@calvinhobbesliker:

@Bridger:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Umm, capitals were historically the primary objective. Also, if you’re able to capture a capital other than France, 99% of the time, you’re going to win anyway. The ipc’s represent the purchasing power lost by the collapse of the government.

That’s all well and good, but that doesn’t change the fact that it makes the game stale and repetitive.

repetetive? If you don’t want Moscow, you don’t have to go for it. You can have Japan invade Australia and Hawaii instead.

Sure, and I could invade Brazil with Japan too  :roll:

It’s repetitive because it is the optimal strategy.  Sure, if you want to play sub-optimally you can do all kinds of stuff.  But if you don’t care about winning why are you playing the game?  Game systems don’t work unless all players buy into the goals of the game.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Umm, capitals were historically the primary objective. Also, if you’re able to capture a capital other than France, 99% of the time, you’re going to win anyway. The ipc’s represent the purchasing power lost by the collapse of the government.

That’s all well and good, but that doesn’t change the fact that it makes the game stale and repetitive.

@calvinhobbesliker:

FYI, on this map, capetown is in SW Africa

Johannesburg then.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Bridger:

@Flashman:

This is the fundamental problem caused by the archaic “Capture the Capital” rules: however you try to avoid it, the game always comes down to the Axis trying to capture Moscow before the Allies bring their combined industrial muscle to bear.

This makes Moscow the inevitable prime objective for Germany (except perhaps London, which must be achieved without Japanese help), and as the above posts suggest this is only likely with Japanese help from the east.

No matter how many territories Larry places between Moscow and Manchuria, or how many false diversions towards “Victory Cities”, the C-t-C rule will always bring those Axis armies towards Moscow like a giant magnet.  The huge benefits of closing down the Russian economy are still so vast that any other Axis strategy is completely insane.

This is why so many house rules delete the rule in favour of a power being able to collect money from every territory it holds regardless of capitals, and produce units as long as it has a factory remaining.  In other words, the Axis must close down the Russian economy by stages, capturing all it’s industrial centres in turn, rather than the inevitable drive to Moscow.

There should in fact be 5 such centres in Russia, with Kiev (west Ukraine) and Chelyabinsk (Novosibirsk) having factories and respectable IPC values.  Japan can cast envious eyes on the Siberian factory, but with the race to Moscow no longer the key to everything, a long term Pacific adventure may be more rewarding.

This.  Fucking THIS.  I’ve always hated the capitol capture rules.  They are the only things that immediately end the game no questions asked, so it’s the only goal of any player.  It makes the game extremely repetitive because the only feasible capitol to capture is Moscow for the Axis and Berlin (maybe Rome, though it’s much harder to pull off) for the allies.  If you remove the capitol capture rule and make victory cities a more thoughtful component, the game play would be significantly more diverse.

Axis don’t need to take Moscow, London, or any North American territories to win.

I never said they did, but since capitol capture is an instant win (in 95% of cases) it still has a huge impact upon optimal play.  There is very little incentive to do anything else with the instant win condition dangling there so easily.

My ideal house rule would be to remove VCs in locations which never see any action (washington?  LA? Ottowa?  Are you serious?) and provide an instant win for axis and instant win for allies based on VCs (one which is attainable without capturing capitols, forcing players to attack/defend more than one spot, thus increasing possible strategies).

Off the top of my head I would add a VC to South Africa (Cape Town) and then say:

Axis win with:

1. Total of 12 VCs between the two theaters
   OR
2. 6 of the 7 in the pacific
   OR
3. 7 of the 10 in Europe/Africa.

Allies win with:

1. 10 Total VCs Starting End of Turn 4
   OR
2. 4 of the 7 in Pacific Starting End of T4 (they start with 5 on T1)
   OR
3. 7 of the 10 in Europe Starting End of T4
   OR
4. Capture of Japan (very hard to do compared to Moscow if Japan is paying attention, and only provided to prevent Japan from ignoring it’s capitol in favor of land rush).

Would need to playtest this to see if it’s too easy for Axis/allies and need to maybe adjust a number or two.

Then I would weaken the capitol capture rules to only give half cash to victor and still allow loser to earn income and produce in remaining factories (even build one if neccessary).  This would provide a reason for the Quebec factory to exist (in case London falls).  This, IMHO, would provide a much more dynamic game.  Does Italy drive hard for Cape Town?  Do the brits fight for Africa (and it’s two VCs) or try to stall them in continental Europe?  The US cannot ignore Japan because if they take all VCs but 1 (honalulu, calcutta, or sydny most like) axis win.  Japan has a much bigger incentive to work historically and not drive for Moscow.

@Gargantua:

There is nothing wrong with Capital Capturing rules.
CtC rule has almost no impact on game strategy for anybody past begginer and possibly intermediate players mixed with beginners.

Wrong.  You just spent an entire post describing how this game is all about economics.  Then you want to tell us that the biggest posible economic swing in the game (capitol capture) doesn’t matter as an incentive?  :roll:

@Flashman:

This is the fundamental problem caused by the archaic “Capture the Capital” rules: however you try to avoid it, the game always comes down to the Axis trying to capture Moscow before the Allies bring their combined industrial muscle to bear.

This makes Moscow the inevitable prime objective for Germany (except perhaps London, which must be achieved without Japanese help), and as the above posts suggest this is only likely with Japanese help from the east.

No matter how many territories Larry places between Moscow and Manchuria, or how many false diversions towards “Victory Cities”, the C-t-C rule will always bring those Axis armies towards Moscow like a giant magnet.  The huge benefits of closing down the Russian economy are still so vast that any other Axis strategy is completely insane.

This is why so many house rules delete the rule in favour of a power being able to collect money from every territory it holds regardless of capitals, and produce units as long as it has a factory remaining.  In other words, the Axis must close down the Russian economy by stages, capturing all it’s industrial centres in turn, rather than the inevitable drive to Moscow.

There should in fact be 5 such centres in Russia, with Kiev (west Ukraine) and Chelyabinsk (Novosibirsk) having factories and respectable IPC values.  Japan can cast envious eyes on the Siberian factory, but with the race to Moscow no longer the key to everything, a long term Pacific adventure may be more rewarding.

This.  Fucking THIS.  I’ve always hated the capitol capture rules.  They are the only things that immediately end the game no questions asked, so it’s the only goal of any player.  It makes the game extremely repetitive because the only feasible capitol to capture is Moscow for the Axis and Berlin (maybe Rome, though it’s much harder to pull off) for the allies.  If you remove the capitol capture rule and make victory cities a more thoughtful component, the game play would be significantly more diverse.

@Krieghund:

Kamikaze attacks occur on the Allied players’ turns, not on Japan’s turn.  Like scrambling, they are a reaction to enemy combat movement.  As a result, any attacking carriers’ planes will be in the air, unless they belong to an ally and being carried as cargo.

If this is the case, it is quite unclear in the rules.  I reread that section a number of times and it seemed to indicate that it would occur at the beginning of the conduct combat phase after allied units “had” been moved into a sea zone with the kamakazi symbol.  The use of the past tense here could indicate that the units in question were moved there last turn, not necessarily “just moved.”

I personally prefer the interpretation where the kamikaze attacks happen right after allied movement phase, but that is not how the rules word it.

This is a bit ambiguous, but this is how i read it.  Any clarification?

Our situation is as such:

American carriers outside iwo jima (captured last turn).  Japanese moved in the entire japanese navy and air force and decalred kamakazis on the carriers.

If they are damaged, the planes on the carriers do not participate yes?

If they are destroyed, the planes go down with the carriers, yes?

Or do the fighters/tacs launch in the movement phase before the kamakazi attacks?

And the rulebook is ambiguous, but it seems to indicate that kamakazis can be used during th conduct combat phase, and since it’s a japanese power it’s on the japanese turn.

Update:

We found a section in the carrier section that says the carriers always launch planes when they come under attack and the planes are always considered to be defending in the air.  This seems to apply to kamakazi atttacks as well.

@RJL518:

after all the complaints that WOTC has received concerning the pieces and the battle strip and the errors in the rulebook…we will have to just wait and see…but im getting europe anyway…its gonna be a blast to play A&A on the large board when combined

You (and people like you) are the reason they made a low quality $90 game.  “they did a terrible job but i’m going to buy it anyway” wtf?

I see a lot of people mentioning the british taking the Dutch East Indies while they are still “neutral.”  This is not allowed as per the errata that is currently posted.  No neutral countries can attack other neutrals until japan attacks them.

Was there a large need for bombers to go down to 12 instead of 14?  At 14 you’d still see them bought in force by UK or US or even Germany sometimes.