[Global 1940] Damaged Capital Ships

@franklin_cain yea it’d make sense for it to be Dutch and German controlled. Treat it the same as the Dutch Territories in the Pacific and the Chinese ones controlled by Japan.

You could house rule it. I guess that way Italy could get it if they conquered it after Germany lost it. I’ve never seen Germany build a major there or even a minor : )

Those are the rules though : ) So yea, no erratta

Edit
I suppose Poland, Norway and Denmark should be treated as Neutrals though. Vyborg, Baltic States and Bessarabia for USSR too. Maybe Poland Pro-Allies ? Vyborg Pro-Axis ? Hmm … I’d say no to Vyborg.

@The-Captain

Nice! Another win for the Axis! Truly a master player.

@runaway_jim

I am of no relation to him. Likely just a similar appreciation of the movie Gunga Din.

@magnum I’m not yet convinced that letting them pick what they want, and potentially the same thing, is a problem. If anything, this will give them the opportunity to try out different strategies, involving research, and see how they work.

Damn written texts, we cannot ear sarcastic undertone.
😊😊😊

@phd_angel

Thanks so much! Sorry for the delayed response here. I was on parental leave with my son, so I wasn’t online much the last few months!

I definitely appreciate the feedback. I’m with you, my hope for any houserule is to keep a semblance of realism while working out whatever game play issues there were that made the houserule pop up in the first place!

The uncertainty of allegiances pre-battle is quite interesting. But I try to minimize dice randomness. IRL (in real life), Vichy troops (just like Italians) surrendered as soon as seeing enemy superiority: thus, in the game, if Allies send more land + air units than defending Vichy units, there is no battle but surrender. Or, make it unlikely that a battle would ensue (for example, need to roll a 1).

I definitely agree overall here, I think this one got away from A&A mechanics the most. Part of me didn’t want to make it completely against the Axis, but I think something like you suggest on bringing more men (or maybe twice as many), would void any combat.

IPC system, however, is historically inaccurate (as in most, if not all, Vichy mods I’ve seen): IRL, Nazi Germany profited handsomely on Vichy which had to quite richly sustain 300,000 German troops stationed in Northern France! So, in the game, Germany should actually gain IPC bonus, whereas Vichy and Free France gain nothing. How much, certainly 3 IPC, at least.

I also get your point here. However, the main goal for me in creating the Vichy France rule was an overwhelming thought by players that the Axis has too great an advantage. By creating Vichy in this scenario it weakens the Axis some by taking away from them, as well as adding to the Allies by adding the Free French. I think if we were to give the Germans more IPC’s, it takes away the point of creating the rule in the first place (which again, was to try and help weaken the OOB Axis advantages).

Finally, Germany never fought Vichy. IRL, with Operation Torch, Germany simply occupied Vichy in 1942, with no resistance whatsoever. Vichy units were disbanded. That can be also the case in the game.

I also agree that combat did not really happen, at least on a large scale. I suppose I don’t know enough to understand every potential action that might have happened, no matter how small. This was again something designed to make the German player think twice before just invading the Vichy territories. It’s going to cost them a bit. Again, just a device to hopefully help balance.

I personally don’t like the idea of bids at the beginning of a game. We try and either house rule to help change, or just deal with it how we can. But yeah, the main hope/goal here was to have a somewhat realistic scenario, while also hopefully tipping the scales a bit away from the Axis, while not ruining gameplay and design too much.

Thanks so much for your input! Hope 2021 is treating you well!

Chris

I’ll be able to post set up this weekend any comments on it will help

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)