Terms of Surrender

We've talked about Advanced A&A... Now I'd like to hear your comments on what YOU envision a DELUXE A&A GAME to be. What would it look like.
User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Terms of Surrender

Post by Flashman » Wed May 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Like most people I dislike the standard capture-the-capital rules, but I was thinking that, even though a power can fight on as long as it has income and units, nations in modern warfare rarely fought on 'till the last man.

So I though that an arbritrary surrender could be enforced on a power that falls below a certain income in terms of IPC level or numer of territories.

When a nation is forced to surrender:

1. All it's combat units are removed
2. All it's control markers are removed and control restored to original owners UNLESS units of a nation allied to the surrendering power occupy that territory, in which case those units assume control for that nation.
3. If battles are scheduled between enemies and allied nations on the soil of the surrendering power, those battles must still be fought out. (note that a surrender is enfoced IMMEDIATELY the conditions are met, even in the middle of a combat phase.
4. Control of areas left empty will go to the first power to move units into the territory.

To illustrate with a historical example, Italy has been forced to surrender, so:
All Italian units are removed.
Enemy and neutral territories controlled by Italy are restored to original owners.
If German units are left on Italian owned territory, Germany takes control of those areas.
If battles on Italian owned soil are still scheduled (i.e. between German forces and those of the Allies) those combats are completed.
If the above leaves empty areas these become controlled by the first power to occupy the area.

Once a power has surrendered it cannot be restored to the game even if it's territory is occupied by an ally; that ally simply takes control of the areas itself.
The same principle applies to UK & USA as to Germany & Italy in the above example, but not to USSR or Japan who cannot share territory with their allies.

Some might suggest that Japan would not surrender under any circumstances, but the evidence suggests that Japan was on the verge of surrender when the bomb was dropped despite still occupying considerable territory in China, the Pacific and in south-east Asia.

To take the historical example further, rules might be devised whereby Italy might join the Allies after surrender, but this would probably unbalance the game further against a struggling alliance.

User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Wed May 09, 2007 10:04 pm

Comments noted.. thanks for the post flashman

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Mon May 14, 2007 7:41 pm

Tentative suggestions for mandatory surrender:

A power surrenders at any time when:

It has less than three land territories remaining

Its IPC level is less than 7?

It has no remining combat units

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Wed May 23, 2007 8:02 pm

Just working on the map, and have 6 VCs each at the moment (Teheran for Russia!)
Probably a bit much, as Germany only has 6 starting territories!
So - Berlin, Paris, Vienna, Kiev, Kursk, Oslo
Italy - Rome, Marseilles, Athens, Bucharest, Helsinki, Tripoli (Palermo?)

Considering this:

A power is forced to surrender when it holds less than three of it's opening six Victory Cities.

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Thu May 24, 2007 8:09 pm

With just 4 VCs each now, I'm considering that a power surrenders when it has only 1 of it's starting VCs left.

Recap of latest Victory Cities:
London, Cape Town, Jerusalem, Delhi
Washington, Los Angeles, Chungking, Sydney
Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Chelyabinsk
Rome, Bucharest, Tripoli, Helsinki
Berlin, Vienna, Paris, Kiev
Tokyo, Peking, Saigon, Manilla

This is in effect a new way of using VCs. Instead of gaining a set number, the object is to force each enemy power to surrender by taking their vital centres.

User avatar
Rising_Sun_Warrior
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:27 am
Location: Japan

Post by Rising_Sun_Warrior » Fri May 25, 2007 10:46 am

Can someone please tell me why Italy has Helsinki and Bucharest. I wasn't aware that Italy controlled, or even influenced, any other power...ever. Nor did I think they had the power to even if they wanted to. I'm pretty sure Germany was the bully here. Can someone fill me in?
"In wartime the truth is so precious, she must always be attended by a bodyguard of lies" -Winston Churchill

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Fri May 25, 2007 11:31 am

Now I think Italy should controll Spain and Turkey

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Fri May 25, 2007 4:10 pm

Rising_Sun_Warrior wrote:Can someone please tell me why Italy has Helsinki and Bucharest. I wasn't aware that Italy controlled, or even influenced, any other power...ever. Nor did I think they had the power to even if they wanted to. I'm pretty sure Germany was the bully here. Can someone fill me in?
As I've said, the Italy player also contols the minor Axis nations. So making their capitals VCs is equivalent to making Chungking a USA VC. All this will become clear when I post a pic of my map.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests