Do We Need Special Capitol Capture Rules? Would We Be Better Off Without Them?

My thoughts:

First of all, I don’t believe Moscow falling should mean the death of Russia.  The soviets would have relocated, hence the whole “Mobile Industry” advantage in AAR, which made no sense since you would be moving your complex East of Moscow and thus lose it, being unable to produce anything…

Second, lucky grabs are lame.  Making a 50/50 or so assault against a capital can decide a game, and I personally don’t think it should.  The IPCs aren’t destroyed, they are STOLEN.  For making a lucky grab against a single territory, a player could be rewarded a good 50 IPCs or so.  This situation IS rare, but still, putting so much emphasis on a single territory explains why we don’t see these “global wars” develop.

Finally, I think defeating a nation should be final.  Germany shouldn’t stop fighting because Berlin has fallen, but because every single area in Europe has fallen.  America shouldn’t surrender if Washington DC is captured, they should surrender when every single mile of American soil is under seige and no soldiers remain.  You get what I’m saying.

So yeah, I’m all for trying a few games without special capital capture rules.  In fact, I may add that to my little house rule list.  Thanks for the idea!

@Rakeman:

Finally, I think defeating a nation should be final.  Germany shouldn’t stop fighting because Berlin has fallen, but because every single area in Europe has fallen.  America shouldn’t surrender if Washington DC is captured, they should surrender when every single mile of American soil is under seige and no soldiers remain.

In real life, Germany surrendered when they still holded Norway, Denmark and some zones of Netherlands and Austria. A country don’t fight until the very soldier is killed, they fight until there is no chance of even get a conditional surrendering.

Germany, Japan and Italy should surrender when their capital falls, at least as the game is now. Allies are another thing, because UK would continue fighting from colonies, USA would fight from West coast and soviets from Siberia. I’m pretty sure even commie China would continue the fight, rallying the warlords, even if Koumingtang’s capital of Chongquing were taken.

Still, I agree that capital rules as now are too hard. It would be nice having a rule for exiled goverments, even if you steal all the money the turn you conquer the capital

@Cmdr:

Honestly, almost everyone quits once they lose a capitol.

Even Moscow, with the UK and USA just a turn away from liberating it?

IL mentioned elsewhere that it’s common to see 4 nations hold Moscow on a single turn (though I’ve never seen all 5 it’s a possibility - or maybe even 6 now.)

I’ve been in too many games of Revised dominated by the taking and re-taking of Moscow to have anything but contempts for the traditional CTC rules.
If Moscow fall, Russia fights on from the Urals, the UK from Canada and so on. The game should not be all about just 6 territories.
As long as a nation has an IC it should be able to produce units there. And even without one it should still be able to place infantry in home territories.

Remember that a capital manages infrastructure and IPC’s are representative of production and infrastructure. Even in war soldiers are paid as are the people who build their weapons. If Washington fell tomorrow how many of us can just get together with the nieghbors and build a tank? Not to mention the only thing of yours that would have value is hard goods and equipment. I f the Chinese invaded tomorrow do you think Canadians or Mexicans would except US dollars for guns?

That’s why I think the money should go back to the bank, or as cruel twist of fate, the assests are frozen and given to the loser’s allies as if they were a government in exile.