I usually break UK up into UK/ FEC / Canada and Union of South Africa. Sure it hurts the UKs money but should London fall they have a little back up still in the way of Canada & South Africa.
Ottawa as the new capital of the British Empire has a rather nice ring to it. It echoes Churchill’s statement that “…if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle…” For sentimental reasons, the temporary imperial capital could even be set up in the conveniently-named city of London, Ontario, rather than in Ottawa.
I think it would be neat to split UK into the commonwealth.
South Africa, Canada, Britain, India, ANZAC
Incomes are tracked separately, however the commonwealth moves/attacks as one nation
All gains on the Europe board outside of Africa and Canada go to GB
ANZAC and India play as 2 separate powers that share a turn, if they take a territory together and cannot decide who gets it then the Japan player will decide
Thank you all for your thoughts and ideas.
I think it means the Allies and the UK can continue to be in the game and in with a chance to win after a Sealion.
It might mean that the Axis player will ignore Sealion(which I think helps) and concentrates on Russia.
I have never been a Sealion fan, much preferring to take the war to Russia.
Knp: I agree the US would survive too. I would allow them the West coast naturally. Russia without Moscow should be considered a victory. I suppose as Stalin was a dictator, his fall should represent the end of the struggle.
That would be my argument with the Axis too: no substitute and are out if their capitals fall.
Seems like a great a idea, as long as Canada is only allowed to have its own territory IPCs and any that it captures, Sea-Lion isn’t totally out of the question in this case.
I prefer that a power can still collect cash and build units provided they still control at least one original factory. Note that I do not allow anyone to build at captured factories which is just too silly (and Cudos to 1914 for eliminating this anomaly).
For the UK it seems reasonable that Canada, Australia and India have minor complexes; if the UK itself has fallen the cash will be limited anyway (though I still don’t like anything other than the odd infantry being “produced” in pre-industrial India).
USSR should have a factory in the Urals region, allowing it to fight on even if the 3 European centres are lost.
As for the Axis, are they ever likely to be in any position to fight on if their capitals have fallen?
Moreover, I don’t really support the standard capture the capital rules; it should be “capture all of a power’s industrial complexes” to eliminate it, otherwise still treat it as an active power.
@wittmann:
It might mean that the Axis player will ignore Sealion(which I think helps) and concentrates on Russia.
I have never been a Sealion fan, much preferring to take the war to Russia.Knp: I agree the US would survive too. I would allow them the West coast naturally. Russia without Moscow should be considered a victory. I suppose as Stalin was a dictator, his fall should represent the end of the struggle.
That would be my argument with the Axis too: no substitute and are out if their capitals fall.
Sometimes a successful Barbarossa kind of depends on a successful Sealion. I have seen plenty of games where Germany doesn’t do Sealion but goes straight after Russia and while they may do better with more units there, it can be a real pain in the butt with the UK constantly nibbling at Germany’s rear and pounding poor Italy. It gets really hard to maintain a good offensive in Russia and provide a decent guard force along the European coast and try to help out the Italians in the Med and keep up a decent sub force to either hit Allied fleets or convoy raid the UK.
Yeah, I know, if it were really easy, then the game wouldn’t really be fun. It just can get frustrating at times when you just have so much money to spend and sometimes certain of the above items simply has to go short. Especially if you have a good opponent who sees that and takes advantage right away. Â It’s like “Dang it! I KNEW that was going to happen!”
By the way, we have been re-discussing this and think maybe it would be a good idea to use a secondary capital for England if London falls. In fact, we also agree about if Washington DC falls, the US Government would move to San Francisco, assuming it was still in Allied hands. If the Japanese managed to capture San Francisco, well then the US is just out of luck. Same with Ottawa for the UK Government. After all, these are big, powerful democracies that simply handle things differently from the Axis powers. Plus, it wouldn’t be totally unfair to the Axis since they would still get to plunder the treasury and get the IPCs for the capital territory and the displaced government would not be able to purchase anything for a full round.
As for Russia, I agree they are really more like an Axis power anyway and would probably function like one – cut off the head of the snake, the body dies.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my question Knp.
I appreciate it.
Something came up in a game we are playing. We decided to try out using Ottawa as a secondary capital when London falls. Well, Germany did a Sealion and took London on G4. So, Germany plundered the treasury. Then on the UK4 turn, since they have no money they can’t buy any new units. However, they DO collect on the remaining UK territories which they can spend next round.
Now, here is the problem. The US moved a large fleet over to Gibraltar on US4 with more than enough to liberate London. In fact, seeing this large fleet and invasion force, on G5 Germany cleared out it’s remaining tanks and just left 3 infantry to defend. So, on US5, the US will most likely liberate London.
So, with London back in Allied hands, do you guys think it is okay for the UK (who moves AFTER US) to spend their money in the liberated London IC. Of course it’s a Minor now so they can only place 3 units there, but it just seems weird to me.
I mean, if London were not liberated, the UK would have to spend that money in Canada or South Africa. However, now that London is free again and we are using a house rule for the secondary UK capital anyway, should it be okay for UK to start using the London complex right away?
I see.
According to the rules they can(can’t they), so I suppose you should allow it.
Obvious advantages to the German player is that he stole UK’s income and set them back a turn and obliged the US to go Atlantic.
I think others have said that they only allow the UK player the 7 Canadian income, not all their territories. This makes more sense and the money is now in Canada so UK should be forced to spend it there.
In this instance, I would House Rule that it cannot be spent in the UK or in a SZ off it.
These questions do make for a different and more interesting Global game.
Hope yours is fun.
Hmmm. I didn’t think of the new UK capital as being only Canada. I let them have the amount for all UK territories on the Europe board. It wasn’t much more than what you get for Canada because Italy has been having a fun time romping around through Africa picking up a lot of unprotected territories.
I think UK got an extra 5 or 6 IPCs outside of Canada. After the US retook London, the UK ended up repairing the Gibraltar Naval Base and London Air Base and put 3 guys in England.
The US paid dearly for liberating London and taking Normandy. Germany sacrificed their entire navy and a good part of their air force and killed the entire US fleet. It was a hell of a battle.
US losses = 2 carriers, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 4 fighters and 6 transports.
Ger losses = 1 carrier, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 3 fighters and 3 bombers.
At first it looked like they would totally wipe each other out but one crucial combat round the US got some really sucky dice and 3 German bombers ended up surviving the battle.
Germany is having a tough time of it right now but holding on strong. Sealion just took too many resources. The US has landed on Normandy and S France. Russia has taken Scandanavia and will probably have it for a while. Russia also has the 3 German border territories, but Germany has a strong force in Berlin ready to strike out. Plus, Germany took Leningrad but a Russian fighter took out all the unprotected transports. It’s a weird front. There are strong points but several holes on both sides.
Italy is stacking men on their capital because of the US presence. They just had to retake N. Italy from US so now the major IC is a minor. Italy has a small force working north from the Middle East through the Caucasus, but the Russians may be ready for them. Not sure about that yet.
Japan was doing fairly well and had actually took all of China. Then they went after and got India so UK Pacific is plum out of the war. However, thanks to some Russian incursions, China has almost all of their territories. Now Japan has a lot of work ahead trying to retake China and kill all those Russians and Chinese that are popping up. However, Japan has Calcutta and the DEI so they are making decent money and luckily the only thing the US has done in the Pacific is to stack a bunch of guys on Hawaii. Japan has hassled ANZAC some by landing a guy on Dutch New Guinea, ruining ANZAC’s NO, and sending down subs to convoy them.
All in all, a very interesting game. I think it could still go either way.
By the way, besides using the secondary capital rule, we are also trying something else new. Instead of rolling for techs, I have assigned certain techs to different nations on different turns. If it goes all the way to round 10 (we just finished round 6), everyone will have all the techs available. There are a few exceptions for the smaller nations. UK India and ANZAC share some of the techs with UK London, but there are a few that are exclusive to UK London that the others won’t get. Same thing with Germany and Italy. Italy will share some of the techs, but others are exclusively German. It’s kind of fun getting the techs into the game, but a little tiresome having to check every round to see what is available to each country.
Oh yeah, thanks for the answer Wittmann. Appreciate your input.
Sounds a mad game.
