Would this house rule be balanced?
jmlport98 last edited by
So, I was thinking about a thing I made up. Here it is:
If a power owns less than 5 more territories(basically is on the verge of annihilation), the country may “surrender”. The following happens:
-All of the territory is surrendered to the enemy countries, the player(s) will decide which goes to who
-The remaining land units of the surrendering country are given to allied countries, the other half are given to the enemy countries. Air and sea units are automatically moved to the closest allied main country (ex. US or England if country is Russia). If any of sea units are transports, than all the land units that can fit are taken with the fleet.
-All of the IPC’s are given to the surrendering country’s allies.
Does anyone like the idea? Is it unbalanced in any way?
Hobbes last edited by
Why would you want to surrender with those conditions? To make sure that your side wouldn’t win?
I mean, if someone is getting tired of the game he/she can simply give the country to one of its allies.
newpaintbrush last edited by
I would never play with that rule. It has mind-boggling possibilities for abuse, a basic “f*ck you” to the Axis.
The remaining land units of the surrendering country are given to allied countries, the other half are given to the enemy countries.
I have no idea what you mean by “other half”.
Warplayer12 last edited by
. 50% goes to the allies of the country, and the other 50% are surrenderd to the enemy.
So if I understand this right, this might be a good example:
Moscow is nearly surrounded by Axis forces. USSR has 20 inf, 1 fighter, 1 tac and 2 AA guns on Russia. USSR also has 15 IPCs on hand.
So, rather than get invaded by a wall of German tanks, USSR decides to surrender.
Of the 20 infantry and 2 AA guns, 10 infantry and 1 AA gun gets turned over to Germany, 10 infantry and 1 AA gun gets turned over to USA or UK. (WHere are these units placed?)
The USSR fighter and tac gets moved to the nearest Allied territory, which would be UK controlled Persia perhaps? So you exchange the Soviet units for British units, right?
The 15 IPCs on hand gets divided between USA and UK.
Russia and any remaining Soviet territories are immediately taken over by German, Italy and/or Japan.
Does this sound about right?
Basically it sounds like a way for Allied powers to screw Axis out of plundering the capital for unspent IPCs. Although, it also gives a valuable victory city to the Axis without a fight (two if Volgograd happens to be one of the remaining Soviet territories) So if Italy has Cairo and Germany still has Leningrad and Paris, this basically just gives the Axis the game.
Personally, I just don’t care for this rule. Then again, my group usually plays games out to the bitter end, fighting and slaughtering troops for every piece of territory until there are no more enemy units on the board.
techroll42 last edited by
I agree that it helps the Allies.
And there could be a malicious surrender: UKE surrenders, giving the African territories to Germany, and before Italy can react US starts blitzing through the south, ADDING ABOUT 15 IPC’S TO THEIR VALUE. Same could be done with France.
It really helps the Allies and screws the game balance.
If you're having problems, please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org