This is particularly in regard to Global, and the problems of defeated France. Just thrown this together, please point out any inconsistencies in the logic.
My suggestion for ANY power that loses its capital:
(Using France as an example)
The loser is considered to have signed an armistice, whereby:
The conquering power has right of transit through its territory, and can move forces into it The defeated power’s forces help defend their own territory, but cannot be used to attack.
All income goes to the victor.
No new units can be built by the loser.
French units in territories controlled by another Allied player remain Allied, and become controlled by that player. These “Free” units must either remain on Allied territory or be accompanied at all times by an Allied unit in order to retain this loyalty. If France is liberated they revert to French control.
In cases where Allied forces co-occupy a French territory, say UK forces in French West Africa, a battle occurs on the next turn of either player. The UK forces can retreat if able. (i.e. the UK cannot gain control of the territory simply by having one unit there, they must defeat “Vichy” units). A UK control marker must be placed until France is liberated.
Let’s examine this in the context of the USA landing in Southern Italy (I assume Rome is in this territory!)
Italy signs an armistice with the Allies.
Surviving Italian units remain on the board. They can defend against any attacks from Germany, co-operating with Allies (the USA player controls the Italian units in this case). All Allied units can pass through and into Italian territory.
The USA gets all income from Italian held areas.
On the Italian turn the only thing Italy does is fight battles against any German units in its territory. (I suggest the Germans in this case should have the option of retreating).
Italian units in German or Japanese held territory remain with the Axis and are controlled by the corresponding player until Italy is liberated.
If they become isolated from other Axis units, and are on Allied soil (i.e. after an unsuccessful attack) they immediately surrender and are treated as per defeated units.
No new Italian units are built (Italy is a defeated country, it does not become an active Allied power).
Italian ships remain where they are, and a naval battle will occur if Germany ships share the SZ. Again, they defend themselves but cannot attack, carry Allied fighters or transport Allied units.
OR if ships in port rules are used Italian ships must sail for an Allied port where they remain for the duration unless Rome is liberated.
If Italy is liberated, Italian units controlled by Germany or Japan revert to Italian control.
Notes: I do not allow players to use captured factories in any circumstances. The player forced into an armistice does NOT hand his cash over to the enemy. Since the victor gains, in effect, as many free units as the defeated player has left (though only in defence) the rewards are enough without the money-grab.
Too complicated. Keep it simple s……
Other than that, I support the current capture capital rules. You SHALL protect your capital! Period.
And the capture capital rules is a pretty good abstraction of the real WW2. Did any country who lost it’s capital not suffered defeat, at least until it was liberated and held?
As for not producing units with captured factories, then the rules should be changed so that if a TT is captured the IC is destroyed, but then any AA guns must also be destroyed.
Then the occupying power must build a new IC if he wants to.
Don’t know if this rule is better than the current rules.
Defeat by AARHE standards occurs when all your factories are under enemy control.
Capitals mean nothing except to France and Italy, plus neutrals. In these cases part of them goes one way and the other part goes for the other side.
money saved up are lost when you lose your past factory representing stockpiled weapons and munitions ( spent money).
KISS
I don’t like the capture capital rule either, especially if you still have other IC’s. I think you would need a simpler (kiss) rule as IL pointed out (kinda strange to have IL say a rule is to complex LOL). The whole Vichy troop loyalty thing could get ugly. I see why Larry avoided it. I really dislike the fact that in the case of London going down as an example the UK very likely will still have many tt. It seems very wasteful that the allies don’t get some compensation for them, unless they allow the axis to take them, then liberate them back.
There is a tiny loop hole in Larry’s capture the flag rule if you consider the Anzac in the global game. Say London falls, followed by India. The Anzac Liberates India (giving it 2 IC’s) then continues on to recover the Dutch/British Isles in the Pacific along with parts of Africa. The Anzac could grow in to a major power putting it at the top of the Commonwealth. It could be rather deflating to the Anzac if London is liberated under these circumstances, imagine going from building BB’s and the next turn you barely have enough to build a DD. That"s probably why the UK player should play them both.
Seriously though we just need Larry to create bigger games with more minor’s.
Why can’t you watch your capitals?
And very few of all games I lost or won, was caused by the loss of a capital, it was b/c one side had a significant economic advantage.
Probably 9 out of 10 games, of all games I played, the game was ended by concession before any capital had fallen, or would surely fall on the next rnd.
@Subotai:
Other than that, I support the current capture capital rules. You SHALL protect your capital! Period.
And the capture capital rules is a pretty good abstraction of the real WW2. Did any country who lost it’s capital not suffered defeat, at least until it was liberated and held?
China: they lost Nanjing in 1937
I actually kept the idea to capitals to make it simple…
Of course the loss of last factory is a more reasonable “armistice trigger”,
An Industrial complex should be seen as an entire infrastructure; it is ridiculous to talk about destroying one simply by occupying it. It includes, as it’s most important element, the skilled workers who keep it running. This is why I object to a country using captured factories, and to the building of new factories during a game.
My experience is that capitals have a huge influence on where you attack; capturing a factory, a large IPC territory, all the enemy’s money AND stopping him producing more units even if he has another factory is so decisive that the game’s whole strategy is likely to revolve around it. The last two of these should be eliminated.
My aim is to produce a reasonable representation of France and it’s empire after the fall of Paris. The various pockets of Vichy France were a major headache to the Allies, and needed significant campaigns in Syria, Madagascar and West Africa. There was even a concern about the threat to America from French Guiana, while Indo-China fell into the hands of Japan without a fight.
I think the system I propose is fairly simple once you understand it and, I agree, modified to trigger when a power’s last industrial capacity is lost.
@Subotai:
Other than that, I support the current capture capital rules. You SHALL protect your capital! Period.
And the capture capital rules is a pretty good abstraction of the real WW2. Did any country who lost it’s capital not suffered defeat, at least until it was liberated and held?China: they lost Nanjing in 1937
On the other hand, does anyone really think the USSR would have surrendered had Moscow fallen in the winter of '42?
As long as they had factories in the Urals they would have continued the fight. As would the USA if one of it’s coastlines had fallen, or the UK from Canada and Australia. Remember that not all French colonies went Vichy, though France had no significant overseas industry.
This is where rules about recruiting infantry units in territories without factories come into their own.
No country would surrender just because their capital had fallen unless that was all they had left.
No country would surrender just because their capital had fallen unless that was all they had left.
OMG what?
@Imperious:
No country would surrender just because their capital had fallen unless that was all they had left.
OMG what?
Was that a sarcastic agreement?
Russia is the only exception in A&A where the capital is not their whole country. UK, Japan, Italy and Germany are the whole country, not “just” a big city like London or Berlin. US is irrelevant here, b/c the game is decided long before Washington is lost.
I’m using AA50 as an example, as we don’t know yet how many TTs each power will have in the global AA40.
And in A&A we would need new rules, imo, if capture capital rules should be changed, by allowing factory movements, and also allowing to move our capitals, like Russia could move to Siberia if pressured by Germans, and if UK think it’s gonna fall to sealion, then UK could move it’s capital to Canada.
But as we don’t have such rules in A&A I think the current capital rules are OK.
Norway managed to move the gold reserves to UK when Germany occupied us, but it didn’t matter much, at least not until Norway was liberated.
Another reason I like the capture capital rules, is that when I take the opponents money, it feels like a knockout in a boxing match.
I think Russia would have continued on long after Moscow, they already had a contingency plan. That was Stalin’s nature, he would have fought on till the last 10 year old Russian girl was killed. Slaughter of his own people was acceptable to him.
France and Italy, well we know what happened with them. I would like to see Vichy recognized even if its as simple as certain French colonies became pro axis neutrals with a set # of inf to def, where others stay blue (Free French).
With UK consider maybe Germany didn’t blunder and was able to capture/kill the majority of the English at Dunkirk. England was pretty vulnerable (US still not in the war). Hitler didn’t play by the same rule book, and could have threatened to execute all prisoners if a deal wasn’t worked out (maybe he did idk). That would have been many more lives, and of course a huge chunk of the English fighting force that allowed them to continue the war. I still think that the UK would have moved its base of operations to Canada even if it signed an armistice, or there was a successful sea lion. Canada was separate nation and could have continued the good fight. The Brit’s were much more under handed then the French, so I don’t see a conflict or confusion of British commanders like there was with the French. The British ships and over seas units would have just flown under the Canadian/Anzac flags I would think (which would have really pissed on Hitlers parade).
The USA defiantly had the resources and will to continue, if by some miracle the E or W coast fell into enemy hands. Its not like the axis could mount that kind of invasion anyway, but say they where able to take token victories, its a much longer line of supply then say from Berlin to Moscow. I guess the axis could have maybe sued for peace w/US if all of Europe and Asia was in axis hands (all other allies signed an armistice), and the US was totally isolated. I don’t see that deal including occupation though, it would have been more along the lines of you stay on your side of the oceans and we’ll stay on ours. The only other way they could have put the US out of the war is if they got an atomic bomb and used it, and the US didn’t. Even if the axis would have got all the allies to sign deals, at some point war would have continued because the axis wouldn’t have had the policing force to patrol all its enemies IMO.
Anyway after all the babbling I also think there should be a mechanism to continue on in certain circumstances. I wonder however if it will just turn out to be an ally advantage. If the allies take Tokyo/Rome/Berlin then (unless there’s a terrible blunder on the axis part) those powers are normally beat back with nothing else left just by the nature of there locations. Japan doesn’t have a commonwealth (safe place) China hates them. I guess Jap could continue in Asia or India if it had IC. Italy would just be done as it was. Germany could have some options, but a smart ally player would take those away before they dropped the hammer. Same could be said for Russia unless your using some type of mobile industry.
Flash, I read this topic through again. I follow and agree with your line of thought. Making it you fight till the last IC is lost (IL) to trigger an armistice is a good way to go, as there shouldn’t be that many tt in question by that time. I do think that if you lose your capital IC, but still can fight on you should be forced to turn over that tt IPC value to the enemy (should be some consequence). France won’t have more then 2 IC’s (major on Paris, minor on French Atlantic coast). So the other French holdings (tt) become Vichy and their units can’t leave, but will def against ally forces (basically become pro axis neutrals). The axis powers are allowed to move into these Vichy tt with out a fight. These Vichy tt should not add to say Germany’s purse (IPC), unless Germany decides to attack them and take total control (which I think should be allowed). I understand that if you have French units on say UK soil in Africa they stay Free French (I don’t like the you have to baby sit them to keep them loyal once there FF they should stay that way no need to add another layer). Also that any allied forces that find them selves on Vichy tt will have the option to fight or retreat on their respective turns. You may need to mark the blue units somehow to tell which are FF/Vichy so you don’t get confused latter (maybe a dot on the helmet).
Another question: I know you determined that Vichy forces would def against ally invaders (I like that). I think that’s ok if you talking about only Vichy units. Say Germany/Italy moves into the tt (pro axis neut) and then is attacked by UK. At some point (maybe 2nd rd of battle) could we have the V French change sides just for fun LOL. (I know an unnecessary step)
I like this rule change sugestion, its not simple, but follows logic and is very doable. This same Vichy/pro (fill in the blank) neutral concept could carry over to any power as you said, but again IMO it will still favor the allies most.
I don’t think there’s a need to mark the combat units; control markers should be sufficient. If France is occupied then French markers means Vichy units; allied control means Free French, until liberated when they revert to French control.
Yea I guess that is true (marking).
In the case that Paris is liberated then all the FF & VF would now be just French. It might behoove the axis to kill off the VF (and totally control the tt) in stead of just letting them be trapped in their Vichy tt to def against the allies, in certain circumstances. That way the axis could also collect the income.
Say Germany takes Paris (major IC), then the French Atlantic coast (minor IC ?). Now France is knocked out (lost last IC). The axis need to decide if they should also take S France (Vichy). It could have a large force on it, but it can’t leave. Should the axis leave it to def, (would the allies come that way anyway) or try to take it out so if Paris is liberated they won’t have to deal with them later.
Similar situations could come up with any power going to the last IC.
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:
what people have two hearts
lawyers
mind you they keep both of them in the fridge in case they get hungry
Let’s see if I’ve got the gist of the proposal on the table. When a capital is taken (e.g., Paris):
(1) Units of the fallen power that share territories / sea zones with their former allies (e.g., UK) are taken control of by those allies and stay combat-active as long as they are accompanied by those allies. [Better choose them as first casualties! :wink: ]
(2) Units of the fallen power that are ‘on their own’ become allies of the conquering power (e.g., Germany), whose units are now free to move through their territories / sea zones at will. [Units of the fallen power can defend their terrorities unassisted, but not conduct attacks? I was unclear on this point.]
Is this correct?
If so, it seems like a pretty good model for Vichy France and also for the mid-war defection of Italy from the Axis…
Also, it gives players good motivation to ‘reinforce’ allied powers with their units… so that they can keep them in the game on their side in case their capital falls. This was also Germany’s practice in Italy '43.
Please clarify though: Free French still collect income? Vichy French, too? Split economies??
I like this idea a lot. Ill probably use it even though it may not be an offical rule
