Question on the political exile HR?

@SEP:

I see this mentioned in the splitting UK thread.  As I understand it, using G.B. as an example, if London fails (aka Sea Lion) then they get to use a new territory as their seat of power.  So this brings up questions about the HR.

• Does the new territory need to have a victory city?

• Does G.B. still lose their money-in-hand to Germany on the turn London is lost?

I believe KNP is better suited to explain the history of the political exile rule, but this is what I know.

The idea of a political exile house rule has only ever applied to the UK if I’m not mistaken.
The city that is to replace London as the new capital if necessary is Ottawa, it’s not a choice.

If Germany captures London… they will indeed take all of Britain’s cash on hand, Ottawa becomes the new capital of the UK allowing them to collect an income their next turn and place units on factories they still own. The aftermath of a successful Sealion attack has always crippled the Allies and has become near impossible to recover, the political exile rule helps balance this dynamic. The only other political exile rule I know about applies to my idea of separating the two UK economies into their own nations, and by combining all ANZAC territories with the UK Pacific. This new nation would collect 27 IPCs total, with Calcutta as it’s capital, so if Calcutta falls, they would give up all their cash on hand and Sydney would become the new capital of the UK Pacific in order to continue collecting an income.

We used this HR in our first A&A-Global-1940 game. The fall of London in turn 3 ("Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United Kingdom was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of Germany. ") was a severe blow for the Allies. Giving the UK-income to Germany and therefore no UK-purchase on turn 3 was hard but it didn’t end the war as in previous games.
In fact on turn 5 an US-Inavsion (“Operation Torch”) liberated London. Btw. all players agreed that the UK capital should remain in Ottawa fro the rest of the war.

@The:

. Btw. all players agreed that the UK capital should remain in Ottawa fro the rest of the war.

All players ….? The German player too ? He did not want to loot London again ?

Yes, all players. Incl. Germany.
The decision was made after the fall of London. We all agreed that it would be more realistic that an exiled British government would stay in Canada in stead of moving into a war-ravaged London. Of cause the German player was keen on looting again, but by turn 5 he was caught in a severe fight for Moscow and his fleet was sunken twice at Gibraltar.

@The:

. Btw. all players agreed that the UK capital should remain in Ottawa fro the rest of the war.

Personally, I don’t agree with that. You gave a good answer as to why and I understand your reasoning, I just think if London is liberated, it becomes the UK capital again. Personal choice I guess.

I also had the idea that the US could work under a secondary capital rule. If Washington DC was captured, then the US could move their capital to San Francisco. OF course, realistically, if the Axis captures Eastern US and the Allies can’t take it back, I would imagine San Francisco wouldn’t last too long as a capital. Still, perhaps Germany is off trying to capture Washington while Russia is beating down their door. I’ve seen some pretty strange games.
I was thinking the secondary capital rule would only apply to the US, the UK and if you combined UK Pacific and ANZAC together. I believe the democracies could function if their capital was taken by using another location and even “secondary” leaders.
France is a democracy too but that one is just too small and they have no other victory city to use as a capital. Same goes for ANZAC and UK Pacific by themselves.
Germany, Japan, Italy and the Soviet Union are all dictatorships that have their power based in one place, the capital, and wouldn’t dare designate ANY authority to a secondary location.

I don’t think that the political system of a nation is the determining factor whether it could move a capitol or not. In late 1941 there were preparations to move the Russian government out of Moscow. In 1914 an in 1940 again the French cabinet fled to Bordeaux.
But for my A&A games – an maybe for my A&A 1940 only – this rule should only be installed for the British. Anyway, whichever house rule fits to your gaming group is up to you and your group.

Okay, it is a nice idea that Stalin flees to the Ural or Novosibirsk after the fall of Moscow – like in many computer games. And I’m sure a American government would move to the west coast.
But on the other hand, after playing A&A for over 20 years I’ve never seen a serious invasion of the US-mainland. Every time the axis won, they achieved victory via capturing Moscow, London, victory cities, economic victory (like in the 1985 game) or a moral victory (A&A Pacific 2001).

@The:

I don’t think that the political system of a nation is the determining factor whether it could move a capitol or not. In late 1941 there were preparations to move the Russian government out of Moscow. In 1914 an in 1940 again the French cabinet fled to Bordeaux.
But for my A&A games – an maybe for my A&A 1940 only – this rule should only be installed for the British. Anyway, whichever house rule fits to your gaming group is up to you and your group.

Okay, it is a nice idea that Stalin flees to the Ural or Novosibirsk after the fall of Moscow – like in many computer games. And I’m sure a American government would move to the west coast.
But on the other hand, after playing A&A for over 20 years I’ve never seen a serious invasion of the US-mainland. Every time the axis won, they achieved victory via capturing Moscow, London, victory cities, economic victory (like in the 1985 game) or a moral victory (A&A Pacific 2001).

I agree… only for the Brits.

@The:

Okay, it is a nice idea that Stalin flees to the Ural or Novosibirsk after the fall of Moscow – like in many computer games. And I’m sure a American government would move to the west coast.
But on the other hand, after playing A&A for over 20 years I’ve never seen a serious invasion of the US-mainland. Every time the axis won, they achieved victory via capturing Moscow, London, victory cities, economic victory (like in the 1985 game) or a moral victory (A&A Pacific 2001).

Haven’t you seen any of the threads regarding Operation Cloverfield? There are a few here and there, although I don’t know exactly where right now. Anyway, with the way things are in Global 1940, it is actually a viable option now.
It has to be a surprise and you will probably only get away with it once or twice, depending on who you play with. Also, it has to be Global 40 (not simply Europe 40) because you need Japan to take some of the Allies’ attention.
Now I will admit, Global 40 is the first A&A game where an Axis attack on the US is actually a possibility. In all the other games, from Classic to Anniversary to 1942, an invasion of the US would only happen once Russia and UK are already done for, in which case the game is already an Axis victory.
This is why I suggest that the US be able to move to San Francisco if Washington is taken. However, Russia falls if Moscow is taken. You can’t move the capital to the Urals because there is no VC there. You would be turning them into China.
I suppose you could use Stalingrad if it was still Soviet, but once Moscow falls how much longer do you think Stalingrad will survive? Really you are just giving Germany a chance to plunder the Russian treasury a second time.

No knp7765 I’ve never heard about this strategy until now.
But to have any chance of success prior to the fall of UK you need a substantial landing force, a navy to protect it and a naval base within reach of the east coast.
For the naval base, there are only three locations: Gibraltar, Spain (or Portugal) or Iceland. Any attempt to make this preparations should alert the US-player. With his 52 IPC’s – if not already at war – building a couple if fighters and subs or destroyers should be no problem. After the entry into the war a stack of 10+ infantry should be enough to repel most invasions.
In this case the greatest danger lies in the forced neglecting of the pacific by the USA for on or two rounds; a great help for the Japanese to finish of UK-Pac and/or ANZAC

My craziest game had the US capturing Tokyo and Rome while Germany had Moscow and London. US got France in the game while Germany got Ottawa. China was stopping the Germans In kazakhstand while UKP help the middle East. Germany looked done for. Then surprise! The Germans took Washington! SAME TURN US GOT BERLIN! Germany lost while holding Washington…that was when my friends and I didn’t know much about strategy…

@Charles:

My craziest game had the US capturing Tokyo and Rome while Germany had Moscow and London. US got France in the game while Germany got Ottawa. China was stopping the Germans In kazakhstand while UKP help the middle East. Germany looked done for. Then surprise! The Germans took Washington! SAME TURN US GOT BERLIN! Germany lost while holding Washington…that was when my friends and I didn’t know much about strategy…

Wow! So pretty much everyone’s capital was in enemy hands. I guess since the US liberated France that makes it an Allied win. That would be a crazy game. The only ones that could buy anything were France, UK Pacific and ANZAC. Just imagine trying to continue that game.
We had a game one time where Japan had this huge army on the mainland. They had conquered all of China and SE Asia and took India. However the US took Japan and managed to sink all the Japanese navy. So there was poor japan with this huge army that basically did them no good. Very frustrating.

@The:

No knp7765 I’ve never heard about this strategy until now.
But to have any chance of success prior to the fall of UK you need a substantial landing force, a navy to protect it and a naval base within reach of the east coast.
For the naval base, there are only three locations: Gibraltar, Spain (or Portugal) or Iceland. Any attempt to make this preparations should alert the US-player. With his 52 IPC’s – if not already at war – building a couple if fighters and subs or destroyers should be no problem. After the entry into the war a stack of 10+ infantry should be enough to repel most invasions.
In this case the greatest danger lies in the forced neglecting of the pacific by the USA for on or two rounds; a great help for the Japanese to finish of UK-Pac and/or ANZAC

Actually, this can work. What you do as Germany is act like you are prepping for a Round 3 Sealion.
Round 1 goes pretty much as normal, sink the Royal Navy and take out France. Buy a carrier and either 2 transports or a destroyer/submarine.
Round 2 Germany buys 10 transports and gets the men/units to fill them to West Germany and Norway. Italy needs to get whatever warships they have left to SZ 92 and it would be nice if they could also take Gibraltar. Germany can help the Italian navy by hitting any Allies ships still left in the Med.
Round 3 instead of attacking England, Germany shoots down with it’s fleet to SZ 91 and lands all those troops in Gibraltar and Morocco. Germany will be taking Gibraltar this round if Italy wasn’t able to round 2.
At this time the US will still be neutral and can only place ships in sea zones 89, 101 and 102. This moves give the US just 1 round to build up defenses for Eastern US. Even though the US will probably declare war during their collect income phase, they can still only place 10 units there. For the first two rounds, the US can build a maximum of 18 total units at all three of their ICs. This is why Japan has to work with you by acting in a threatening way toward the US during the first 2 rounds without actually violating their neutrality. Odds are good that the US player will spend some if not all of their first couple of rounds buying warships to face off against the big Japanese navy. More than likely, with the 10 units they can plop down Round 3, the US will probably have about 18-20 units guarding Eastern US. Germany can hit them with 22-26 ground units in an invasion depending on how many transports they bought.
By Italy’s turn, the Naval Base in Gibraltar will be under Axis control so they can send out their warships from SZ 92 to sea zones 102 or 89 to clear any US blockers. Then the way will be clear for Germany’s arrival.
Now, if it just so happens that the US player has decided to totally ignore the Pacific and go all in for Europe, he/she will probably be building everything in Eastern US and moving their navy over to the Atlantic. In that case, they could have a lot of stuff there, even more than the big German invasion force and/or a big enough naval presence that Germany can’t out fight it in order to land their troops or Italy might not have enough to clear the blockers. If this happens, you can double back and go ahead with Sealion, go back to SZ 112 and on the next round send them to Leningrad, or even take them into the Med to overwhelm Cairo and the Middle East. The point is that a fleet with 11-13 transports full of men and equipment can be useful in a number of places.
So it’s like I said before, this could work but a lot of things have to go right. Also, it has to be a surprise and you will probably only get away with it once or twice as afterward your Allied players will be aware of the possibility and there are a number of ways the Allies can thwart it.
It’s kind of an “all or nothing” gambit because if it fails, Germany has already committed too many resources for no return and they will be too weak to fend off the Allies.

Well I still don’t see a fair chance that a German Invasion into the US will succeed. (Btw. in most of our games there is no Italian fleet left to exit into the Atlantic and clear of any US-blockers.)
But on the other hand, 10+ German transports protected by a strong navy will certainly do very much damage to UK, Russia or the Middle East. A very tough situation for the Allies!
And Japan will be very pleased to see nearly 100% of the purchased US troops go to the European board.