two good reasons NOT to work on such a functional plan.  First, it would have taken up time and resources that could have been better used elsewhere, even if it only amounted to a small number of staff.  More importantly, preparing such a plan – even in secret – would have been politically very dangerous.  Churchill had famously been proclaiming in the House of Commons that “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”  If word had somewhow reached the public that the same Churchill was secretly preparing plans to decamp to Canada, it would have had two very serious negative effects: it would have told the public that Churchill believed that Britain genuinely risked being conquered by Nazi Germany (which would have been very bad for morale) and it would have convinced people that Churchill was hypocritical on a monumental scale (which would have ended his political career).  It would also have destabilized the British government, which was the last thing Britain needed at that time.

No, I completely understand why Churchhill did that, he was a very ballsy man and someone who was needed for UK but you’d still think you want some kind of back up just in case. I am sure his staff and the Royal Family would AT LEAST retreat to Ireland if need be.

Interesting and working I believe.
Did you also think about reducing Major to minor if IC is conquered?
When liberated, IC remains at the same level.

I agree with your long standing position on Factories Flash, and it is a very practical way of playing IMO. I don’t think that’s what their looking for though.

The concept of giving IPCs for an IC sounds pretty good, but could bankrupt a power like Russia that generally is force to give up such territories (they have 3 minors that generally fall to the axis). Italy is also forced into a predicament of sacrificing N Italy (Major IC) to hold on to its capital. If they also had to give up even 10 IPCs for losing control of the N Italy Major production center they might as well pack it in. Keep in mind that it does get down graded (not that Italy could build that many units if on the hot seat LOL)

If you were going to do a capture IC gain IPCs though I would have a set amount for a minor/major, then maybe a bonus amount if it is also a capital. I wouldn’t want to have to start counting adjacent territories etc….

I would be in favor of setting a limit on IPCs surrendered to the conquer if a capital is taken. Maybe a straight 20 IPCs or so. Allow that power to keep any additional IPCs saying they smuggled out part of the treasury before things went south. If that power still has factories available then they can continue to collect income and produce units from them. No IC on the board then they work like China and only produce inf until they recover an IC (or can buy one?)

Another way would be let it be more random using dice.

Lose minor roll 1 dice, enemy collect that amount
Lose Major roll 2 dice, enemy collect sum
If it is also a capital you roll two more bonus dice
So minor capital rolls 3 dice, major capital rolls 4 dice, enemy collects sum (you keep the rest if any)

Here’s a different approach that might be be cool and keep the dice rolling. If you loose your capital you roll 2 dice, the sum is what you managed to smuggle out, the rest is turned over to the enemy (min 2 ipc, max of 12 ipc).

I also think there should be a scorched earth policy BTW, if you lose an IC.

minor IC roll 1 dice (place that many damage markers)
major IC roll 2 dice (sum is amount of damage)

@Imperious:

Yea i saw that and decided to let you think you were on to something.

LMAO  :-D

@oldsalty:

OK.  Cost of the IC is not an issue.  Understand when IC costs vary between $5 - $15.    Does that also mean than if the factory is in China or Middle East, for example, in a Country with 3 IPC where they can produce 4 x 3 = $12 of units that they could build 1 ftr and 1 tank?

They may have the resources and technology, but I agrue they would not have the skilled labor to do this (then).  I am not aware that either the Allies or Axis built planes or tanks, etc in 3rd world countries.

yes $12 worth of units
but no can’t build 1 ftr ($10) + 1 tank ($5) because thats $15

“4 x IPC  income” is meant to be a simple rule to control both

*what you can build (eg. UK can’t build Carrier at India)
*how much IPC you can build

Or am I getting too anal here and sacrificing game play for realism?  Just looking for a clarification of the intent of the game, not trying to change any rules.

no we love your feedback
we just have to work it out

AARHE wants realism and gameplay
specific listings were avoided if possible

simple number based rules are good structure wise
you set a model and stick to it

unfortunately this requires numbers on the map to be realistic to start with
so some things don’t work out prefectly on some territories of the OOB map

but we are bound to overlook things, over time we discover alternative simple rules that leads to even greater realism

ahh ok good.