Operation Sealion a Possibility with AA1940 Europe?

When someone flips the board, we simply beat him with a stick. That does the trick.

Beat on the brat, beat on the brat, beat on the brat with a baseball bat.

Ok, lets get past the flip the board thing. There were a lot of other good points involving gov in exile.

@WILD:

Ok, lets get past the flip the board thing. There were a lot of other good points involving gov in exile.

Okay I believe that if you lose your capital you should keep your IPC’s and continue on.

I think you should lose only the ability to collect income if you lose your LAST factory. If you have 2 factories and the enemy takes one, you can build at the other. The enemy takes only the value of the territory.

So when you lose your capital you lose nothing but a place to build from and the direct IPC from the territory. What is messed up is the enemy takes all your money…even saved up income.

@Imperious:

I think you should lose only the ability to collect income if you lose your LAST factory. If you have 2 factories and the enemy takes one, you can build at the other. The enemy takes only the value of the territory.

So when you lose your capital you lose nothing but a place to build from and the direct IPC from the territory. What is messed up is the enemy takes all your money…even saved up income.

That’s what I am saying but not quite as eloquently put as the way IL worded it.

@SgtBlitz:

NO… just, no…  If Britain fell to the Nazis, that should be at LEAST a whole turns worth of production… There was Buckingham Palace, countless arts and treasures, PLUS England was the industrial heartland of the Empire.  Maybe the turn afterwards the defeated power could collect income on whatever territories remained and build from other factories, but the psychological defeat of losing a capital should last for at least a turn.

Also, if Britain did fall, I don’t see them building battleships and carriers in Canada or India in significant numbers to come back and reclaim the capital… It’d be up to the US player to be responsible for liberating England.

UK player represents Commowealth and free frech and belgian forces. London fall should be a hard blow (maybe axis take England income (8 IPCs, not the total), but I doubt Australia would stop to fight the japs only because London is in axis hands. You can say the same with Free France, SAF or Canada

In case of USA, as someone said, if Whashington DC falls, I’m pretty sure yanks would fight from California (and germans should be careful when reach to Texas and fight Chuck Norris  8-) ), and there is still Brazil and Mexico there

Soviets would retreat to Siberia (where most of their industry was moved anyway) in case of Moscow falling. I can easily see them fight from Stalingrad, Leningrad or even Vladivostok if you ask me

I guess you can find similar reasons for axis countries, the total fall of a power after losing a capital was OK in Classic and its small board. But in this HUGE map is a nosense. I want see a successful Sea Lion that not stop aussies and canadians production. Go Canada!

@SgtBlitz:

Also, if Britain did fall, I don’t see them building battleships and carriers in Canada or India in significant numbers to come back and reclaim the capital… It’d be up to the US player to be responsible for liberating England.

I wonder what would have happened? If Britain fell in 1940 - would the US have gone to war about that? Who knows?

And if the royal navy had escaped - would they have been able to bring troops from around the empire to fight some way or other? It would have been a dramatically different timeline for sure. In WWI the UK was able to import large numbers of troops from around the empire. In WWII her relations with much of it were in doubt due to a growing sense of nationalism throughout it. Would the Indians have fought in 1940 like they did in 1914-1918. Dying on european battlefields far from home?

It’s just too much too imagine.

Also of course; would the US have dared antagonise Japan - Germany’s Ally if the British had fallen and Germany was ‘all powerful on the continent?’ Hadn’t Britain and 1941 already proven that with perserverence the Axis could be beaten? In fact - the clear loss of the Battle of Britain by the Germans (though as said before - it was an impossible task for the Germans to win) was probably as great a propaganda blunder as a military one. The german armed forces - who had triumphed throughout Europe finally were halted. Equally important was they were halted in the most heroic way possible, by a bunch of disarmed islanders with nowt but a few fighter planes. The Battle of Britain gave birth to the myth of the ‘Few’ which alongside ‘A day in Infamy’ became one of the defining speeches of the early war years - the idea of the lhonorable insulted man who would grow in rage and power until those wrongs done him were avenged. Such examples would follow on land outside Moscow and in the Sea at Midway.

Whenever you look at the Minutiae of this stuff you can see the truth.

Battle of Britain:
Appears: Small poorly prepared airforce beats off massive war hardened airfleets 2 & 3 over the rolling green kent countryside.
Reality (in brief): Highly organised, well supplied air force holds its own due to advantages in range, radar direction, and aircraft qualities. Mixed with a heavy dose of attacker error (like attacking in the first place, and unrealistic aims and expectations).

Battle of Moscow:
Appears: After 5 months of blitzkrieg across the Russian hinterland, pulverising all before them, the evil nazis are stopped by the harsh winter, and the bravery of wives and children digging tank traps in the moscow suburbs.
Reality (in brief): Resistance to German forces stiffened markedly as the months wore on, and as soon as armies were destroyed so they were replaced. After German pissing about (thanks Hitler) many of the Panzer divisions were suffering mechanical differences before winter set in. Saving Moscow was an achievment - but with the help of Siberian forces released by Japans southern intent German defeat was guaranteed - even had they entered the city. The Soviets would not have surrendered after the loss of Moscow - they expected it and moved virtually all government out of the city.

Battle of Midway:
Appears: Well placed US bombers/torpedo planes catch Nagumo napping allowing a numerically inferior fleet to inflict the most important naval defeat (arguably) of the Pacific war.
Reality: Americans had been decrypting Japanese codes for ages. They knew about the types and numbers of planes and vessels in the Midway fleet, they also knew about the dramatic feint toward the Aleutians (which the won the Japanese two pointless islands!) If anything - a number of US planes couldn’t find the Japanese that day which is a surprise! The Japanese sailed straight into the trap set for them - but unluckily helped a lot by laying our fuel and explosives all over the decks of their carriers <boom>.

Sorry… got carried away.</boom>

Maybe rather than take the money - the ally who loses his capital has to skip the purchase units and collect income phase for one turn - if people feel there needs to be an element of shock/punishment to losing your capital.

Personally I like hand over the ipc level of your capital to its new owner (maybe even another 5ipc’s or so-bonus for taking capital). I could live with hand over the rest of your money to the bank. That way you could not purchase new units next round (you would have no $). You can do combat, non-combat and still collect income to buy units the next round. This would show the delay of getting back on your feet and is not that far removed from the original rules. It also helps somewhat with the huge swing in power the enemy would get for game play, and allows you to continue the fight. If you don’t have another IC you should be able to purchase one eventually. You could also increase the cost of units showing your displacement. Where it would get trick is if the enemy took another IC from you, would the process be the same? Its not really your capital. I would think not to confusing.

I’d personally take a fun, balanced game over a historically accurate one.  The merits of certain “historical” possibilities, whether they were planned, attempted, or dreamed of by any power matter little to me.  There’s not even a Bismark, and I’m over that.

How about, as the Italians you’re not allowed to move your navy out of the Mediterranean SZ it starts in?  How about all of your Italian units roll to hit on a 1 in Africa?  We should probably just about double the number of British ships in the Atlantic… there are plenty more things we can do to completely ruin this game.  HISTORICAL ACCURACY DOODZ!

+1 soul

soul/omega:
I’m not one to put historical accuracy before game play. I think if you can get both however its better.
The OOB way allows the invader to take all your stored ipc’s and then get paid for the tt at the end of his turn (to powerful IMO). It also hand cuffs you to just the units you have left on the board, with little chance of doing anything else. I think as the game has matured into more tt and AA40 will offer many more tt and IC’s this rule has grown outdated.

Thats why I proposed to still hand over all your money. I just don’t think you should give it all to the enemy. The guy that took your capital is getting money from you (ipc value) and also getting paid by the bank at the end of his turn. I think this is fair, and not quite so game changing (better for game play).

I’m also thinking of the guy that just got knock out of the game. If he could still participate even at a reduced level (get paid & purchase units) and contribute to his own liberation it would be also be better for game play IMO.

Now if you like shorter games with a knock out punch like take a capital essentially win the game then no this rule would not be for you. I think it would extend the game.

Other things have also come to surface because of the larger board like a rule for the straights. This is going to have historical purpose, but will also be good for game play IMO. And who knows maybe the Bismark/Tripitz will be represented in AA40 in the Baltic (1 BB) w/protection from the new straight/port rules. See we have progress :-D

I think the victor should get a one time bonus of maybe 10 IPC’s for capturing the capital but that’s it.

@souL:

There’s not even a Bismark, and I’m over that.

I think historically the removal of the Bismarck from the setup is accurate, as the AA50 and AA42 games start after it was sunk in May 1941.
Perhaps it could be readmitted to the setup with the new games starting in 1940…

Our experience from WWII, is that Paris, Rome and Berlin was the only capitals that was conquered.

We dont know what would have happened if Moscow or London was conquered.

We do know that nobody got rich from taking Berlin, the only thing they got was the rocket tech and some pretty high occupation expenses for the next 20 years. When taking Paris and Rome, the attacker got even less, its more like they had to pay when conquering this capitals, lol.

A better A&A rule would be that when you successfully attack and controll any enemy capital, the capital owner lose all his money to the bank. The attacker only get the territorys IPC value when he collects income. Nothing more.

You make an excellent point.

Here is the rule my friends and I sometimes play with for capitals:

If your capital is taken, instead of giving all your IPCs to the enemy, you give them all to the bank instead.  (your money is destroyed)

There is still a strong incentive to take the enemies capital, but taking his capital doesn’t make you strong, it just makes the enemy really really weak.

We have also considered playing with a rule where you still collect money but only collect half your money rounded down, and can spend it at any remaining factories you have.  Haven’t tried it yet though.

@Veqryn:

Here is the rule my friends and I sometimes play with for capitals:
If your capital is taken, instead of giving all your IPCs to the enemy, you give them all to the bank instead.  (your money is destroyed)
There is still a strong incentive to take the enemies capital, but taking his capital doesn’t make you strong, it just makes the enemy really really weak.
We have also considered playing with a rule where you still collect money but only collect half your money rounded down, and can spend it at any remaining factories you have.  Haven’t tried it yet though.

I like your idea but I still think you should collect all of your money and not half.