Capitals

Xeno games had it as roll two dice for repair cost and had to be in port, which was a coastal factory as they didn’t have NBs. Also BBs couldn’t bombard while damaged

@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.

Why are capital ships (Carriers in 1940 and Battleships) repaired at no cost and taking no time? I think they should be forced to sit out for a turn while repairs are carried out. I can live with it being no cost though.

Or does that weaken Battleships too much? You still need carriers.

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.

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

You could argue for secondary capitals i.e. use victory cities as such. If the major capital is capture as long as a nation holds it’s own VC it can collect 1/2 it’s income. Just a thought.

Good idea!

However, I think that simply the face number of IPCs income from territory will already be very reduce for a capital in exile. I wouldn’t cut in half this meagre resource.

Actually Baron you are right. I think a country should collect all it’s income until ALL it’s originally owned VCs are captured. The US if invaded by a foreign power would not give up. USSR is also a good example.

@knp7765:

I understand where you are coming from.  Capital ships take 2 hits to sink, so they take 2 turns to build, right?  I do see the logic but I have to disagree with this idea.  Aside from Major ICs (30), Battleships (20) and Carriers (16) are already the most expensive units in the game.  Plus, if you add the planes for the carrier, 2 fighters (20), that brings Carriers up to 36, making them the most expensive units in the game.  Yeah, I know I’m talking about 3 units, but really what good is a carrier without some planes on it?
I just think they are a big enough investment in IPCs already so you shouldn’t also have to invest 2 turns to get one.

I agree with you, and yes that was what I was thinking of

@Imperious:

A defeated nation with no factories and control over some territories still can build infantry, while an undefeated nation with factories cannot build any units outside of factories?

Extremely good point… I’ll have to think on this.

We’re curious if you get to roll for Diplomacy if you lose your capital.  There doesn’t seem to be anything in the rules prohibiting it like there is for Tech Dev.

We’re leaning towards not allowing it.

BTW:  Germany had some HOT dice and repelled the UK invasion.  Lesson learned!  Must be Begas rubbing off.

No you lose your capital you lose ability for tech and diplomacy, when you lose your last factory you cant build anything but infantry.