Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

G40 New Rules for Liberation and Nations with occupied Capitals


  • '14

    Reposted here, so I can expand on the idea for regular G40.The Original post is below, with some ideas I lifted from various conversations with YG and others

    For now I’m calling this ruleset tweak: ?
    Not Market Garden, no way, but something even cooler. Once we figure out what that should be
    😄

    New Rules:
    All nations with control of their capital play according to the same rules.
    All nations with an enemy occupied capital play according to the same rules.

    Capital Capture:
    If your Capital is taken, you must relinquish your full purse to the conqueror same as OOB. However, now, on the following turn, provided you still control territory on the board, you may collect income on it. This income may be used to mobilize infantry the next round. Note that for practical purposes these rules are the same as those used by OOB China.

    *option industrial nations may produce artillery as well as infantry, but no other units. In other words, all nations without control of their capital now play by China rules.

    Ally Control:
    While your capital is occupied by the enemy, an Ally from your side may take direct control of any territories outside your capital by moving units into them. When this happens the land will count towards the ally nation’s income. Any units present in the territory may either chose to join with the Ally force, or remain separate. If they choose to join up, this decision is permanent; the units will be exchanged for ally units of the same type and move on the ally’s turn from then on out. If they decide to remain separate, then they will continue to move on their original turn in the sequence. Note that these rules are basically a combination of the dutch rules and friendly-neutrals rules. The idea here is to allow for a more consistent type of direct ally takeover. This would allow for example, the French territory in Africa to be occupied, similar to the way Dutch territory can be occupied. And for all nations, it works the same way, when their capital has fallen an ally may take direct control of their land.

    Capital Liberation:
    Liberated Capitals do not restore ownership of other originally controlled territories.
    Original territories of a liberated nation, which were captured during the period when their capital was occupied, do not immediately return to their control when their capital is. Instead only the capital is truly liberated, all other territories are only nominally liberated. The controlling army/Nation of all other territories may restore them to the original owner, on an individual basis at any time, but only before the collect income phase. Occupation or restoration is thus at the liberating power’s discretion. The idea here is to encourage capital liberation without distorting the economic endgame. This way we give the liberator the choice, on whichever option serves their overall war aims.

    Capitals:
    Each player on the board now has a Capital.
    For China this capital is the territory of Kiangsu, VC at Shanghai and Wartime capital Nanking.
    For the Dutch this capital is the territory of Holland, wartime capital Amsterdam.

    How these new capitals work for China and the Dutch:
    When a Nation is restored and its capital is liberated, it re-enters normal play. Any newly liberated territory outside the capital after that point, will be returned to the players control the same as OOB. They may collect income, purchase units and mobilize units all according to the normal rules. This requires a special fix to the two nations that begin play with an occupied capital the Dutch and the Chinese. So this is what we do…

    Free Minor for first time liberation of the Capital territory:
    The first time Holland or Kiangsu is liberated, place 1 minor factory on the territory.
    This corresponds to the same free 12 ipcs worth of units that the French get OOB, except here the money must be used for a factory.

    From here on out, Chinese or Dutch units must be mobilized from the capital factory, the same way all others Nations place units. The liberated unit roster for these two liberated powers is still restricted, but they are now allowed to place infantry, artillery, and fighters at their new capital. Use can use the Chinese infantry sculpts for this, or whatever sculpts for artillery and air seem best to avoid confusion. Basically, this rule allows for the Liberation of the Dutch, but is it a bridge too far? Lets hope not!
    😄

    Now all players on the map, including France, China and the Dutch will play according to the same simple set of rules.

    Balance by Sides:
    For now this set up plays with No Allied bid, and may ultimately require an Axis bid on balance, but either way it promises to add new options to the game.

    Thanks for listening, and I’d be interested to hear any feedback.
    Elk

    original thought taken from excerpted from Young Grasshoppers thread on the British Empire Pacific concept
    @Black_Elk:

    Sounds awesome!

    Also, YG, what do you think about this off the wall idea…

    New Rule:

    Liberated Capitals do not restore ownership of other originally controlled territories.

    Right now the liberation rules create a weird disincentive, which encourages players not too liberate an ally capital, for fear of losing the income you’ve gained with your primary nation during the interim period. The game shouldn’t support this behavior. Instead if you liberate a capital, only the capital territory should return to the original owners control. The rest of the territory can stay under the control of the ally occupying army that just liberated you. This is how it worked in the real war anyway, and it would be better for the gamplay.

    Under the rule above, if your land was occupied directly by your ally during the time when your capital was lost, it is considered “under you ally’s military control” for the duration of the war. Any additional territory outside the Capital, is considered nominally liberated, but for gameplay purposes, liberating your ally’s Capital only effects the liberation of the capital territory itself and no others.

    Ex. if the Americans control Normandy, and then liberated Paris, only France itself is returned immediately to French control, not Normandy or any other originally french territory, that is currently occupied by their allies. These territories are considered part of the overall war effort, and to be returned only after the War is fully won. Or until the liberated power is prepared to re-occupy, by simple declaration. This leaves the option to the Liberator/Liberated, about when to restore other territories beyond the Capital, based on the needs of the War.

    I have been thinking a lot about the proposal you made elsewhere to have “China” rules apply to any vanquished nation (e.g. after their capital falls.) It occurred to me, in order to make the rules consistent, and to avoid having special rules exclusively for China, what if we just said that China’s capital is occupied Kiangsu?
    Kiangsu =VC Shanghai and Wartime capital Nanking.

    So under this logic, the reason why China has separate rules, different from all other nations, is because they begin play with an occupied capital. They’re not a special case, they just work the way all players do when their capital is lost. As part of a tweak to support this rule, you could include a free minor factory in Kiangsu if China manages to liberate this territory. Similar to the way USA can upgrade their Minors to Majors for free, just something that happens. Or you could do this as part of an overall restricted factory scheme, where the factory unit is removed from the purchase roster, but more minor factories are included at the outset. Either way would work. Production tweaking is an idea I know we’ve kicked around before. For the liberated unit roster though, you could still keep the roster restricted to infantry and artillery, or maybe add in the fighter to the roster at this point, just for kicks, and a reason to get the capital back!
    😄

    It is entirely possible to do something similar for the Dutch. Although Holland lacks a VC, one could still say that the Dutch National capital is here. I always find it strange how no matter what happens in G40, Holland can never be liberated. What would be ideal is if we could somehow create a set of rules, that was consistent for these three powers, the Chinese, the Dutch, and the French. Right now they all play according to their own rules. France behaves like a normal nation, but is designed to die on G1. China, well we all know how that works, and then the Dutch who have their own specialized rules and exceptions. Wouldn’t it be cool to design a scenario where all 3 of these nations, and everyone else, behaved according to the same master set of rules?

    I think you could do this, by first saying that China and the Dutch are just normal powers, that have occupied capitals at the start of play. Whatever rules apply to them, the same rules should apply to a power like France, once Paris is occupied by Germany. Basically something consistent for all the player nations, and the one non-player nation =Dutch.
    Just something to think on. I’d love to hear your thoughts. I believe it could be done, all that is required is perhaps the idea that the Chinese capital is Kiangsu, and the Dutch capital is Holland. And then in the case of liberation, they get a free minor at their capital at which to place their infantry and artillery according to the normal mechanics. The minor is mainly for show and prestige and to make sure all players can work the same way. You could still keep the unit roster restricted to infantry and artillery, using Chinese inf scultps and american or lime green brits to stand in for the Dutch if they are liberated. If you want to include the fighter in the liberated unit roster, that would be cool, there are plenty of lime green spitfires out there, or other air sculpts from previous boards. Seems like kind of a sham, that the Dutch are on the board with territories, and were liberated in the War. They had a cool resistance same as France, and they cheered and kissed the allies in the streets as liberators too. Why not give them this small nod, and allow Holland to serve as a mini victory territory.

    You could call such rules “Market Garden” since it handles rules for Liberation and Capital loss, but also gives a nod to the Dutch/Holland thing. After a capital falls, we could make empty territory (no defending units) behave something like the Dutch territoires do OOB, after a capital falls. Making them easier to activate, in the case of Russian land after Moscow falls, or French land after Paris falls, or Italian land after Rome falls, or, you get the idea. But I think it might be fun for a Pacific themed scenario too.

    Basically once the capital is liberated, all nations should play according to the same normal, OOB rules, with the exception of that new one mentioned above.

    If a capital is occupied, all nations (and territories they control) should play according to the same consistent set of New rules.

    That’s my proposal anyway. I think it would work for the British Pacific Empire theme, since at some point this scenario like all others will deal with the liberation aspect of the game. Here is an idea that might play, say India falls. Instead of a “back up” capital, just have the game play the way I suggested. After the capital is dead, Anzac can be liberated by USA, they occupy the land the same way they would dutch territory OOB. And you could do the same thing on the Europe side of the board, allowing UK to occupy French territory in Africa, just as if it was dutch (ie territory owned by a vanquished player.) And you could do the same with China, Russia or America or the British could occupy China for themselves or for the Chinese at the liberators discretion. Have all these territories behave the same way when the capital has fallen.

    If you like, units already present in a territory of a vanquished nation, could  be activated by an ally, and could join the ally force, the same way friendly neutrals join their armies to the occupying force. Or they could just be disbanded, with territory ownership going to the ally power that just moved in. This would allow for a real Dunkirk type play, as Britain could activate French units left behind after the initial fall of France, or at least activate the land for themselves. (No incentive for players to Metagame and leave France unoccupied, just so other Allies can’t take it, as sometimes happnes now with an exploit of the current rules.) In general France would be a much more interesting power to play under such rules, since they could mobilize infantry the same way China does. For Axis this will be a disadvantage granted, but Axis already have the acknowledged advantage OOB anyway, so this might just be a balance, definitely no allied bid. Or even if Axis need a leg up under such rules, you can always come back to that afterwards. First though, make fun rules for all nations under all conditions, whether capital is lost or restored.

    And then if the capital of this nation is liberated, and the nation itself is restored to normal play, you let the Liberating player choose when to return other specific territories based on the needs of total Victory in the greatest war in human history.

    Also, I dig the NOs you proposed. Hope your game is glorious tomorrow 😄


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Black_Elk:

    Thanks for listening, and I’d be interested to hear any feedback.

    My feedback would be to ask: Why call it Market Garden?  Operation Market Garden had nothing to do with controlling capitals; its objective was to seize the Arnhem Bridge that crossed over the Rhine and into the Rhur industrial area.  And on top of that, the operation was a costly and humiliating failure for the Allies.


  • '14

    Yeah I guess you’re right. It really has no connection whatsoever, other than that a Bridge too Far was playing on DVD in the background. And I pictured Gene Hackman arguing about resistance and liberation and such
    😄

    So now I must turn you my friend. What would you call it?
    needs something with a ring!


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Black_Elk:

    So now I must turn you my friend. What would you call it?
    needs something with a ring!

    Hmm…interesting problem.  As I understand your house rule, it’s a multi-faceted one that links together at least four things: who controls which capitals, what immediate effect a capital capture has on the national treasury, what immediate effect it has on the affiliation of military units, and what effect it has (along with the effect of a capital liberation) on colonial/territorial holdings.  So I’m not sure this constitutes a “tweak”, as you call it – but I’ll leave that question for others to debate, and I’ll just think about some name ideas.  A name that encompasses all of these factors would actually need to be very broad (and hence a little vague).  “The Metropolis rule” might be one possibility, but the problem is that it doesn’t apply to all countries.  In some nations, the capital (the political centre of power) is the same city as the metropolis (the largest city and often the centre of economic power); London and Paris are cities which fulfil both roles.  In other nations, however, the cities are distinct: for example Washington/New York and Ottawa/Toronto.  “The Centres of Power rule” would be one way to bridge the gap with a single name.  Alternately, if you narrow the concept to cover less facets, a more precise name might become possible.


  • '14

    You know I’m a huge fan of Fritz Lang, so I’m definitely warming up to that one.

    On the upside, even though the VC might not correspond exactly to the Capital city, a lot of times they’re in the same territory. So for Kiangsu you could say Nanking. Works for Canberra too. Washington and New York both in E. USA so perhaps it’s close enough to capture the idea of a Capital Territory, as the territory where the Metropolis is located as well, even if the VC city name isn’t always written on the map.

    Centers of Power sounds cool too. Both excellent suggestions!


  • '14

    Ideas for Vichy

    It was suggested by knp that we allow for France to join the Axis side. How should this be handled?

    One option might be to conduct a simple roll the first time a vanquished Nation’s territory is entered by an ally after its capital falls, roll to determine alignment. 3 of less they become Allies, 4 or more and they become Axis.

    Or perhaps something similar where you actually do a roll each time to see whether a specific vanquished territory will go hostile or friendly?

    Wonder if this could be approached in a universal way, such that it doesn’t break with the theme that all conquered nations behaving according to the same general rules after their capital falls?


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Black_Elk:

    Ideas for Vichy
    It was suggested by knp that we allow for France to join the Axis side. How should this be handled?
    One option might be to conduct a simple roll the first time a vanquished Nation’s territory is entered by an ally after its capital falls, roll to determine alignment. 3 of less they become Allies, 4 or more and they become Axis.
    Or perhaps something similar where you actually do a roll each time to see whether a specific vanquished territory will go hostile or friendly?
    Wonder if this could be approached in a universal way, such that it doesn’t break with the theme that all conquered nations behaving according to the same general rules after their capital falls?

    On the grounds of realism, I think there should be a France-specific rule rather than a general one that involves every conquered territory checking to see if it joins the Axis or the Allies.  Nothwithstanding a few artificial puppet states like the First Slovak Republic, or puppet regimes like the Seyss-Inquart one in the Netherlands, I’m not aware of any Axis-conquered countries that was very interested in joining the Axis camp.  The typical reaction was actually to join the Allied camp as a government-in-exile.  The country which came closest to being a collaborationist independent state was, in fact, Vichy France – and even Vichy France didn’t actually join the Axis, nor was it really an independent state.

    My recommendation would be to have a France-specific rule, on the grounds that the OOB rules already include a number of country-specific rules and thus that one more won’t look out of place.  It could be assumed that the British (as they did historically) sank a number of French warships at Mers-el-Kebir (see Operation Catapult for more information), and a dice roll would be used to check whether or not this incident drives Vichy France to declare war on the Allies (which it might have done, although in the end Vichy simply severed diplomatic relations with Britain).

    Since Vichy joining the Axis would give the Axis control over France’s military units (if the Axis wins the dice roll), the roll should perhaps include some compensating factor on the Allied side.  For example, maybe the roll would only be triggered by a British attack against French naval units in the turn immediately after France falls, with the odds of a successful attack adjusted so that they favour the British.  The UK player would thus have to decide whether or not to launch this attack: the potential benefit is that it would have a high chance of destroying some French naval units, but the potential drawback is that the attack might drive Vichy France into the Axis camp as a full partner.



  • Not sure if this fits your scheme of how you want powers to operate once their capital falls. I also think it is difficult to lump the Dutch and French and Chinese into the same mold because of the how each country’s political situation played out. The Dutch was a ruling power in exile (London), and joined the allied cause. The French set-up a puppet state that was forced to bend to the axis. The Chinese did a bend but don’t break, and set-up a head quarters/capital deeper into China and continued to fight. I’ve been working on an optional Vichy rule that would come into effect after the fall of Paris. Something that would satisfy both sides to a point, but might cause one side or the other to react if certain circumstances come up.

    I was thinking Germany sets up all battles G1 like normal, but in light of this new rule may or may not perform certain attacks. Any French units involved in G1 attacks will play out as normal regardless of the order the German player performs his attacks (all attacks are simultaneous). At the end of Germany’s combats, and only if Paris falls all the remaining French territories (which include the French units in them) are rolled for individually to determine if they stay Free French, or go Vichy. You would also roll a dice for each French ship on the board as well (see later). If for some reason Paris doesn’t fall G1, then the Vichy rule is implemented later when Paris does fall after combat during Ita1, or G2.

    So once Paris falls say during G1 (after combats are done, but before NCM) you roll a dice for each French territory still in French control. This will effect the territory, and any units in them. Any French ground/air not in a French territory will stay Free French (units in UK).

    Lets talk territories/ground units for now:

    Roll 1-2           territory is Free French (includes units in them)
    Roll 3,4,5,6      territory is Vichy (includes units in them)

    If Free French, they continue on as normal playing in the French turn (would consider allowing them to play w/UK until Paris is liberated, could be fun)

    If territory goes Vichy you need to mark it and the units somehow. Maybe place a control marker upside down, and use older German grey units for Vichy?).

    Vichy units can’t move, but will defend if territory is attacked. Axis units are allowed to move freely through Vichy territories as if it was axis (including landing air units). If an axis power occupies a Vichy territory (stations a ground unit in it during NCM) that power will collect income from it, and be able to use any facility in it as if it was captured (axis partners are also allowed to use AB/NB while occupied). You would place that powers control marker w/ground unit on top to show occupation. Being the Vichy rule is implemented between combat, and NCM Germany could occupy Vichy territory G1 if it plans for it. If the axis power abandons a Vichy territory (removes all ground units) it no longer collects income or has use of the facilities (remove control marker). However another axis power could NCM in and occupy it (axis can trade it). An axis power is also allowed to attack a Vichy territory if it wants claiming it for themselves, and wouldn’t need to station a unit there, but then this would prob weaken that territories def.

    If a Vichy territory is attacked by the allies any Vichy units would def w/axis units there. If a Vichy territory is taken by the allies, they will gain control of it, place their control marker on it, and collect income etc…until Paris is liberated. So the allies could gain income from French territories w/o the territory being taken by the axis first.

    Now on to ships…

    Each ship is rolled for at the same point the French territories are.

    Roll 1-2     ship is Free French, and allowed to move up to 2 spaces to seek refuge
    Roll 3,4,5   ship is scuttled
    Roll 6        ship is axis, swap it out for German/Italian and it is allowed to move up to 2 spaces to seek refuge.

    This is my feudal attempt to give more substance to the French fleet and to somewhat simulate the events at Mer el Kebir (sz92), Dakar (sz87), and Toulon (sz93). Portions of the French fleet falling into enemy hands was something that both sides feared for obvious reasons. Plus I wanted the French and axis to both have a shot to get a tpt in the Med/Africa.

    So I would add this to the French set-up, and then roll for all the ships as above. You may not have enough French ships for this new set-up, but probably would after the Vichy roll and ships are scuttled of given to axis.

    As a side note I would also place 1 inf on the French territories that don’t have any at set-up as well.

    So I would add:

    sz 92 ( Mer el Kebir):    1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 tpt
    sz 87 (Dakar):             1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 tpt
    French Madag:             1 inf
    French W Afr               1 Inf
    French Cen Afr             1 inf
    French Eq Afr               1 inf
    FIC                              1 inf

    Don’t forget you also roll for the ships in sz 93, sz 72 destroyer, and sz110 cruiser (if Germany forgoes that attack).

    It’s a work in progress, but I think you get the point. I want to roll some dice to change things up a bit.

    WB


  • '14

    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.


  • '14

    @WILD:

    Now on to ships……

    Each ship is rolled for at the same point the French territories are.

    Roll 1-2     ship is Free French, and allowed to move up to 2 spaces to seek refuge
    Roll 3,4,5   ship is scuttled
    Roll 6        ship is axis, swap it out for German/Italian and it is allowed to move up to 2 spaces to seek refuge.

    […]

    It’s a work in progress, but I think you get the point. I want to roll some dice to change things up a bit.

    I like that breakdown, it seems to offer some nice options to both sides, but still has the average result (scuttled) roughly the same for both sides.

    Totally agree with the sentiment! I like a set up that has some rolling to add in variety. I mean a rule like this, could provide enough variation in results, that people stop thinking of the game in terms of “balanced or unbalanced by side from the outset” and more like “lets see how the rolls shape up, and then play on from there.” As long as Axis or Allies could both take advantage of the results, I think it would be cool to try.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Black_Elk:

    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.

    Here’s a possible idea for doing so that would be applicable to all countries whose capitals fall, while still (in my opinion) reflecting historical reality in a reasonable way.  It would require the preparation and use of a chart / table system (described below), but that should be easy enough to arrange.

    The concept would involve a sliding scale of political responses.  Just for the sake of rough illustration, I’ll assume that the scale is thirteen units wide.

    The left-most position, 0, equals “joins the occupier’s side wholeheartedly”.

    The right-most position, 12, equals “joins the enemies of the occupier wholeheartedly”.

    The middle position, 6, equals “stays uninvolved” (or something like that).

    Positions 1 to 5 indicate various degrees of collaboration with the occupier – for example, sending regiments of “volunteers” to fight alongside the occupier on other fronts (as was the case with the Legion des Volontaires Francais contre le Bolchevisme, later called the SS Charlemagne Division).

    Positions 7 to 11 indicate various degrees of resistance againt the occupier – the FFI, the Maquis, the Russian partisans and so forth.

    This sliding scale would be used in conjunction with a table that indicates, for each country, which parts of the scale is “bracketed” by a dice roll.  The idea is that, even though the scale is 13 units wide, the possible responses of any given country only cover part of the scale, with each country’s reponse bracket falling at a distinct position on the scale based on a realistic assessment of how it might have reacted to foreign occupation.  Let’s say, for example, that the bracket is six units wide (corresponding to a roll of 1D6).  The table might say that the US bracket falls on the 7-to-12 position of the scale; a roll of 1 = response 7, a roll of 6 = response 12, and so forth (with the roll values already indicated in the table, for convenience).    The bracket for Vichy France, conversely, might occupy the 0-to-5 position on the scale.  And so forth.

    If multiple dice types are available, you could even have different “bracket widths” for different countries, if the possible range of plausible political responses is wider for some countries than for others.



  • …and what is wrong with the current OOB rule ?



  • Black_Elk, just wanted to clarify/confess that the Vichy Rule I promoted is very similar to how they handle France in a game called “Global War”. I have the game, and it is basically a new map that comes with a collaboration of house rules used for A&A. You can buy units from them separately, or use your own (or alt least that’s how it worked a couple years ago). It is a pretty cool game, and it now has a couple different start times. I played the 1939 version, so there are rules for many neutral nations that might interest you.

    There is a link to this game here on AA.org and I think you are still allowed to down load the rule book for free. You should take a look if you haven’t already.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=73.0

    Here is a direct link to the newest global war rules 7.2

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=34732.0;attach=353983



  • @Narvik:

    …and what is wrong with the current OOB rule ?

    Nothing, but this is a house rule section where you can bounce rules/ideas around to get feedback and more out of the gaming experience. Basically done when you have played a lot of OOB, and now want to change things up. Even the whole Alpha process that went from the original G40 OOB to the second edition could be viewed as a series of house rules (granted they were Larry’s house rules LOL).


  • 2017 2016 2015

    The vichy rules reminds me of the one from xeno games.  I think their’s was to roll for the fleet like yours except uk and germany each got one chance at the fleet and 2-4 was scuttle. I like your idea of rolling for individual ships. Maybe make it individual sz’s?

    On the territories they rolled 50-50 free or vichy. If it went vichy it and everything in it turned german. I think the allies were allowed to use free french areas any way they wanted,but if they actually attacked a FF territory to take control of it, all remaining FF turned vichy. If FIC went vichy it went to japan.

    It went something like that anyways.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 10
  • 6
  • 6
  • 1
  • 3
  • 1
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games

55
Online

13.3k
Users

33.6k
Topics

1.3m
Posts