[Global 1940] Capital City Capture



  • Hello All,

    I have seen this discussion posted before, however there has not been too much progress over the last few years.

    Ever since playing the 1984 version of A&A I have always used the standard rules for capturing capital cities, where the nation who lost its capital gives all of their IPC’s to the attacker, and they can no longer produce units.

    Now with the A&A Global 1940 Second Edition, this is still the format as per the instructions. I don’t agree with this format, a capital being captured definitely has a major impact on a nation, but I don’t think that the nation would just lay down its arms. I have read other ideas and suggestions on this topic, and my idea is as follows:

    The nation who lost its capital gives all of its IPC’s to the victor as soon as the capital is lost, just like normal. The nation who lost their capital can still collect income at the end of their next turn, however they only collect income on territories where they still holding any type of production facility, and they can only build at production facilities as well.

    A situation where this would be relevant would be if the UK loses London. Quebec and South Africa should still be able to contribute to the war effort. Realistically, they would still contribute.

    This idea has a very minor impact on the game, it wont throw the balance off like some of the other ideas I have seen i.e. china rule applies (infantry only). However, it gives the game just a hint more of realism, at least that’s how I see it.

    Any thoughts? Suggestions? First-hand experience implementing something like this?



  • I also work the same house rule where capture power gains money from losing power however losing power is still allowed to collect income regardless. You have it set where they can only do this if they have a working factory where my rule says that the government in now in exile and still collects regardless. Friendly powers may annex your territory like normal if they choose to.



  • I like that idea as well.

    So you can only build on factories that are still under your control, but collect income from all territories that you still own?



  • Yes, you still collect all income on all territories you control regardless if you have the means to produce or not. The difference is because your government is in exile, you have no authority to stop your allies from annexing your territory under normal rules until your capital is restored. So let’s say you are USSR and Moscow is now German, USA can still annex territory normally against your will because your capital is Axis. So lets say for argument you only have one factory left, even though I allow you to continue to build, USA can take control of it like any normal move.


  • 2017

    This is an interesting idea and am open to it.

    I would want to also house rule back the NO for Germany capturing London. Especially since the country now would not be knocked out from producing units.

    A disadvantage would be that it would make a very long game even longer.



  • I don’t feel with this rule that I would defend London in the face of a Sealion threat… if anything, I would buy a couple aircraft carriers off Ottawa instead of putting infantry on the UK… especially if I know that I’m gonna be able to buy fighters for those carriers even after my capital is gone.



  • Besides, as soon as Sea Lion happens, USA would be a fool to allow Axis forces control London.


  • 2017 2016

    And it is very difficult to defend London while adding 3 units per game rounds.



  • @Baron:

    And it is very difficult to defend London while adding 3 units per game rounds.

    You would have to run convoy runs from Germany and France to reinforce London and that’s assuming everything is running smooth on the eastern front.



  • Actually we are using this house rule.
    If a capital is captured the conquerer receives the cash. Thereafter the nation receives normal money by the end of its turn an can buy units again (if they have an IC) and can place new ICs or bases. e.g.: France loses its capital by G1, on F1 they get 9-12 IPC. If the axis do not capture Normandy by turn 2 or UK liberates it on UK2, France would be able to place some units in F2.
    Normally this does not hppen and France collects a bunch of money by the time the allies do a landing, but we found it not such a major impact.
    The impact is bigger if London falls and UK Europe is thereafter still able to spend 16-20 IPC in Africa and Middle East.



  • @Fiera:

    Actually we are using this house rule.
    If a capital is captured the conquerer receives the cash. Thereafter the nation receives normal money by the end of its turn an can buy units again (if they have an IC) and can place new ICs or bases. e.g.: France loses its capital by G1, on F1 they get 9-12 IPC. If the axis do not capture Normandy by turn 2 or UK liberates it on UK2, France would be able to place some units in F2.
    Normally this does not hppen and France collects a bunch of money by the time the allies do a landing, but we found it not such a major impact.
    The impact is bigger if London falls and UK Europe is thereafter still able to spend 16-20 IPC in Africa and Middle East.

    Or in Canada but then again, I champion that Canada needs to be its own power. I find very strange the territories on Canada have their own national markings over UK ones, the nation fought on its own terms and yet it’s still forced to fight under UK control.



  • agreed



  • I’ve honestly worked in a house rule were Canada just fights on her own and UK economies are merged. On a physical board, I just bought extra UK pieces and painted them another color.


  • 2017 2016

    Here is the OP of YG trying to resolve somehow Canada’s and other issues.
    @Young:

    G40 HALIFAX RULES

    A special thanks to Young Grasshopper, knp7765, afrothunder12, Black_Elk, Wild Bill, and CWO Marc for their contributions to the development of these rules.

    Production Unit Profiles

    Industrial Complex:
    Produces up to 10 units
    Maximum damage 20
    Unoperational at 10 damage
    Capable of building all units
    May never be purchased
    Immediately downgraded to a Minor Factory once captured

    Major Factory:
    Produces up to 5 units
    Maximum damage 10
    Unoperational at 5 damage
    Capable of building all units
    May never be purchased, or upgraded to an Industrial Complex
    Immediately downgraded to a Minor Factory once captured

    Minor Factory:
    Produces up to 3 units
    Maximum damage 6
    Unoperational at 3 damage
    May only build units that cost 10 IPCs or less
    May be purchased at a cost of 12 IPCs
    May be placed on any territory with an IPC value of 2 or greater.
    May be upgraded to a Major factory for 10 IPCs*

    There are only two conditions in which a nation may upgrade a production unit:

    *1. The original owner of a territory containing a minor factory may upgrade it to a major factory for 10 IPCs, but only if the minor factory in question was already downgraded from a major factory or Industrial Complex due to capture. Minor factories that have been purchased and placed on the board my never be upgraded.

    2. Once they are at war, the United States may immediately upgrade all their major factories to industrial complexes free of charge.

    The United Kingdom

    The British economy is no longer split between London and Calcutta, instead, the United Kingdom collects only one income for all territories owned on the map with London as it’s capital. The UK must relinquish all IPCs each time an Axis power captures London, however, the UK may retain all IPC’s if Calcutta is captured, as it is no longer a capital city.

    The Commonwealth

    At the beginning of the game, one of the following two options must be chosen by the player, or players controlling the Allied powers.

    Commonwealth Option #1

    All territories with an ANZAC and Canadian roundel on them will now be know as the Commonwealth. This new nation will replace ANZAC in the game round sequence, and all British beige starting units on Canadian territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces (including the sea units in sea zone #106). This power’s starting income will be 17 IPCs, and the United Kingdom’s will be 38 IPCs.

    Commonwealth Option #2

    All territories with an ANZAC and Canadian roundel on them, as well as South Africa, South West Africa, Newfoundland, and Eire will now be know as the Commonwealth. This new nation will replace ANZAC in the game round sequence, and all British beige starting units on Canadian and South African territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces (including the sea units in sea zones #106 and #71). This power’s starting income will be 20 IPCs, and the United Kingdom’s will be 35 IPCs.

    Political Situation

    The Commonwealth nation is at war with Germany and Italy, and neutral with Japan to start the game, they may not collect national objectives until they are at war with all the Axis powers. The Commonwealth nation does not have a capital, and as long as the Commonwealth controls Ottawa and/or Sydney, they may collect an income and build units. However, if both Ottawa and Sydney are under enemy control, the Commonwealth must immediately relinquish all IPCs to the bank, and remove their roundel from the income tracker until at least 1 of these two original victory cities are liberated.

    Map Board Adjustments

    _If you are using a G40 2nd Edition map and playing option #1, you must put a commonwealth roundel on Western Canada.

    If you are using a G40 2nd Edition map and playing option #2, you must put a commonwealth roundel on Western Canada, as well as South Africa, South West Africa, Newfoundland, and Eire._

    National Objectives

    All national objectives for the United Kingdom and ANZAC have been removed, and are now replaced with the following:

    United Kingdom:

    5 IPCs if the United States are at war with the Axis powers
    5 IPCs if the Allies control Gibraltar, Egypt, India, and Malaya
    5 IPCs if there are no Axis Submarines in the Atlantic (any sea zone west of Denmark and Gibraltar straits including #128 and #127)

    Commonwealth:

    5 IPCs if the Commonwealth controls all their original territories
    5 IPCs if the Allies (not including Dutch) control Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and Celebes
    5 IPCs if the Commonwealth has at least 1 land unit on an original German territory



  • Once again, Halifax does NOT make Canada its own power.


  • 2017 2016

    Here is a few posts within G40 Redesign in which it is discussed of Canada as a minor power:

    @Baron:

    @Baron:

    @Argothair:

    I’ve never really understood the rigid thinking around a Canadian minor power for G40. Baron’s viewpoint – that you need a way to get Canada’s income up into the double digits, and you need a way to precisely compensate the UK for the territories that they’re “losing” to Canada are very popular, but they don’t ring true for me.

    Creating an independent Canada does drain some income from the UK, but that also means less income for Germany to steal during a successful Sea Lion, more Allied opportunities for can openers around Denmark and Gibraltar, more opportunities to land fighters in Normandy during D-Day, and (if there are any Canadian NOs at all) a higher total British income. I tend to think that those advantages collectively outweigh the inconvenience of reducing how much British income can be spent at a minor factory in Bombay or Iraq.

    I would say that giving around 10 IPCs to create a minor country is about making this power something interesting to purchase and make something to do, based on ANZAC and Italy.
    Maybe on mid-end game it can better coordinate with UK and US, but probably UK will miss these 7 IPCs in Egypt. I can not say.

    However, for me it remains very theoretical. I still believe Canada needs at least 10 IPCs to be fun to play.

    @simon33:

    @Argothair:

    I’ve never really understood the rigid thinking around a Canadian minor power for G40.

    For me it comes largely from the illogic of a sea lion also taking Canada as an active allied power.

    British Columbia should have 2IPC income so you could put an IC on the Pacific coast BTW.

    @General:

    I can’t speak to historical accuracy but adding two Canadian infantry to London would mitigate at least a little the UK’s diminished first turn purchasing power for a Sea Lion defense. Unlike France, Canada could put those infantry to use later on with no need for an Allied transport piggyback.

    Adding a Canadian fighter in the proposed Newfoundland air base would help mop up German subs (if the destroyer survived) and make it’s way to London.

    It might be more interesting to increase action for Canada in PTO, if both Yukon and Western Canada rise to 2 IPCs.
    That will make for more interesting target for Japan. And it instantly rise Canada from 7 IPCs to 10 IPCs with no additional bonus from NOs.
    Having 6 IPCs on right corner of PTO map, 2 VCs, and a few US NO to cut down and maybe Canada too, might increase action radically there.

    And, as CWO Marc suggested, it may be  easier to make Canada and ANZAC together as a proof of concept.
    No need to create a new power, but only a few change on allegiance.
    Even South Africa can be added as part of this commonwealth dominions.
    They will all use the ANZAC units, so it can be a start to see how it impact every thing.

    Another reason is about playing time, the more powers with all different phases, it takes longer to decide and move.
    Also, from a tabletop play, you have ANZAC sculpts to play with.

    This minor power would get a more significant income.

    I read once that YG said South Africa not being UK is an issue against Italy in Egypt.

    Maybe, just start with ANZAC and Canada.
    Building a minor IC on set-up in Western Canada make it workable in PTO from two points of the map.

    @CWO:

    @Black_Elk:

    Separate economy would be more convenient FtF, since it doesn’t require new pieces, just roundels for income tracking. But the whole ‘one nation two economies’ thing is something I’ve never much liked OOB. It strikes me as a holdover from the 2 separate games = 1 bigger game design approach. I think it would also make ANZAC feel even more out of place, as the only Commonwealth territories to get a full representation.

    For a similar turn order you could put Canada with Anzac to close out the round, so that slot is more meaningful. But I actually really dislike the OOB turn order. I think it is highly awkward given the way A&A is usually played, and is unnecessarily drawn out. So I see no reason to we can’t try something new here.

    If fully redesigning the sequence, I’d try to block the turns so it’s more entertaining live, or more streamlined in the pbem exchange. I believe a new turn order requires a full xml mod with separate file (not something you can just toggle with a tech add right now). But I still like the idea of Canadian materials in the standard package, to make that a little easier. I’d consider breaking up the Anglo-American turn, which is currently the most involved. I think a sequence with the following blocks would be ideal…

    GER
    RUS, FRA, USA, CHN
    JPN
    UKE, CAN, UKP, ANZ
    ITA

    Here’s a thought.  If the ‘one nation two economies’ thing is something you dislike about the OOB rules, and if you’re thinking about detaching Canada from the UK player-wise and putting it close to ANZAC in the play order, have you considered the alternate possibility of bundling Canada, ANZAC (which itself represents a combination of two different countries, Australia and New Zealand) and possibly South Africa into a single player power, the Commonwealth Dominions?  Newfoundland could even be added to this composite power, and a further extension of the idea might be to include Eire if this pro-Allies country gets pulled into the war.  All six of these entities had Dominion status within the British Commonwealth (though technically Newfoundland wasn’t self-governing, since it had given up that status at its own request during the Depression).

    Even NFL and Labrador might receive 1 IPC to increase Commonwealth Dominions (Canada-ANZAC) income.
    Someone named it CANZAC.
    I believe it is achievable in less time and gives a start to see if Canada has something interesting to do before cutting it loose all by itself.

    And also, in PTO, it would be easier to coordinate Canada’s fleet with ANZAC’s fleet if needed.

    Edit: actual Triple A G40 map is not similar to tabletop.
    Western Canada includes Yukon, from first edition.
    So, should it be similar to boardgame map or not?

    Here is NOs for CANZAC, from YG Halifax rules

    Commonwealth:

    5 IPCs if the Commonwealth controls all their original territories
    5 IPCs if the Allies (not including Dutch) control Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and Celebes
    5 IPCs if the Commonwealth has at least 1 land unit on an original German territory



  • I’ve already have NO’s in place for Canada based around actual objectives during the war that I used Wikipedia. So outside Canada, Hong Kong will have one infantry and two infantry in France.

    NO’s goes as following:

    One unit on Normandy.
    Open convoy routes between Canada to UK
    A surface ship near India
    Cash and Carry

    If you can think of any else, I’ve also have two more, the problem is that they involve more history based on Axis attacks:

    Liberating Aleutian islands
    If Day

    I haven’t put any value yet because I am not sure what is “fair”



  • I completely agree with Canada actually having a role in this game. The house rules associated with the Commonwealth posted by Baron Munchhausen seems like it would add the most realism to this scenario, while at the same time not changing the balance of the game.

    These game developers, whether it be Axis and Allies (which by no means am I trying to bash), or the developers of video games like Battlefiled 1, seem to skip the history of Canada and its significance in both of the world wars. I don’t know if it is because we didn’t have the maple leaf flag until 1967, or what, but a little recognition would be appreciated. Since we were there from start to finish for both conflicts, were known for having elite forces, and took part in many major and pivotal battles.

    Anyways, back to the point about Axis and Allies. The commonwealth variant with Canada, ANZAC, and South Africa, is an option that I am going to present to my group.

    With this variant, the one question that I have in regards to losing a capital city would be, is there a way to make a capital city capture / take the money option for the Commonwealth, considering that there are 3 capitals in this scenario… Ex. If the Krauts take Ottawa is there a way to decide how many IPC’s from the Commonwealths total is associated with Canada, and therefore go to the Germans?


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13

    You should in game have 2 choices for UK capitals after London falls.
    Ottawa is one you mentioned and South Africa.

    Maybe have if London falls and Ottawa falls UK would still get there money while Germany gets UKs money twice and have S Africa the next UK Capital or vice versa with Ottaws.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    I don’t think there’s any reason to have a special rule for UK capitals – if you like the idea of backup capitals, just add a rule that each player who loses their primary capital may, once per game, establish a new secondary capital in any territory they control. For example, if France loses Paris, they could set up a new capital in Algeria or French West Africa or Madagascar. If UK Europe loses London, they can set up their new capital in Ottawa or South Africa or Scotland or whereever else they like. If you lose your primary capital, then you get looted for one turn, but you can build units one full turn later as normal. If you lose your secondary capital as well, then you can no longer build units until you recover at least one of your two capitals.

    Of course, even this is more complicated than I would prefer. Why have capitals at all? If you capture an opponent’s major factory in a high-IPC territory, that will usually already be a huge swing in your favor. You don’t need any special incentives from a capital-capture rule to be motivated to attack London or Moscow or Berlin – they’re already extremely high-value targets. If you want to set up a big income swing for thematic or balance reasons, you can use the national objectives for that.

    The best rule about capitals is not to have any rules about capitals at all.



  • Actually for UK, Canada’s capital would be the only choice in this matter. I am not sure what the British government’s back up plan was anyways if Sea Lion was successful.


  • 2018 2017

    I am not sure what the British government’s back up plan was anyways if Sea Lion was successful.

    Hide in the USA like the remaining Free Polish or Free French or learn the Horst-Wessel song as quickly as possible?


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

    @taamvan:

    I am not sure what the British government’s back up plan was anyways if Sea Lion was successful.

    The British government may not have had an actual “backup plan”, in terms of something serious and concrete and specific.  My impression is that Britain’s civilian and military leaders were focussed on preventing an invasion in the first place, and on defeating it if it did actually occur, and that they were sufficiently confident that they could accomplish one or the other of those goals that they didn’t need to give any detailed consideration to what to do if Britain ended up facing defeat.  Hitler, similarly, didn’t give serious consideration to invading Britain until he was forced to admit that Britain wasn’t going to come to terms with him after the defeat of France.

    It’s quite possible that British government considered the possibility of setting up a government-in-exile in Canada (or elsewhere), but “considering the possibility” isn’t the same thing as preparing a functional contingency plan.  And in fact, there would have been two good reasons NOT to work on such a functional plan.  First, it would have taken up time and resources that could have been better used elsewhere, even if it only amounted to a small number of staff.  More importantly, preparing such a plan – even in secret – would have been politically very dangerous.  Churchill had famously been proclaiming in the House of Commons that “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”  If word had somewhow reached the public that the same Churchill was secretly preparing plans to decamp to Canada, it would have had two very serious negative effects: it would have told the public that Churchill believed that Britain genuinely risked being conquered by Nazi Germany (which would have been very bad for morale) and it would have convinced people that Churchill was hypocritical on a monumental scale (which would have ended his political career).  It would also have destabilized the British government, which was the last thing Britain needed at that time.



  • @CWO:

    @taamvan:

    I am not sure what the British government’s back up plan was anyways if Sea Lion was successful.

    The British government may not have had an actual “backup plan”, in terms of something serious and concrete and specific.  My impression is that Britain’s civilian and military leaders were focussed on preventing an invasion in the first place, and on defeating it if it did actually occur, and that they were sufficiently confident that they could accomplish one or the other of those goals that they didn’t need to give any detailed consideration to what to do if Britain ended up facing defeat.  Hitler, similarly, didn’t give serious consideration to invading Britain until he was forced to admit that Britain wasn’t going to come to terms with him after the defeat of France.

    It’s quite possible that British government considered the possibility of setting up a government-in-exile in Canada (or elsewhere), but “considering the possibility” isn’t the same thing as preparing a functional contingency plan.  And in fact, there would have been two good reasons NOT to work on such a functional plan.  First, it would have taken up time and resources that could have been better used elsewhere, even if it only amounted to a small number of staff.  More importantly, preparing such a plan – even in secret – would have been politically very dangerous.  Churchill had famously been proclaiming in the House of Commons that “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”  If word had somewhow reached the public that the same Churchill was secretly preparing plans to decamp to Canada, it would have had two very serious negative effects: it would have told the public that Churchill believed that Britain genuinely risked being conquered by Nazi Germany (which would have been very bad for morale) and it would have convinced people that Churchill was hypocritical on a monumental scale (which would have ended his political career).  It would also have destabilized the British government, which was the last thing Britain needed at that time.

    No, I completely understand why Churchhill did that, he was a very ballsy man and someone who was needed for UK but you’d still think you want some kind of back up just in case. I am sure his staff and the Royal Family would AT LEAST retreat to Ireland if need be.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 36
  • 49
  • 38
  • 5
  • 15
  • 12
  • 4
  • 39
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

48
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts