Yeah I can see where you guys are coming from, and the more I consider Vichy, the more it seems like a separate set of conditions should probably govern how this works in the game.
For me, the ideal would be to first establish a general framework for how all Nations behave with or without a capital, and then, once that’s settled, to figure out how the Vichy situation might depart from the general framework in some special way. What I dig though is the concept of somehow making this Vichy thing part of the gameplay actions, i.e. something that could be rolled for, or which might have a randomized element to it, such that it might go one way or the other in any given game. I think that would make France just more interesting for both sides.
I suppose in terms of logical consistency, once could say that a similar roll has simply “already occurred” for China, and that their alignment is set prior to the time when the game begins. This is because the game doesn’t model the fall of the Chinese capital. Its already under Japanese control on round 1. You could also say something similar for the Dutch, that again its like their “alignment roll” already occurred, by the time gameplay starts in 1940, so we don’t need to deal with it in the rules.
The question is though, would it be interesting to allow a similar Vichy-type rule to come into effect for other major nations, which might lose their capital in the course of normal play?
So for example, would it be fun to expand the Vichy principle, so that something similar happens when London, or Moscow, or Calcutta falls? Of course this never happened in the War, so we can’t really use history as a guide. It is possible to imagine however, that if London or Moscow was actually captured, a collaborationist government might have been set up, that might have behaved in a way similar to Vichy, or presented similar military dilemmas regarding forces still in the field. It might be kind of fun for the endgame play, to allow this sort of concept to enter into the dynamic, after a capital has fallen.
Basically, some kind of roll dealing with an option for Collaboration vs Resistance, after the capital is lost.
Just musing on possibilities here, but you might set it up such that there is a roll to determine, where a fallen nation goes by alignment, and then depending on which side they fall into, you either get a Collaboration dynamic or a Resistance dynamic. There could be benefits or draw back for either scenario. You could handle it by Nation (all territories) or by Territory. I think in either case though, it should probably come down to a single roll, or a one time switch that adjusts the alignment results. Then aftewards you could do as Wild Bill mentioned, and even switch out unit scultps.
The Grey Germans of revised, do look pretty Vichy when you set them next to the Black Germans of G40. Similarly, Lime Green Brits fit pretty well for any sort of Pro-Allied force you might want to model. Especially if the unit roster was limited, to just things like infantry. Or infantry, artillery and fighters, the sort of units you could easily sub in from a previous board. Other things like flipped markers or coins could be used too though, if extra sculpts or pieces aren’t available. Basically a set up that could work for the boxed materials just as well, but could be made aesthetically cooler if you had more materials to draw on.
I think its an interesting idea too, that ships at sea might either surrender their units to the conquering force, or fight on. This based on some roll. Because then you could create a lot of interest in the naval game, post capital capture. All this stuff could create some potential “reset” situations during the final endgame. Possibilities to play on, under special post-capital collapse rules.
It would be cool to create a general framework that’s a bit more accomodating to the idea of new Capital and Liberation rules, then set up a Vichy rules scenario to test the basic concept and flagship the idea. Then once established with the Vichy idea, expand some of its features to other player nations on the board. Like if Russia or UK or Anzac lose their capital, with other ways to make the centers of power concept more interesting for the gameplay.
You’re right too, its more than a tweak. Anything to do with Capitals in A&A would have to be considered a core change, since capital capture is such a huge gameplay driver in the OOB game. These changes would alter the balance of the board, and the way domination games resolve. But that said, I think it would be fun for game variety and overall entertainment, especially during the endgame.
Also, just thinking again…
For territory alignment status you could push everything out 1 round, until the round after the capital falls (say the next time the nations turn comes up). When the capital falls, the cash is immediately handed over. Then, until the fallen nation’s turn comes up in the sequence the next round they play according to their initial alignment, their units and territories might still behave in the normal way for one round. But on the next round after capital capture, you make a series of rolls to determine alignment of forces or territories of the vanquished nation. This happens on their turn in the sequence.
Do a simple roll 50/50 or at whatever “hit” makes sense for either side Axis or Allies.
For forces in the field or ships, you might do 3 possible conditions: roll 1-2 then units resist (turn hostile), 3-4 units disband (just disappear), 5-6 units collaborate (turn friendly). Or something similar, providing a bit of gradation or benefit potential to either side depending on how the roll shakes down.
In the interim round, between the round when the capital is taken and the round when the alignment rolls are made, you could have the option to make a “surprise attack”, against a fallen ally’s units to prevent them for collaborating. Perhaps in such a roll, the attacker might get a special advantage (like defender cannot return fire, or 1 free round of combat surprise strike where units are removed immediately etc), but if this surprise attack occurs, then the alignment roll is bypassed, and the forces in the field might join the opposite team. Or join them at better odds.
Say hits at 3-4 for collaboration instead of disbandment, so it would then be a 2/3 chance instead of 1/3. Something like that might work, allowing for Ally attacks on ships or forces at more favorable odds during that interim round, but which can push the units to join the opposite side when the alignment roll occurs.
What the specific rolls should be are cool to ponder. Wild Bill put up some interesting suggestions.
For now we can just think of all this stuff as only needing to apply for France. But if we can get it to work for Vichy, then it might work for other major nations too…
Like Italy after Rome falls. Or perhaps London or Moscow or Berlin.
Perhaps if a power goes collaboration during the alignment roll, rather than remaining and independent force, those forces and territories join the dominant power of their side immediately. So in this case, Vichy territories simply become German. Free french simply become British. Or something along those lines, depending on the roll.