Personally I like hand over the ipc level of your capital to its new owner (maybe even another 5ipc’s or so-bonus for taking capital). I could live with hand over the rest of your money to the bank. That way you could not purchase new units next round (you would have no $). You can do combat, non-combat and still collect income to buy units the next round. This would show the delay of getting back on your feet and is not that far removed from the original rules. It also helps somewhat with the huge swing in power the enemy would get for game play, and allows you to continue the fight. If you don’t have another IC you should be able to purchase one eventually. You could also increase the cost of units showing your displacement. Where it would get trick is if the enemy took another IC from you, would the process be the same? Its not really your capital. I would think not to confusing.
I’d personally take a fun, balanced game over a historically accurate one. The merits of certain “historical” possibilities, whether they were planned, attempted, or dreamed of by any power matter little to me. There’s not even a Bismark, and I’m over that.
How about, as the Italians you’re not allowed to move your navy out of the Mediterranean SZ it starts in? How about all of your Italian units roll to hit on a 1 in Africa? We should probably just about double the number of British ships in the Atlantic… there are plenty more things we can do to completely ruin this game. HISTORICAL ACCURACY DOODZ!
+1 soul
soul/omega:
I’m not one to put historical accuracy before game play. I think if you can get both however its better.
The OOB way allows the invader to take all your stored ipc’s and then get paid for the tt at the end of his turn (to powerful IMO). It also hand cuffs you to just the units you have left on the board, with little chance of doing anything else. I think as the game has matured into more tt and AA40 will offer many more tt and IC’s this rule has grown outdated.
Thats why I proposed to still hand over all your money. I just don’t think you should give it all to the enemy. The guy that took your capital is getting money from you (ipc value) and also getting paid by the bank at the end of his turn. I think this is fair, and not quite so game changing (better for game play).
I’m also thinking of the guy that just got knock out of the game. If he could still participate even at a reduced level (get paid & purchase units) and contribute to his own liberation it would be also be better for game play IMO.
Now if you like shorter games with a knock out punch like take a capital essentially win the game then no this rule would not be for you. I think it would extend the game.
Other things have also come to surface because of the larger board like a rule for the straights. This is going to have historical purpose, but will also be good for game play IMO. And who knows maybe the Bismark/Tripitz will be represented in AA40 in the Baltic (1 BB) w/protection from the new straight/port rules. See we have progress :-D
I think the victor should get a one time bonus of maybe 10 IPC’s for capturing the capital but that’s it.
There’s not even a Bismark, and I’m over that.
I think historically the removal of the Bismarck from the setup is accurate, as the AA50 and AA42 games start after it was sunk in May 1941.
Perhaps it could be readmitted to the setup with the new games starting in 1940…
Our experience from WWII, is that Paris, Rome and Berlin was the only capitals that was conquered.
We dont know what would have happened if Moscow or London was conquered.
We do know that nobody got rich from taking Berlin, the only thing they got was the rocket tech and some pretty high occupation expenses for the next 20 years. When taking Paris and Rome, the attacker got even less, its more like they had to pay when conquering this capitals, lol.
A better A&A rule would be that when you successfully attack and controll any enemy capital, the capital owner lose all his money to the bank. The attacker only get the territorys IPC value when he collects income. Nothing more.
You make an excellent point.
Here is the rule my friends and I sometimes play with for capitals:
If your capital is taken, instead of giving all your IPCs to the enemy, you give them all to the bank instead. (your money is destroyed)
There is still a strong incentive to take the enemies capital, but taking his capital doesn’t make you strong, it just makes the enemy really really weak.
We have also considered playing with a rule where you still collect money but only collect half your money rounded down, and can spend it at any remaining factories you have. Haven’t tried it yet though.
Here is the rule my friends and I sometimes play with for capitals:
If your capital is taken, instead of giving all your IPCs to the enemy, you give them all to the bank instead. (your money is destroyed)
There is still a strong incentive to take the enemies capital, but taking his capital doesn’t make you strong, it just makes the enemy really really weak.
We have also considered playing with a rule where you still collect money but only collect half your money rounded down, and can spend it at any remaining factories you have. Haven’t tried it yet though.
I like your idea but I still think you should collect all of your money and not half.
Are these the new changes to be implemented for this version?
@cannon:
Are these the new changes to be implemented for this version?
Not that I know of. We are just stating rule changes that we would like to see.
We do know that nobody got rich from taking Berlin, the only thing they got was the rocket tech and some pretty high occupation expenses for the next 20 years. When taking Paris and Rome, the attacker got even less, its more like they had to pay when conquering this capitals, lol.
No, no, no… The Germans had the French pay occupation costs during WWII… It was retribution for the war reparations from WWI, and they were a LOT harsher to the occupied France 1940-44. Germany did NOT have to invest a lot more into France to get anything out of it; the southern half of the country was willing to collaborate, many of the factories were taken over intact, and the Germans also confiscated just about any/all war material, commercial trucks, and aviation equipment for Operation Barbarossa against Russia the following year.
Germany also used a lot of tanks produced in Czechoslovakia for the invasion of Poland and Russia, and a lot of the Ukranians were willing to work with them in Russia.
If France falls, Germany gets to loot the defeated player’s IPCs, period. Same should be true for the other allied capitals. If there’s a rule for building in other faction owned factories with the defeated player collecting IPCs from their remaining territories, I’m all for that.
no no no sgt Blitz, please
When France was occupied, the GDP (gross domestic production) was halfed. So this 6 IPC territory actually should give the german occupier 3 IPC in income a turn. Remember that any occupied territory is scorced down from the fighting and the population is killed. And the stuff you loot is usually obsolete, so you cant put it into good use. The germans gave the obsolete Char-B tanks to the Rumenians becase they were too ugly.
We do know that nobody got rich from taking Berlin, the only thing they got was the rocket tech and some pretty high occupation expenses for the next 20 years. When taking Paris and Rome, the attacker got even less, its more like they had to pay when conquering this capitals, lol.
No, no, no… The Germans had the French pay occupation costs during WWII… It was retribution for the war reparations from WWI, and they were a LOT harsher to the occupied France 1940-44. Germany did NOT have to invest a lot more into France to get anything out of it; the southern half of the country was willing to collaborate, many of the factories were taken over intact, and the Germans also confiscated just about any/all war material, commercial trucks, and aviation equipment for Operation Barbarossa against Russia the following year.
Germany also used a lot of tanks produced in Czechoslovakia for the invasion of Poland and Russia, and a lot of the Ukranians were willing to work with them in Russia.
If France falls, Germany gets to loot the defeated player’s IPCs, period. Same should be true for the other allied capitals. If there’s a rule for building in other faction owned factories with the defeated player collecting IPCs from their remaining territories, I’m all for that.
I believe this is already reflected in the rules as once you take the capital you do get the IPC value of the capital and you do get to use the existing factories.
no no no sgt Blitz, please
When France was occupied, the GDP (gross domestic production) was halfed. So this 6 IPC territory actually should give the german occupier 3 IPC in income a turn. Remember that any occupied territory is scorced down from the fighting and the population is killed. And the stuff you loot is usually obsolete, so you cant put it into good use. The germans gave the obsolete Char-B tanks to the Rumenians becase they were too ugly.
So, by your logic, this game as a reflection of war is entirely pointless since you only LOSE money by taking over enemy territories, factories and capitals? So, France, England, and Russia would serve no point by being occupied and we should just let the game consist of pointlessly wasting resources on building army pieces that are never used and just threaten nearby stacks?
Sounds a lot like the Cold War. Let’s just rename the game to Aldertag’s Cold War, 1940-2009. Why are you even playing Axis and Allies anyway? There’s the reason WWII was our last world war, and hopefully remains so.
Here we go, one smite to you
Why are you even playing Axis and Allies anyway? There’s the reason WWII was our last world war, and hopefully remains so.
I dont know what the teachers on your school told you, but Hitler startet this war from one reason, he wantet to kill jews, just like your muslim friends in Taliban and Hamas.
I think you guys need to play a nice friendly game of Axis and Allies.
Why are you even playing Axis and Allies anyway? There’s the reason WWII was our last world war, and hopefully remains so.
I dont know what the teachers on your school told you, but Hitler startet this war from one reason, he wantet to kill jews, just like your muslim friends in Taliban and Hamas.
Wow, that was uncalled for. Touched a raw nerve there. All of a sudden I’m a pro-Muslim Extremist, when all I did was disagree.
Main point I was saying is that war in the long run is pointless. Nationalities and people’s movements will always trump external forces trying to coerce people into submission through the barrel of a gun. Axis and Allies doesn’t reflect reality. There’s no way in hell the French would have willingly signed their country over to German control, I agree with the halved production assessment. Just think that losing capitals should mean something other than a number on the board, and give something meaningful to the aggressor, for taking the risk in attacking it. Otherwise its just a giant game of chicken.
