I think a good idea for 1914 would be to require at least 1 infantry to be stationed in every territory by the end of a power’s turn (the infantry must be from the power controlling. If they don’t, they won’t get the IPCs from this territory. Not only does it potentially make the game more historically accurate (to symbolize the need to keep civilian populations under control during wartime), but it probably also makes the game more balanced, as the Allies will probably be more burdened with this (since they have substantially larger colonial possessions).
Genocide NO
-
World War II was a war of annihilation.
On the turn when you eliminate the last remaining unit of an opposing power, you shall receive a one time bonus of $5 for achieving the complete extermination of the enemy race.
:evil:
-
This would be most easily accomplished by wiping out France or China (though Italy and ANZAC are also potential targets).
This favors the Axis, which is bad for balance but makes a lot of sense historically.
-
The two French guys in the UK should survive, unless a sealion. China could be had, but if they respawn does that mean you have to give the five bucks back? :)
-
I’m not sure if this NO proposal is meant to be taken entirely seriously (the “evil” emoticon kind of suggests that it isn’t), but either way I’ll just toss in a few thoughts about this. I think that perhaps a term like “total national defeat” might be better for what’s being proposed – in part because it’s less emotionally loaded, and in part because it would be more realistic. The sculpts in A&A represent a nation’s military units, not its population as a whole, so in principle wiping out all of a nation’s sculpts has no implications with regard to its civilians. I’d even go so far as to argue that the civilian population is represented in A&A (if by anything at all) by the IPC number printed on each territory (which denotes the sum total of a territory’s economic activity), and therefore that if a territory’s population is exterminated then that territory’s IPC value should drop to zero (thus making it disadvantageous to carry out genocide, rather than profitable).
There’s also the touchy question of whether genocide could realistically be viewed as a war “objective” of most of the WWII combatants, both in terms of what was credibly achievable and in terms of what their actual policies were. Racism was without question one of the major drivers of WWII, and it existed pretty much everywhere, including in the U.S. – as illustrated, to quote just three examples, by the wartime internment of Japanese Americans, by such nasty propaganda films as “Know Your Enemy: Japan,” and by the alleged receptivity of Roosevelt – who seemed to have a personal dislike of Germans – to the idea that postwar Germany should be reduced to a medieval-style agricultural fiefdom. Even allowing for all that, however, I’m not aware of any mainstream historians who seriously claim that the U.S. was pursuing an actual genocidal war against Germany or Japan. Furthermore, the cornerstone of the American wartime public narrative was that the U.S. was fighting a just and moral war to defend freedom and liberal democracy against aggressive, tyrannical regimes whose aim was to enslave the world – a narrative which would have been utterly compromised if the U.S. had pursued ethnic extermination as a war objective.
Amanntai mentioned France, whose original national territory Germany did in fact conquer and occupy (partially in 1940 and totally in 1942). Germany did not, however, occupy the French colonial empire (some parts of which joined the Free French fairly soon, and most of the rest of which remained under Vichy control), so it was in no position to eliminate all Frenchmen (even without considering the fact that some Frenchmen live in non-French parts of the world). Even in France itself, Germany did not exterminate the French citizenry in general, though it did target French Jews for that purpose (as was the case throughout occupied Europe). The war on the Eastern Front was exceptionally savage (on both sides), in part because it was seen by Hitler as a racial and ideological campaign against three groups he loathed – Slavs, Jews and Bolsheviks – but even here, notwithstanding some twenty million deaths, there was a crude distinction made in terms of “objectives.” The Jews were targeted for genocide, with a similar fate being reserved for communists (as examplified by the Commissar Order), but as far as I know the plan for the population in general was “merely” to reduce it in size and turn the survivors into serfs labouring for the good of the Reich.
-
Yeah this is kind of a joke, but you should be able to be a WAR CRIMINAL in axis & allies. The Nazis’ overall goal was Extermination for some of their enemies (ie jews) and slavery/degradation for others (ie Poles, Russians, etc.), and the Japanese viewed the Chinese like that too (eg Nanking, bioweapons etc). Likewise, there were some on the allied side who also saw things that way, hence the firestorms at Dresden and Tokyo, use of atomic weapons that kind of thing.
-
The two French guys in the UK should survive, unless a sealion. China could be had, but if they respawn does that mean you have to give the five bucks back? :)
With all the discussion of the German Bomber strategy, an attack on London is quite possible. The French infantry would probably be the first to be taken as casualties, so one attack and then a retreat would accomplish that. The fighter is more likely to be somewhere else (I like to send it to North Africa to aid the French infantry there against the Italians), but even if it stays in London it could die in a Scramble or an SBR.
-
We actually had a game of Global 40 where the two frenchman in UK were killed and the fighter fought and died gloriously but the destroyer off of Madagascar survived the game by circumnavigating the southern hemisphere. It saw some limited action but the guy playing france wanted to keep atleast one french unit on the board.
Suggested Topics
