UK Gov't in exile Discussion - Delta 1

@Young:

Sounds like a headache trying to keep track of what’s in limbo and what’s collectable, as for America, sounds like their on their own, because all the UK will be able to contribute is a single transport each round, I thought the Government in exile rule was being created to allow the UK player to still have a fun game after London falls, spending $7 is close to not spending at all, that’s just my personal opinion, you gotta go with what the majority feels however the out come. The good news is, we all agree on the foundation of the rule.

The main issue I see with having Canada control all UK territories is that then the other allies(read US) cannot capture and control former UK territories.  Every time the allies liberate a territory it will return to Canadas coffers even though UK is conquered.  Keeping it limited to Canada means US can still reconquer Egypt, or Scotland.

I do see Canada at 7ipcs as not really being able to do /anything/.  They may need more income, not sure.

@Vance:

And just to be good and thorough, here is an option with the Scotland idea removed.

Thats good because I don’t like that wrinkle.  I don’t really understand why and what will keep Germany from taking Scotland anyways.  Plus there is no precedent for a territory becoming a neutral.

@JimmyHat:

@Vance:

And just to be good and thorough, here is an option with the Scotland idea removed.

Thats good because I don’t like that wrinkle.  I don’t really understand why and what will keep Germany from taking Scotland anyways.  Plus there is no precedent for a territory becoming a neutral.

If this is a vote of approval for “option D”, than I will compromise and support “option D” as well.

I have yet to vote, tho i need to.

Option D looks good…Although, I am not really sure why we’ve decided that Quebec > Ontario for the new capitol…yes it has the minor IC already, but that’s easily remedied, if it’s important for England to have a complex on the new capitol, they can bloody well build one!  I’ve only seen one game where Germany was any credible threat to Canada, and I have to say, I am pretty darn confident that a complex on the capitol would not have made a lick of difference in whether or not Canada fell. (BTW, no it did not, Germany sacked DC instead because the player was worried about a beach head in Canada.)

Yes, I said that my opinion is that all capitols should have an AA Gun and at least a minor Complex.  However, today is a day ending in y, therefore, I have the right to change my opinion, kay?  Good.  :evil: :-P :evil:

Shouldn’t the capital be the VC?

Okay, I like Version A the best, the only part I don’t like is the removal of the convoy zone.  How do you intend to denote on the game board that this convoy zone is dormant?  I also think that while that convoy zone represents trade flowing from Canada to UK, I also think that now the capital has moved it represents trade flowing into Canada to support production.

Another factor is the Atlantic is already fairly slim pickings for subs to convoy, especially after the fall of London.  Germany may still want to pursue a sub strategy.  Lastly, because at the fall of London the USA joins the war, that convoy zone is going to be easily protected and most likely cleared by the time it is Canada’s turn anyways.

last edit, I promise.  I would like to add that when this rule is playtested if Canada seems impotent we add a small NO.

How about we keep all the convoy zones active if you agree to allow the UK to collect income from original territories they still control on the Europe board.

Are you asking me which of those two rules are less destabilizing towards the goal of an even game for either side?

I’d say the convoy zone would be less destabilizing mostly because we are talking about so few a number of ipcs.  Otherwise if all the Axis get for capturing a capital(london) is disruption of production for 1 round, a 5 ipc NO and all UK’s Cash On Hand(CoH) I’m not so sure it would be worthwhile in comparison to a G2 barbarossa.

If Canada/USA can’t defend that convoy zone, even with 7ipcs, then perhaps this rule might just be the fix.  Still, how do you plan on representing this on the board in FTF games with many people, it will need to be recognizable and a part of the game components…

I would sure like to hear from others, it seems moving the threads to ‘house rules’ may have lost input.

@JimmyHat:

Still, how do you plan on representing this on the board in FTF games with many people, it will need to be recognizable and a part of the game components…

I agree.

In fact, ideally all the changes should be in the change of the set-up and NO’s (and rules). Nothing printed on the board should get changed and no one should need pieces not included in the box. (kinda like you said)

I vote for this 100%…… 2 issues I have.

1. If I understand correctly, no convoy zones are effected, correct?

2. If they may only mobilize in Canada, what happens to the IC in South Africa? is it removed from the board, or deserted and available for capture.

PS: I love the simplicity of this proposed final version.

i thought the game was already considered Allied favored, wasn’t it?

I am against it*, but what can a dictator do against darn democracy? :P

But

@Vance:

Play testing will see if it works.

So, ok.

• (“it” being that UK still earns the full amount of money)

How long will UK earn the “full” amount of money, SpecFor?

With a minor complex in S. Africa, that’s only 3 units a round.  If England was forward thinking and got another one in C. Persia, that’s still only 6 units a round.  Italy should be able to put 9 units a round on the ground in Egypt.  How long before Canada is choosing which complex to use?  After that, how long until the other one collapses and falls to the Italians?

The Brits should be lucky that they are still able to build units after London falls, besides the rule suggestion clearly states that the UK may only mobilize new units in Canada, and as it should be. The government will be 100% focused on liberating London, and should care less about building tanks in South Africa, or building a new complex in Persia. I personaly would like to suggest an addition to the proposed final version. The UK may only collect IPCs from original territories still in their control, and not neutral territories in their control no matter how they were acquired.

I also think it is going to be too much of an advantage for allies, UK may find themselves willing to lose their capital if it only means a 1 round disruption in production and the Axis letting Russia into Europe.  I do like that production can only flow from Canada, preventing UK from doing what Jenn said, seeding the board with IC’s so canada can produce.

A scenario, What will happen if US recaptures Egypt from Italy after London has fallen?

How long will UK earn the “full” amount of money, SpecFor?

With a minor complex in S. Africa, that’s only 3 units a round.  If England was forward thinking and got another one in C. Persia, that’s still only 6 units a round.  Italy should be able to put 9 units a round on the ground in Egypt.  How long before Canada is choosing which complex to use?  After that, how long until the other one collapses and falls to the Italians?

True, less each turn, but still alot more than with normal rules.
If Global 1940 would be much too Axis favored, then yes, i could see this thing as a possible balance-solution.

I consider Sea-lion as a way to take out the UK for several turns, so that Italy would have a chance to beak through in Africa or the Middle-East, so that Germany can breath a few turns in the Atlantic and make enough money to go after Russia, so that Japan won’t get 100% of USA going Pacific. For a while.

Giving the full Gov in Exile takes all these possibilities away from the Axis. Why would they bother to think about a Sea-lion at all? What is the benefit for Germany to still do this? Wouldn’t they just go Barbarossa every time?

@Young:

The Brits should be lucky that they are still able to build units after London falls, besides the rule suggestion clearly states that the UK may only mobilize new units in Canada, and as it should be. The government will be 100% focused on liberating London, and should care less about building tanks in South Africa, or building a new complex in Persia. I personaly would like to suggest an addition to the proposed final version. The UK may only collect IPCs from original territories still in their control, and not neutral territories in their control no matter how they were acquired.

Well, with USA in the war and able to make Canada safe AND liberate London in time, why wouldn’t UK build 3 units per turn in S.AF (if they were allowed to)? Or 3 subs in Canada to send of to the Med?

Also i prefer to keep the option for other Allies to liberate UK soil and make it their own.