New Capital Rules


  • 2019 '15 '14

    This thread is for the discussion of all rules pertaining to Capitals. Especially capital rules in the latest A&A games 1940, 41 42.2 etc. Here I will start things off with a rule that I sometimes enjoy.

    Rule: Declare New Capital
    Once a player’s original capital is taken, they must give up all cash on hand to the conquering nation. At this point the conquered player may elect to declare a new capital, on any territory with a Production Facility still under their control. So long as a player has at least 1 Production Facility still under their control they are allowed to collect income.

    This rule basically extends the endgame, by diminishing the overall effect of capital capture. It also allows for a continued capture dynamic where the capital target can potentially move around. If a Nations original capital is recovered they must immediately move the government in exile back to the home seat.

    This HR is one that can be used to explore the deep endgame, or as a VC alternative, if you prefer to play until concession. Some people I know don’t enjoy a sudden death resolution of any sort. Game resolution mechanics being less important to them, on the idea that, “well I’ve played this long, and don’t really feel like starting another. Lets go 1 more round!”

    Perhaps you guys have been in this situation too?  😄

    In such games the idea was to allow the vanquished player a way to “fight on” if desired, while also allowing the Conqueror a way to enjoy their conquest by getting in some victory laps, and seeing how the game works after a capital falls.

    In our games, we play with the possession rules as follows. If a Government in Exile loses a territory to the Enemy, and this territory is later liberated by an Ally, the territory is not immediately returned to the original owner, but counts instead towards the Ally’s economy. Until the Original capital is restored, it is possible for an Ally of the same side, to take over direct control of such a territory for the purposes of income.

    Anyone else with other novel capital rules please them share if you like.


  • Customizer

    We do have a house rule where if London falls, UK can have Ottawa as a secondary capital.
    We also do this for the US. If Washington falls, San Francisco would be a secondary capital.
    However, we don’t do this for the Axis powers or for Russia. We figure they are totalitarian governments and all of their leaders would be centered in their main capital. Their huge egos wouldn’t allow them to establish a working government in some secondary capital.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @knp7765:

    However, we don’t do this for the Axis powers or for Russia. We figure they are totalitarian governments and all of their leaders would be centered in their main capital. Their huge egos wouldn’t allow them to establish a working government in some secondary capital.

    Mussolini operated from a secondary capital (Salo) from 1943 to 1945 after losing Rome (and half of Italy) to the Allies.  Though in fairness, his ego took quite a beating in the process, notably when he suffered the indignity of being rescued from captivity by German paratroops.


  • Customizer

    Axis and Allies has always been too focused on capturing capitals.

    Remember the German stack marching to Moscow in AAE?

    Or Moscow changing hands nearly every turn in Revised, generating 4 or 5 times the normal income despite lying in ruins?

    I see no reason why a country cannot continue to collect income and build new units as long as it still has a home industrial complex.

    Losing your banked money is an interesting compromise, but wouldn’t Britain have sent it’s gold reserves to Canada along with the government?

    The main penalty for losing the capital should be the loss of the production facility, with other factories being limited in production by their tt’s IPC values.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    The US is so big it should have two backup capitals, San Francisco and Chicago. Unless Germany or Italy pull off a once-in-a-blue moon North American landing, I see no harm in adding Chicago as a VC.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @General:

    Unless Germany or Italy pull off a once-in-a-blue moon North American landing, I see no harm in adding Chicago as a VC.

    I’m not sure if “harm” is the right word, but it seems to me that adding a VC which the enemy is extremely unlikely to ever capture basically means giving a country (in this case the US) a safety cushion against losing.  I may be misunderstanding the concept, however.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    Actually, adding a VC in North America would allow for a European Axis victory without touching the Soviet Union, which would make for quite the spectacle. There is no benefit for the Allies to have a VC in North America since Germany will be busy scooping up the needed cities in Russia and Cairo anyway.



  • The US is so big it should have two backup capitals, San Francisco and Chicago. Unless Germany or Italy pull off a once-in-a-blue moon North American landing, I see no harm in adding Chicago as a VC.
    Your right but if American player lost one of his capital it’s probably the end. In fact….Let it down and go sleep…


  • Customizer

    Lots of thoughts on this. I think that before you can neutralize a player’s economy you must capture all of their victory cities. Frankly since I play rarely and never online we usually play for capitals anyway and ignore VCs except for a few recent games with new players I’m trying to teach OOB.

    As for second Capitals, I’m all for it. I really don’t care for games where minor victory is a winning condition. The whole point of the war was domination of an ideology, submission of foes, or unconditional surrender.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 10
  • 27
  • 24
  • 22
  • 24
  • 6
  • 15
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

42
Online

14.7k
Users

35.3k
Topics

1.4m
Posts