Gameplay mechanics: Defensive reinforcements, capital loss

(Originally posted on Larry’s forums, but this sees more traffic so I’m interested in opinions)

Axis and Allies has come a long way since classic, but there are still some “gamey” tactics still alive that bug me, as they neither represent reality at all nor do they add to the fun factor of the game. These can be traced to two sources, one game mechanic that needs modification, and another that needs adding.

Problem Examples:
-It’s most often best to have one massive stack, attacking on multiple fronts is suicide as your smaller stacks get gobbled one at a time. Thus, a veteran player’s invasion of Russia with Germany is made of a one pronged attack that goes straight to Moscow, sometimes going through Leningrad or Stalingrad first.

-There is no reason for the allies to push the Germans lines back from France/Italy when a substantial landing force can just “snipe” Berlin and end the game. This forces Germany/Italy to garrison their capital with a large stack once the US is in the war. Capital sniping effectively ends the game.

Source of Problems/fixes:

• The sense of time scale in A&A can seem off when battles happen. When a territory is attacked, the defenders are on their own regardless of how long the battle is, even if there is a massive friendly force just one territory away. In real war, if one part of the lines are attacked, forces from the reserves and flanks would relocate to support the defense.
  I suggest that if a battle lasts more then two rounds, then the defender may move units from adjacent territories into the battle to support the defense(this is a “free” move into the attacked territory) In A&A 42 this may seem beyond the scale, but in either of the A&A40 games I think it is a reasonable mechanic. I’d expect a force in West Germany to be able to respond to an attack on East Germany, or France/Normandy, North/South Italy, navies in adjacent seazones, etc.
  This would fix some problems and promote more interesting Gameplay. The “one stack to rule them all” would be still viable but not be necessary, since 2 stacks could support eachother. There would be reason to attack across a broad area rather then making needlepoint attacks(vulnerable to being cut off from supplies in real war). In addition, defense in depth would become a viable tactic and the concept of reserves could be put to use on the table top. I think it’s a fairly simple rule that could do so much for the game.

-Capitol loss.
The current mechanics for capitol loss do not seem to make sense in either a realistic sense or a game play sense. It does not make sense for Germany to get all of Britain’s income from around the globe because it captured London. As well, the current capitol loss mechanic makes victory cities redundant. The large majority of the time the game is effectively over once one side loses a capital, regardless of the amount of “other” victory cities owned. Losing a capital provides the other side with a ridiculous reward and take the victim pretty much out of the war, even if it wouldn’t make sense. If London was conquered, then the common wealth would fight on and keep producing, lead by Canada in the European theater and India in the pacific. Likewise, Moscow falling wouldn’t necessarily end Russia, as much of their industry was east in the Urals.

-Suggested fix: If you lose your capital you discard all current ipcs. This is one time, and you collect income as normal at the end of your next turn.
Effect: This represent the damage done by losing a capital, as the government would be in turmoil for some time. However, after reorganization a secondary government would survive and continue the fight. I think it would benefit gamewise since it would make for a more tense situation after loss of capital since the victim could still have a chance to reclaim it on his own. As well, both the mechanics combined would discourage capital sniping.

Having the amount moved relate to the territories IPC value on one hand makes sense, as IPC value would give a rough estimate of the capacity of supply trains/road quality to quickly move forces.  However there are three reasons I’m overall against limiting it.
1. K.I.S.S.:  Does the rule need to be made for complicated with the additions of limitations?
2. Cup of water into the ocean: If you are attacked by a 20+ strong force 2-5 reinforcements may not be enough to make a difference.
3. Is it really a problem?: Say I do move 10, 20, whatever amount to support the defense.  Is this abuseable?  It’s only from adjacent territories so it’s not like the whole strategic map has been redrawn.

If i was to impose any limit it would be #reinforcements that can be brought=# of original defenders.  Can’t think of good realistic reason but seems to fit gameplay well.

I still think it’s effective and succinct at “-If a combat lasts more then 2 rounds, the defender may make a free move with any units in adjacent territories(that did not fight this round as well) to the attacked territory and take part in the battle.”