Loss of Capital in Global Game

I think the above works well for the land territories. The sea (ships) might need some more consideration if you don’t use any type of ships in port rules. After say France falls I think the loyalty of the fleet should be decided. Maybe something as simple as a dice roll for each ship, or maybe roll for all ships in a sea sz together. Say roll 1-2 Free French, 3-4 Vichy, 5-6 scuttled, or some variation there of. Then the battles would start as the players take their turns. They could fight or retreat.

I would think who ever took Paris (Germany or Italy) would get control of Vichy ships. Just replace them with G/I boats, because they would not ever give them back.  The axis should be able to move them. Maybe I’m off base here, but w/o an in port rule, you couldn’t just force them to stay put as you do with ground units. I know that the French scuttled much of their fleet a year after the fall of Paris to keep it out of German hands. I just think that the possibility of some going to the axis existed so should be represented.

As for the Free French ships, you could still allow the French player to control them on their turn, or allow the UK to have temporary control, and blue ships would be considered UK in every way and be moved along with UK ships. If Paris is liberated then any surviving blue ships  would be returned to France. I like giving temp control to UK.

I don’t think you would use this rule for all other powers, just France and maybe Italy. I don’t think the loyalties would be in question for the other powers.

You could just leave well enough alone and simply have the entire fleet fight on as we do now. F & I Ships would not change sides, but that’s boring. I want to see the French fleet in turmoil with the chance for the allies to take it out.

@Imperious:

Quote
No country would surrender just because their capital had fallen unless that was all they had left.

OMG what?

Was that a sarcastic agreement?

No it’s like saying a patient does not need to die from a heart attack, because they have a second heart. The problem is a nation has only one capital and people only have one heart.

I fail to see your comparison.

Tempted to suggest that if your capital is captured you hand over the IPCs you have on hand (maybe to the bank to reflect an economic collapse, rather than to the enemy as loot) but continue playing as long as you have control of a Victory City that you owned from set-up (your new capital)….

Of course that could lead to FDR holding court in Honolulu and the Royal Family bunkered down in Cairo…hmmm  :|

@Flashman:

Again, I suggest that no country should ever produce units in factories other than those it started with.  Even liberated factories might have lower output due to asset stripping/vandalism by the enemy, so there should be a cost involved in getting your own complex back into full productivity.

I have always thought that if you loose an IC that you should be able to sabotage it on the way out. Now that we have damage markers its a no brainier. If its a minor IC roll one dice, major IC roll 2 dice. Place that many chips under the IC (up to 2x-same as SBR), and the enemy has to buy them out as normal to get it back to capacity. You could due the same for AB/NB. There should be some cost involved that’s for sure.

You should just keep your money and lose the territory just like any other territory.

@Flashman:

Again, I suggest that no country should ever produce units in factories other than those it started with.  Even liberated factories might have lower output due to asset stripping/vandalism by the enemy, so there should be a cost involved in getting your own complex back into full productivity.

I don’t support a rule which prevents building or capturing factories, but a minor tweak could be a better solution.

The most practical and easiest rule to deal with captured factories, is a scorched earth rule, which means that any country can chose to destroy/remove any factory they own. It this way, the conqueror would have to build new factories, and now ICs cost 12 or 30 ipc.

How about this for a handy scorched earth rule?

For any unit that would hit in any round of combat on a land territory, you may instead choose to apply that unit’s # of dice pips worth of damage to any facility in that territory (whether you control that territory or not).

Okay, some examples.

Infantry (on attack) hits with a 1: target facility gets 1 damage counter.

Tank (on defence or attack) hits with a 2: target facility gets 2 damage counters.

Fighter (on defence) hits with a 4: target facility gets 4 damage counters (no AA defence because you control the AA guns).

Fighter (on attack) hits with a 3: target facility rolls AA defence. If AA hits the fighter, it is destroyed and the facility takes no damage counters. If AA fails, the fighter survives and the facility gets 3 damage counters.

This also allows some strategic damage to be inflicted to enemy facilities on land (via strafing) without risking one’s bombers… Thoughts?

@Make_It_Round:

How about this for a handy scorched earth rule?

For any unit that would hit in any round of combat on a land territory, you may instead choose to apply that unit’s # of dice pips worth of damage to any facility in that territory (whether you control that territory or not).

Okay, some examples.

Infantry (on attack) hits with a 1: target facility gets 1 damage counter.

Tank (on defence or attack) hits with a 2: target facility gets 2 damage counters.

Fighter (on defence) hits with a 4: target facility gets 4 damage counters (no AA defence because you control the AA guns).

Fighter (on attack) hits with a 3: target facility rolls AA defence. If AA hits the fighter, it is destroyed and the facility takes no damage counters. If AA fails, the fighter survives and the facility gets 3 damage counters.

This also allows some strategic damage to be inflicted to enemy facilities on land (via strafing) without risking one’s bombers… Thoughts?

hmmm…. actually I can see this could be nasty since you could only damage your own ICs before losing all units in the defending territory.
So you’d have to essentially take units out of combat if you wanted to scorch your earth.

Leave it too late and…  :evil:

@i:

well mabe you tweke that abit so you can only do 50% damage to factoreis when attakeing but defending you can kill it if you what

What?

anyway, I think the loss of a capital (presuming it’s not your only territory of course) should be worse than losing a Victory City but not as devastating as OOB

Nations may not throw in the towel but they should be on the ropes.

@allboxcars:

anyway, I think the loss of a capital (presuming it’s not your only territory of course) should be worse than losing a Victory City but not as devastating as OOB

Nations may not throw in the towel but they should be on the ropes.

Agreed.

@Brain:

@allboxcars:

anyway, I think the loss of a capital (presuming it’s not your only territory of course) should be worse than losing a Victory City but not as devastating as OOB

Nations may not throw in the towel but they should be on the ropes.

Agreed.

Maybe something like this for captured capitals….

@allboxcars:

7. Life Tile [[i]Game of Life] - Whenever a player captures a Victory City or causes an opponent to retreat from attacking his Victory City, grab a Life Tile and read it aloud. Players may freely conjecture how saving Stalingrad helped to “Find a Cure for the Common Cold” and if the $40,000 payoff has any IPC value.

What I’ve done about this in my rules set is to treat capitals like other territories. But with some exceptions:
1. I’ve included manpower points as a separate resource, which are required to produce infantry. Nation’s capitals always produce manpower points; and often provide the lion’s share of the manpower points a nation receives.
2. The game features research centers (which provide research points) and industrializations (which increase the IPC value of the underlying territory). A capital is a natural place to perform these territorial improvements, making the loss of a capital more critical.

The loss of Moscow would have represented the loss of a major industrial area, infantry recruiting ground, and transportation hub. But the Soviets would have, and could have, fought on, and kept right on producing and recruiting, long after that city had fallen. I created the above rules about capitals (no special treatment) with a Moscow scenario in mind.

But I realize the above does not do a particularly good job of simulating the fall of Paris/the emergence of Vichy France. Nor does it represent the defection of Italy. (Though that was not caused by the loss of a capital, as Mussolini was overthrown while the Allies were still a long way from Rome.)

@i:

@Brain:

@i:

well mabe you tweke that abit so you can only do 50% damage to factoreis when attakeing but defending you can kill it if you what

What?

i meant if you attack you can only do 50% damage but defending you can do 100% damage
1damage=1hit
so if you have ten inf and roll 5 2 when defending you can take those hits and damege you indestrey.

Still a little lost