Actually the book as 31 pages. 32 including cover. There are 2 pages on each page when you download it. Check the numbers on the pages. You’ll see what I mean.
Do We Need Special Capitol Capture Rules? Would We Be Better Off Without Them?
-
*This is a gameplay discussion - I understand that losing the capitol historically would be very very bad, but that’s not reason enough to put it in a game that is only loosely based on history IMHO. It needs to serve a gameplay function, and not hurt the game in the process.
I don’t think there actually needs to be any special rules for capitol capture. To me, as long as capturing a capitol has such amazingly powerful implications (they can’t produce for two turns, capturing party gets a huge boost to their income), it’s going to dominate the strategy of the game.
If the current capitol capture rules stay in the game, it seems the major strategies will always revolve around capturing berlin for the allies or capturing moscow for the axis. Everybody seems to agree that once one of those things happens the other side can’t come back (or is very far from making a comeback).
If you remove the special capture rules, it’s still a HUGE blow to capture someone’s capitol (they lose their biggest IPC generator, and their biggest (sometimes their only) production center.
This is why japan players always try to attack the soviets. Even when Larry makes it harder, they still try to do it, because it’s still more worthwhile to kill moscow and fight a pitiful little war in the pacific, than to actually go for VCs and fight over the whole map (wouldn’t it be more interesting if we fought over the world and not just Europe?)
I wonder how the game would play at 12 VCs and no special capitol capture rules (can still produce and keep money when capitol is captured). I actually played a game on the Revised map where someone added a lot of VCs (many mirroring the A&A50 ones) and it felt very tense as the axis constantly got one VC away from victory then the allies managed to grab back Leningrad just as japan captured Sydney. I liked that game a lot for that reason. The game was also well balanced, as the allies came back almost to win (multiple times), but some really bad dice rolls killed them in a climactic eastern front battle.
What do you guys think about the capitol capture rules? There’s a very important balancing act done by every game (especially territory based strategy games) that i call Perpetual Comeback mechanic vs. Slippery Slope Mechanic. The capitol capture rules are an example of a slippery slope mechanic. Many Euro games whereby the person in last place gets the more favorable starting position for the next turn is an example of a perpetual comeback mechanic.
A slippery slope mechanic rewards the winning player for being in the lead/punishes the losing player. Basically a slippery slope mehcanic causes the player that’s farther behind to fall further behind. Usually game mechanics by default will reward people for being in the lead, you don’t need to help it by adding extra rules that make that reward even greater!
I will quote a wise game designer who introduced me to this concept (link to article at the bottom of this post):
@Sirlin.net:
For example, imagine that every time your team scored in basketball that the opponent’s team lost a player. In that game, falling behind is doubly bad because each basket counts for score AND it makes the opposing team less able to score points of its own. The actual game of basketball does not have this screwy feature though, so real basketball does not have slippery slope. Scoring in real basketball puts you closer to winning but does not at all hamper your opponents’ ability to score.
A perpetual comeback mechanic is a mechanic that rewards the losing player/punishes the winning player. These types of mechanics are sometimes required if you want the game to be fun, as many games start out (by design) heavily in favor of slippery slope.
Just think of the two as the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer (game mechanics).
A game too far on the slippery slope side ends up being really boring past a certain point because everybody knows who is going to win and you’re just going through the motions. If an RTS game was too slippery slope, for example. Winning the first battle means you will probably win the game - as every battle you win increases your chances of winning the next battle. So why keep playing after the first battle?
A game too far on the perpetual comeback side ends up being very annoying for skilled players who would like to be rewarded for doing well, and not punished. It could even make the game so random that skill doesn’t matter (i’m looking at you MARIO KART!).
So you neither want slippery slope nor perpetual comeback mechanics to define your game, but if we take a look at A&A, what do we see?
Slippery Slope:
- Capturing territory takes away IPC from the loser and gives it to the victor (a swing 2x as big as the IPC value of the territory).
- Capturing territory with an industrial complex/AA gun takes it from the loser and gives it to the victor (the delay in production for the capturing side is actually a limit on this slippery slope mechanic).
- Winning a battle well (you killed more IPC than he did) means you have a greater chance of winning the next one (your TUV compared to his is higher than it was before the battle).
- Capturing a Capitol gives you a huge money boost, and completely removes the enemy from being able to produce anything, effectively killing off their power if you manage to hold it. (this is added directly on top of 1 and 2, both of which are more exacerbated with capitols due to the high IPC/production value of the territory)
Perpetual Comeback mechanics:
- defending is usually more cost effective than attacking - (inf stack + planes much more useful on defence)
- Once someone starts to gain a lot of territory on an opponent, the losing party gets to focus all of their forces in one place and strike at the thinned out forces of the enemy who is far from their production facility.
- Planes Cannot land in newly captured territory (this would be an even bigger perpetual comeback mechanic if it allowed for planes to land in “liberated” territory but not “captured” territory).
Can you guys come up with any more? Now we’re at the subjective part of the argument. Are the Capture Capitol rules needed in order to prevent the game from taking too long? Are they necessary to make up for the perpetual comeback mechanics of the game? I would say no, because Slippery Slope Mechanics #1 and #2 are both very powerful and are even more powerful when you consider the importance of capitol IPC and production.
What are your thoughts? Are there, in fact, other game-winning (either 13 or 15 VP) strategies that work better/are easier to pull off than capture moscow/berlin?
BTW - you can check out a great article on Slippery Slope vs. Perpetual Comback game design here:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/slippery-slope-and-perpetual-comeback.html -
The thing with the capital capture rules is that they make for a more historical form of play. Any given nation would do anything to protect it’s home country (and note that for 4 out of the 6 nations, their capital territory is their entire home country). Historically, that’s where the vast majority of all empire’s manufacturing and population base for their armies are.
Consider this situation with and without the capital capture rules:
You play a game where Germany surges into Russia, and commits a bit too many of their forces there. The gamble pays off though, and Moscow falls. However, due to Germany’s overextension, the UK and US land a force in Germany and capture Berlin.
Now, in both situations, Russia is screwed. They probably used everything they could to defend their capital from the German onslaught, and so even if they still have an IC in the Caucasus, they can’t put enough troops there (using no CC rules, thus allowing them to produce) to make a difference.
But Germany’s situation is vastly different.
With CC rules, remaining German forces with Italian support can potentially work together to seize Berlin back from the Allies. If they do take it back with existing armies, Germany will have still suffered a severe disruption to it’s economy, but the game is still potentially not over now that they can draw forces back from fighting Russia to defend against the US / UK.
With no CC rules, Germany can use Moscow and Russian industry as the crux of a new invasion force - Germany can now launch an full offensive from Russia back towards Berlin.
I do think in a few cases that no-CC rules would be more historical - like if Germany sucker-punched Washington, the US could keep producing and fighting from the West Coast, and likewise for Russia if Moscow is taken with Leningrad and the Caucasus in Soviet hands. However, those situations are far outnumbered by the potential ahistorical situations that could arise from not having CC rules - consider Japan with strong gains in the Asian mainland simply ignoring the loss of Tokyo and continuing an invasion of Russia from several Asian complexes (or, to go further, the Japanese launching an offensive to take back those land complexes and eventually its capital from Moscow.)
Not to mention the sheer tenacity and troop allocation that every player should show when their capital is threatened. Italy shouldn’t feel free to leave troops out of Rome if there’s a single allied transport within range, safe in the knowledge that Germany will simply take back Rome for them if the Allies land those troops. With CC rules, the Italians are motivated to keep enough troops defending their home country to make an easy sucker-punch like that impossible.
-
You make some good points (especially about rome being left unguarded). However, in such a situation I think if germany liberated Rome before Italy’s turn, this would simply simulate rome being faught over for a long period of time (as it was, in fact, during the war). Instead of a single invasion going in and holding the whole territory in one landing, you must follow up on the attack (or have attacked with enough troops to defend) in order to truly hurt your opponent. A single throwaway suicide invasion represents what, historically? The allies go in and loot Rome (for the IPCs with CC rules) then ship those off and lose the divisions they sent there?
Why should we reward that suicide invasion? You are correct in that no CC rules would give less incentive for the Italian’s to leave strong defences there, but doesn’t it also lower the incentive of the allies to attack (even a weak target) unless they think they can hold it? Is the loss of 6 IPC worth of infantry worth the disruption to german lines and the 6 IPC gain (i think that’s how much rome is worth in A&A50?)? What are the other opertunity costs you could have done with those transports and units?
It seems to me it would still be valuable to capture an enemy capitol, especially if you can hold on to it, even without the CC rules.
I understand your apprehension about a situation where Japan discounts the loss of tokyo and just surges on into Soviet territory with mainland factories, but I guess I actually wouldn’t mind that too much. I would prefer to see the game fight over the whole map than always over europe. Besides, if Japan has lost it’s home island, that means it can’t defend it’s other island properties or it’s mainland properties (such as manchuria, where it most likely has a complex). So i doubt it would be able to just “ignore” the loss of the home islands.
-
I always thought that losing ALL of your money when losing a capital was a bit too harsh and also a really strange concept. I’ve always wondered if losing only half of your cash would be better. I mean, if a capital city capitulates, it does not mean the entire country is unable to continue working or fighting. Also, losing ones own capital would be terrible for morale, but just because the capital city is in enemy hands, it doesn’t mean that the command structure is necessarily destroyed. It would be disrupted most definitely, but still there. Also, if the Germans took Moscow in 1941 for example, the labor efforts of the Soviet nation for the previous 6 months would not have magically passed over to the German economy. Sure there would be a surge of German morale which might have briefly contributed to an increase of production, but not on the same level as the Soviet national income.
For these reasons I think losing only half of ones income to the rapist of your capital seems to make sense. It gives incentive for capitals to be taken, but also does not totally destroy the nations ability to fight. Thoughts?
-
Bridger,
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Several comments:
If you remove the special capture rules, it’s still a HUGE blow to capture someone’s capitol (they lose their biggest IPC generator, and their biggest (sometimes their only) production center.
Agreed. Capitols are still supremely important even without the special rules. Special Rules just put Capitols over the top and make it impossible for any player to recover after having their capital taken. I like the thought (no matter how unlikely) of a nation being able to liberate its own capitol. There’s something rewarding in that.
So you neither want slippery slope nor perpetual comeback mechanics to define your game, but if we take a look at A&A, what do we see?
As far as the Slippery Slope vs Perpetual Comeback concept is concerned, I don’t think this is an issue if Capitols are involved. The player is not REWARDED for having his Capitol taken. Russia doesn’t receive 10 extra partisan units once Moscow falls.
What makes Perpetual Comeback so difficult to define in A&A is that it’s an asymmetric game to begin with. By virtue the Axis have to be in the lead in the early game, otherwise they don’t stand a chance. The Allies player can afford to sustain higher losses in the first few rounds. If A&A were a symmetric game (both players start off at equal footing) then Perpetual Comeback mechanics would be easier to employ.
I think that the longer supply lines, more than anything else, enforces the Perpetual Comeback claim.
Are the Capture Capitol rules needed in order to prevent the game from taking too long?
Not really. Once a capitol is captured, the victor stands a very good chance of winning soon thereafter.
Comassion,
You play a game where Germany surges into Russia, and commits a bit too many of their forces there. The gamble pays off though, and Moscow falls. However, due to Germany’s overextension, the UK and US land a force in Germany and capture Berlin.
It seems like the scenario you described runs counter of the stated outcome. Russia still has Leningrad and Stalingrad (I’m assuming Germany takes the most direct route to Moscow as possible) and can still produce 6 units a turn. Meanwhile, Germany takes Moscow but loses Berlin, meaning she can only produce 6 units a turn. UK/USA takes Berlin, and they can produce an extra 10 units a turn. See where I’m getting here? Meanwhile, by the time the German army disengages from Moscow, there’s a strong chance the Allies can capture Rome too. It looks like a no CC rules benifit the Allies more than the Axis in this case.
Still, I’m very interested to see how this scenario pans out. Which is exactly the point of no CC rules: you get scenarios in the game which you haven’t seen before.
However, those situations are far outnumbered by the potential ahistorical situations that could arise from not having CC rules - consider Japan with strong gains in the Asian mainland simply ignoring the loss of Tokyo and continuing an invasion of Russia from several Asian complexes (or, to go further, the Japanese launching an offensive to take back those land complexes and eventually its capital from Moscow.)
Improbable. If Moscow has fallen (and the game is still not over yet), that means Berlin has fallen too. In which case, it makes more sense for the Allies to hit Moscow than Tokyo (shorter supply lines, more industrial production on the Western hemisphere ect)
The other point you brought up, Germany taking Moscow then wheeling back to retake Berlin seems more feasible.
Not to mention the sheer tenacity and troop allocation that every player should show when their capital is threatened. Italy shouldn’t feel free to leave troops out of Rome if there’s a single allied transport within range, safe in the knowledge that Germany will simply take back Rome for them if the Allies land those troops. With CC rules, the Italians are motivated to keep enough troops defending their home country to make an easy sucker-punch like that impossible.
I assuming that even without CC rules, the no build policy for a newly captured IC is still in effect. Which means Italy can’t produce anything for a turn if UK takes it.
-
Another thing to consider is the Capitols of the Axis I think are more important than the Allies. I think the United States could continue the fight with West Coast factory, Russia could have kept the fight up even with the loss of Moscow, and the UK with it’s large Commonwealth could keep fighting without England. Clearly all of there efforts would have severly hammpered if there Capitols fell but, they still could have kept the war going at least for awhile. When Germany loses Berlin, Italy loses Rome, and Japan loses Tokyo the war was over.
-
Admiral T,
Also, losing ones own capital would be terrible for morale, but just because the capital city is in enemy hands, it doesn’t mean that the command structure is necessarily destroyed. It would be disrupted most definitely, but still there. Also, if the Germans took Moscow in 1941 for example, the labor efforts of the Soviet nation for the previous 6 months would not have magically passed over to the German economy. Sure there would be a surge of German morale which might have briefly contributed to an increase of production, but not on the same level as the Soviet national income.
Yeah, it doesn’t make sense to me. I know we tend to think of IPCs as “Money” (like me) but really they’re INDUSTRIAL Production Certificates. Not treasure. Not loot. They represent that nation’s industrial capacity. And the thought of having your industrial capacity “switch sides” after your capitol is taken doesn’t make sense to me. That’s like saying the US auto industry welcomes Germany after it takes Washington DC.
Also, the point of Russia soldiering on even after Moscow falling is a very plausible argument. They did it in Napoleon’s time.
For these reasons I think losing only half of ones income to the rapist of your capital seems to make sense. It gives incentive for capitals to be taken, but also does not totally destroy the nations ability to fight. Thoughts?
As I previously stated, at most that income should be turned over to the bank. This represents workers giving up and going home, rather than choosing to join the other side.
-
If we gave the money to the bank instead, it would certainly make Moscow and Berlin a little less dominant. I think people would still rush the center of the board, but it might be enough to deter an all or nothing strategy.
I think Moscow and the Capital rules, are only one half of the problem though. The other part, and in my mind the more important part, is the distribution of production/IPCs all across the board. These are weighted so heavily in favor of the Eurasian landmass, that changing the capital rules alone might not be enough. I really think the only way we’re going to see consistent fighting in the Pacific is if more IPCs are distributed there. Adjusted capital rules would definitely help though.
-
to answer the subject/question would be no.
-
I think that the current Capitol Capture rules need to either be eliminated or altered.
My group and I are currently playing an AA50 42 Setup game where the Axis took control right from the start and took Moscow strong, but by a fluke, America’s smaller navy outmaneuvered Japan’s navy and actually managed to capture Japan on the same turn while also destroying the last remaining Japanese transport. Now (with NOs) we have Germany collecting 60+ IPCs, Italy collecting 30+ IPCs, and Japan still at 30+ (no NOs because of not controlling their capital, and they don’t collect any IPCs either, so these 30+ IPCs are completelly wasted.), against the US collecting 60+ IPCs and UK collecting about 25 IPCs per turn. The game has somewhat stagnated, because America has to keep UK alive and can’t expand in Japan’s territory, because there is still a large Japanese fleet within striking distance of any transports that America wishes to build in Japan. Germany and Italy control all of the mainland but can’t get the Japanese IPCs because of the CC rules, but neither US or UK is strong enough to establish a beachead on the mainland to fight back with. Japan lacking the means to liberate his capital, but still having a lot of units on the board, seems a little silly. (They have a Manchurian IC, 10+ land units on the mainland, and a nice navy with 2 BBs, 2 Carriers (no Fighters though), 1 Cruiser, 2 DDs, and 1 Sub.)
There is definitely not a clear winner yet, but the game has now dragged out for such a long time that interest has waned. (We play our games over a period of about a week usually, but this game is now past 2 weeks with no signs of ending soon.)
-
You could simply say that plunder is remitted to the bank rather than the capturing player. The victor gains the future income as reward itself and would eliminate possible trading in some instances.
-
This question depends on what kind of abstraction is the intention of CC in A&A. Maybe Larry Harris sees CC like i.e. with sealion, which sometimes happens in AAR, then Churchill and the UK leaders under Churchill is captured or killed. If this is so, then the rest of the Generals etc. will flee to Washington or Canada. Or if Germany capture London, UK leaders included Churchill gives up London/Europe and settles in US or Canada.
If Germany captures Moscow, then perhaps Stalin and Zhukov is killed/captured and resistence will be minimal.
If UK takes Berlin, then Hitler is killed and Generals will negotiate peace.Another issue is time scale. AAR/AA50 one turn is probably 6 months or a year. 3 months is too short because many games, if not the majority, last maybe 4-6 rnds.
So if UK or US takes Rome in AA50, this means that allied forces is controlling Italy in 6 months before Germany can liberate it.
Even with a 3 months time scale, US soldiers in total control of Italy (or maybe even Berlin!) for 3 months is not same as Japan got expelled from the Philippines.Imo, the CC rules is one of the factors in A&A which is not bad or broken, there are other issues which could and should be improved.
-
I think it is broken, because it adds game ending punishment on top of something that is already extremely devastating. Does it have to give all the money to enemy and prevent full production in order to be effective?
What if the only special rule involved giving up your money to the bank but you can still produce out of small factories (though obviously with no money on the first turn after capture).
Isn’t that enough to produce whatever desired effect it is designed to produce? Is the full money turnover and lack of production element really required to generate the type of play the rules intend to generate? I guess that’s really a question that depends on what Larry and the other designers wanted the rule to accomplish.
-
An option would be to freeze the money and institute a simple “no buy” rule until the capital is liberated.
-
In AAR, probably over 95% of all games are lost, if: when a capital is lost, and it cannot be recaptured, and the player that lost the capital is unable to capture one of the opponents capitals. Period! This seems to be the same with AA50. I don’t think Germany can keep liberating Italy and at the same time winning against Russia, but maybe axis could hold out and Jap takes Moscow. Anyway, a capital in A&A is like the queen in chess.
Also, most players concede when they think they cannot win, and most (AAR) games I played, I or the opponent have often conceded before any capital was even threatened.I don’t think the “game ending punishment” argument is relevant in the discussion of what is good/bad with AA50.
I read the article, interesting, but A&A is a war game, not a fighting game, and changing things to make it more time to finish will not make the game any better. You have to come up with something else, even if usually, in AAR, game lasts 4-8 rnds, it can take much longer, my record in AAR is 19 rnds, was LL and multi!
If CC rules is changed then invent something else that makes a knockout possible. -
I agree, taking out the CC rules without adding another way to “end the game” wouldn’t work well for the game’s length.
However, i think the way to end the game is built in. Play to 12/13 VCs with no CC rules. I think that keeps the game at a decent length and adds more depth. The All for Berlin/Moscow strategy isn’t as powerful in this variant, leading to other possible strategies.
-
IMHO, I don’t think you should lose all your money when you lose your capitol. I think you just lose your capitol and maybe you can only collect 50% (round up) for your total income. (Neglects having to say "Well, i own W. Indies, so that’s 1 IPC, and Brazil that’s 2 IPC. Together they are 4 IPC, so you get 2.) Then, if you have an IC left, you can build there.
Otherwise, you have to use your cash for infantry ONLY and can only build in a territory up to that territory’s limit. Say Brazil could build 3 Infantry…though, if you had 18 IPC worth of land to afford the 3 infantry (remember you are only getting 50%, so 50% of 18 IPC is 9 IPC) you’d probably have a better place to build them!
-
I think the Capital rules are fine and for all intents and purposes it should be a “game ender”.
If you nerfed the Capital rules all it would do is prolong a game that was decided long ago. It might not matter that much for on-line play, but FTF games would just continue to drag on. Games that you could play in a weekend would take several weekends. And would the Rus/Ger player really want to keep continuing to play for the 10-20% chance (with new captial rules) they can come back from losing the capital or would they rather just start up a new game the next weekend where they theoretically have a 50% chance to win?
I’ve been on both the winning and losing end of plenty of 25-30 rd games in both 2nd Ed and Revised where a capital finally falls, but I’ve known the game was pretty much decided by rd 15-20.
There are also strategies that deal with vacating Capitals to protect your army (stack). The problem is many players leave their stacks in the Capital to get wiped out leaving nothing left, thus the Capital falls and the game ends.Also usually when Germany or Moscow get captured, not much is plundered. Germany at most should probably be down 10-16 ipc and Russia probably only has 8-12 ipc.
It is not like it is easy to take Berlin when they earn 40. -
I’ve been on both the winning and losing end of plenty of 25-30 rd games in both 2nd Ed and Revised where a capital finally falls, but I’ve known the game was pretty much decided by rd 15-20.
I feel the same way about this too. That’s why I’ve also adopted a 12 VC condition, to make sure the game doesn’t have to be prolonged unnecessarily through player frustration and stubbornness.
-
Honestly, almost everyone quits once they lose a capitol. Rarely do players even keep playing after a capitol falls and when they do, it’s probably because they are taking a capitol as well that same round.
However, I can see a few circumstances when the fall of Germany not being a “game ender” could be a good thing. Why shouldn’t Germany be allowed to recover? If they can do it, and it could very well be that the allies have to absolutely destroy their entire army and air force getting Berlin meaning Germany CAN liberate with a mere 3 infantry possibly.
What pisses me off is when the allies throw a hail mary and run for a 9 VC game because they cannot take Berlin or Tokyo. Meanwhile, the axis are playing a long term strategy to really win by taking out Moscow and London or something. (Feel free to reverse for the Axis running for a 9 VC win instead if you want.)
Suggested Topics
