Gameplay mechanics: Defensive reinforcements, capital loss

Have you been playing with some house rules over the years - or even recently invented, that you'd like to share?
Post Reply
Striker
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:44 pm

Gameplay mechanics: Defensive reinforcements, capital loss

Post by Striker » Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:34 pm

Axis and Allies has come a long way since classic, but there are still some "gamey" tactics still alive that bug me, as they neither represent reality at all nor do they add to the fun factor of the game. These can be traced to two sources, one game mechanic that needs modification, and another that needs adding.


Problem Examples:
-It's most often best to have one massive stack, attacking on multiple fronts is suicide as your smaller stacks get gobbled one at a time. Thus, a veteran player's invasion of Russia with Germany is made of a one pronged attack that goes straight to Moscow, sometimes going through Leningrad or Stalingrad first.

-There is no reason for the allies to push the Germans lines back from France/Italy when a substantial landing force can just "snipe" Berlin and end the game. This forces Germany/Italy to garrison their capital with a large stack once the US is in the war. Capital sniping effectively ends the game.

Source of Problems/fixes:
- The sense of time scale in A&A can seem off when battles happen. When a territory is attacked, the defenders are on their own regardless of how long the battle is, even if there is a massive friendly force just one territory away. In real war, if one part of the lines are attacked, forces from the reserves and flanks would relocate to support the defense.

- I suggest that if a battle lasts more then two rounds, then the defender may move units from adjacent territories into the battle to support the defense(this is a "free" move into the attacked territory) In A&A 42 this may seem beyond the scale, but in either of the A&A40 games I think it is a reasonable mechanic. I'd expect a force in West Germany to be able to respond to an attack on East Germany, or France/Normandy, North/South Italy, navies in adjacent seazones, etc.

This would fix some problems and promote more interesting Gameplay. The "one stack to rule them all" would be still viable but not be necessary, since 2 stacks could support eachother. There would be reason to attack across a broad area rather then making needlepoint attacks(vulnerable to being cut off from supplies in real war). In addition, defense in depth would become a viable tactic and the concept of reserves could be put to use on the table top. I think it's a fairly simple rule that could do so much for the game.

-Capitol loss.
The current mechanics for capitol loss do not seem to make sense in either a realistic sense or a game play sense. It does not make sense for Germany to get all of Britain's income from around the globe because it captured London. As well, the current capitol loss mechanic makes victory cities redundant. The large majority of the time the game is effectively over once one side loses a capital, regardless of the amount of "other" victory cities owned. Losing a capital provides the other side with a ridiculous reward and take the victim pretty much out of the war, even if it wouldn't make sense. If London was conquered, then the common wealth would fight on and keep producing, lead by Canada in the European theater and India in the pacific. Likewise, Moscow falling wouldn't necessarily end Russia, as much of their industry was east in the Urals.

-Suggested fix: If you lose your capital you discard all current ipcs. This is one time, and you collect income as normal at the end of your next turn.
Effect: This represent the damage done by losing a capital, as the government would be in turmoil for some time. However, after reorganization a secondary government would survive and continue the fight. I think it would benefit gamewise since it would make for a more tense situation after loss of capital since the victim could still have a chance to reclaim it on his own. As well, both the mechanics combined would discourage capital sniping.
Last edited by Striker on Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

turner
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:29 pm

Re: Gameplay mechanics: Defensive reinforcements, capital loss

Post by turner » Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:45 pm

I would like to see you be able to move your capital to another victory city you started with.

UK could move to Ottawa or Calcutta or Cairo.
US could move to San Francisco or Honolulu.
Russia could move to Stalingrad or Leningrad.
Germany to Warsaw.
Japan to Shanghai.

There should also be more victory cities.

Also, I think if you had a secondary capital your IPC income should be halved.\
But the point about losing the capitol making the game pretty much over is somewhat correct.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Gameplay mechanics: Defensive reinforcements, capital lo

Post by Imperious leader » Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:09 pm

Losing any territory with a factory should cause the factory to revert to maximum damage immediately.

So if you capture a major you must pay 20 IPC, a minor you must pay 6 IPC to rebuilt it.

This is what i have been using. Their is no way you take a factory and the next turn you churn out bombers. It does not work that way.

Also, ports, and air fields should be at 6 damage points.

If you take London of G3, you need to spend a turn rebuilding the installations and a second turn to place units or use the port, etc.... so it will be fully operational on G5.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Caractacus
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:18 am
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: Gameplay mechanics: Defensive reinforcements, capital lo

Post by Caractacus » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:31 pm

Imperious leader wrote:Losing any territory with a factory should cause the factory to revert to maximum damage immediately.

So if you capture a major you must pay 20 IPC, a minor you must pay 6 IPC to rebuilt it.

This is what i have been using. Their is no way you take a factory and the next turn you churn out bombers. It does not work that way.

Also, ports, and air fields should be at 6 damage points.

If you take London of G3, you need to spend a turn rebuilding the installations and a second turn to place units or use the port, etc.... so it will be fully operational on G5.
Nice suggestions...
Caractacus.

NinjaEskimo012
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:33 am

Re: Gameplay mechanics: Defensive reinforcements, capital loss

Post by NinjaEskimo012 » Sun May 21, 2017 8:33 am

I agree with turner and Imperious leader in that:
- there should be more Victory Cities in general
- the loss of your capital should not preclude your ability to keep fighting in the war
- facilities should receive some sort of damage upon capture (scorched-earth policy/general nature of warfare)

Perhaps if a second capital has been declared, and the IPCs have been lost for the immediately-following turn, then the war continues for that nation, but they pay a fine for defeated morale and logistical costs of moving the government. Say Japan loses control of Tokyo following a KJF strat; on Japan's next turn, they lose all of their IPCs, declare Hsinking as their new capital, take their turn, and then collect their income. I would say a fine of -5 IPCs for this first turn due to national disgrace and the logistical costs of moving the government apparatus, plus a further -3 IPCs every turn thereafter, like an inverse NO that reflects workers' mentality/productivity.

I've also read somewhere either on here or .org of an idea where IPCs are stored in various Victory Cities, so the total captured IPC value is what was stored in that particular Victory City and not the whole shebang. I don't know about the veracity of that kind of gameplay, what kind of storage limits there are per Victory City, but I suppose it could work.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests