Jump to content

SC - Move Capital Option

Edwin P.

Recommended Posts

In SC the Germans often follow a strategy of surrounding the Russian capital but not taking it. Thus, although the Russian player can reinforce units outside of the capital, he can't build any new ones. Often times you will see that you have over 1000MPP in the bank but can't spend it.

In reality the Russians would have moved their capital before it was surrounded, instead of awaiting its fall.

I propose that:

Option 1: The Russians can voluntarily move their capital from Moscow to Sverdlovsk at a cost of 400MPP. They can voluntarily move it again to Stalingrad at a further cost of another 400MPP.

This change allows the Russian player to counter a key German strategy while also giving him strategic flexibility. He can move the capital and suffer a loss of 400MPP or decide to defend the capital.

Option 2: Another option might be to double the construction costs of units built outside of a surrounded capital where the unit can trace a supply line to an alternate capital city hex such as Sverdlovsk, Stalingrad or Manchester. Thus a corps would cost as much as an army to build.

Option 3: Or you could say that Russia can always build units in the hex of Stalingrad or Sverdlovsk, even if Moscow is surrounded. Thus the Russians could build new units, but at most only 2 per turn and only if that hex was not occupied by another unit.

Of the three options, I would vote for option 3. Its simple and logical.

[ May 27, 2003, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Great solutions for serious flaw that's always mentioned but rarely listed among the needed improvements!

Yes, the 3rd idea sounds fine, except replacing only two at a time with the USSR obviously on the ropes would almost certainly be too little too late.

I like the first idea also but think 200 MPPs would be better for the same reason. The country would obviously be in serious trouble and expending 400 MPPs means not having three corps: possibly the difference between surviving or being conquered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good ideas i like option #1. at 400mpp, russia wont be leapfrogging all over the place.

only for the russians right? could you place a russian capital in an occupied territory or allied aligned country?

[ May 27, 2003, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: disorder ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Often times you will see that you have over 1000MPP in the bank
What game are you playing??

The issue here is this business of multiple capitals versus multiple supply sources. You can always spend MPPs to reinforce units in supply, but can only build new units that can trace a line back to The Capital. We can only have one capital in play at a time, but that's probably a code limitation that could be resolved in SC2.

There's nothing magical about a capital. It's a seat of government that can be moved if necessary. The logistical functions of the capital city are important, but certainly not limited to that one city. Capturing a capital and forcing a surrender is an abstraction that permits players to focus on relevant objectives, whereas in reality it's much more complicated than that.

SC2 could simply provide multiple supply sources with capital city functions and resolve the gamey surround-The-Capital strategy. Loss of the capital should trigger either relocation or surrender, perhaps delayed in both cases. Should players assume relocation is guaranteed? What if Moscow or London falls and that's it? Depending on forces and MPPs available, Hubert could throw in some formula for determining whether the capital moves or not. Besides, neither of these events happened historically so it's all conjecture anyway to keep the game interesting.

Since UK and USSR have multiple supply source cities, Germany should too (either Munich or Kiel or both). Maybe France also. Probably not for Italy - in fact Italy should get a surrender determination BEFORE Rome falls, like whenever an Italian mainland hex or city is captured (which did happen historically). What I'm getting at is that all of the supply source and capitals and surrender issues should be relooked for SC2 in a comprehensive way rather than proposing patches for the current problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

** Hello to everyone again. It's good to be back in the US...**

I agree with Edwin that it should not be possible to shut down an enormous war economy by surrounding a capital city.

I also agree with Bill Macon. There are several issues with surrenders and capital cities that should be resolved comprehensively. Along with the points already mentioned I suggest:

Rethinking the "formula" of surrender of capital city combined with %age of forces destroyed.

It shouldn't be possible for the Poles to operate an air unit to France and hide corps in swamps to avoid surrender.

And the "French solution" of having an automatic surrender when the capital falls isn't necessarily a good one.

I would suggest some kind of cumulative percentage chance of surrender on any given turn based on adding:

a. a small increase for each unit destroyed (possibly graded by size/cost of unit). In other words, losing a corps wouldn't make anyone think of surrender. Losing battleships or entire armies would--to some extent anyway.)

b. a medium increase based on each city/resource lost

c. a large increase for loss of a capital city. In Russia's case, the loss of any of the three supply centers/capitals should contribute significantly.

There would, then, be rare cases of a country surrendering with relatively minimal losses as well as some cases in which it were defended to the last ditch.

I think it is too easy to bypass significant enemy forces, capture a capital and force surrender.

To counter the "evacuate the French army to Britain" strategy, I would suggest tying the %age of "free French" forces to the length of time France holds off the Germans. Greater resistance in battle would create the kind of "warrior mentality" that would inspire more units to continue fighting. And a quick evacuation would simply mean that the forces vanish off the map in Britain.

[ May 27, 2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

santabear and Bill Macon bring up a good point about re-examining the whole surrender process. Surrendering is all about the will to resist.

Lets start off with one of the best examples, France 1940. Within the first week of the Germans invading, the French top leadership was telling the British that they had lost. It had very little to do with the number of units that had been lost. The Germans had done something the French thought was impossible and since the French top leadership doctrine was all about defending, they felt they were now in a hopeless situation. Hence, two weeks later, they surrendered. But they had "lost" in the first week.

So how do we recreate that in SC?

We've got some of the elements already. Capture of a capitol city is a major blow, but sometimes isn't enough by itself. Destroy enough of the enemies army and even if he has the will, he doesn't have the ability to resist. And lets not forget the morale of the civilian population. Italy is a good example of what happens when that dips low enough.

National Will

This is a number (0 to 100) that is effected by the following:


  • Negative</font>
  • Loss of Capitol</font>
  • Military losses (strength points and units)</font>
  • Loss of Cities</font>
  • Strategic attacks on cities by bombers and/or rockets</font>
  • Lack of "butter" (ie economy, as in Guns, Butter and Cows)</font>

There are more effects, its just a question of how detailed you want to get. Initial number for France would be much lower than Russia. The reverse of the above would be some of the positive effects. Could even go so far as to offer a "random" option, that way France would fight to the bitter end, while Russia may surrender as soon as one city falls.

Now, if the National Will is high enough, the capitol will move. If it doesn't, just assume your top leadership is trapped in the capitol. This will solve the initial problem that Edwin P brought up (unless of course your leaders get trapped in the capitol).

One last thing. We as players should never know what the exact "value" of the current National Will is. Something general like "people are concerned", "protests in the streets", "there has been an attempt on your life" should be all we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I like the concept of National Will. Elaborating on it a bit more, I think that national will also depend on who you are fighting, your government and your culture.

Japan, Russia, UK and Germany had stronger national will due to the nature of their government and the perceived threat. Italy and France had lower national will due to the pacifist nature of the populace.

Futhermore, Germany had a stronger National Will vs the Russians than the Allies. Thus they would have kept fighting longer in the face of Russian invaders than Allied troops.

In a lot of ways SC accurately portrays this. France and Italy are most likely to surrender after their capital falls. Russia and the UK will move their capital. Germany will often keep fighting for a few turns after Berlin falls.

There are cases though in which this could be improved;

1. In the case of the UK I believe that even after the home islands fell that the British Navy might have continued the fight based out of Canada. Perhaps there should be a chance for a Free Brits option based on the strength of the British Navy at the time of surrender. Say, if their are 10 British Ships the Chance for the Free Brits option is 90%, if there are only 3 UK ships afloat the chance for the Free Brits option is 30%.

2. Realistically, I think that after the surrender of Moscow that Russian partisans would have continued to launch actions against the occupiers; especially, if they received support from abroad or if Russian forces in the East continued to resist. Perhaps the Russians should have the option to invest in their post surrender resistance. This would increase the chance of post surrender resistance and would represent the stockpiling of arms and ammunition for a guerilla war.

3. Perhaps, you could have a counter that represents the leadership of the country. This unit would always be covered by FOW unless an enemy unit moved into its square. If this unit was destroyed then national will would drop. If this unit survived, say for example, Churchhill and the Royal Family fleeing to Canada via a transport or Stalin Fleeing to Siberia, the chance for post surrender resistance would increase.

4. RE: Siberia

Perhaps their should be an off-map Siberian holding area with production of 50MPP per turn. This MPP could only be used to reinforce or produce new units in the Siberian holding area after Russian surrenders.

The Russian player could move units to this area. The number of units in this area would affect the chance for post surrender Russian resistance.

(ie 1 to 3 Units in Siberia = 0% chance for resistance, 3 to 4 units = 10%, 10+ Units in Siberia = 100% for post surrender resistance).

If there was post surrender Russian resistance these units could move back into Russia at any time either along the north, middle, or southern range of hexes along the Eastern map border.

The German player would not know if there was post surrender Russian resistance until Russian partisans appeared. Perhaps, the Russian player could decide to delay the initial appearance of partisans for 1 to 10 turns if their was resistance. The Germans would also not know how many units the Russians have transferred into the Siberian Holding Area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Even during the Iraq War the goal was to capture the Capitol. After that the country was defeated. Only Russia may have fought on after Moscow fell, but not for long. The Government Lackies make the Beast (any Government) survive. Some resistance (such as partisans) will happen after the Capitol is gone but not in a proper Military way with Department of Defence backing.

The game seems to do okay in this aspect, it doesn't fall until most major units are defeated and the capitol is gone. Also in the case when the capitol is moved I think that there should be a penality and less control and supply should be available.

This is something that I have thought about before and will mention now. When a city is surrounded using six units is too much. Never would a conquering army need six time the men to surround his enemy, maybe 2 to 1 max. Two units should be able to surround a city to cause a seige. Possible there needs to be a pop-up that asks if you want to surround and seige the city when two friendly units are 180 deg. on the side of an enemy city. If the surrounded unit can destroy the seige then it will get supplied, but during the seige halve supply should be normal operating procedure. Of coarse sea side port cities would be excluded from this rule.

Just an observation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edwin P

You're correct, depending on who you are fighting and how they treat you, it has an effect on the national will. Russia is a good example. If the Germans had acted as "liberators", Russia might have fallen. Japanese treatement of POWs stiffened national will for the US.

Be careful with "pacifist nature of the population" when you are referring to the French. It was the French Leadership that gave up, not the French citizens.

The following points you make are valid. But here is where you have to be careful. Instead of trying to replicate the details of each point, you want to replicate the effect. That way, you can abstract some of it, instead of becoming overly complicated with additional details.


Thats a true point. The difference is that the "head" is not always the capitol. As I tried to show with the French, it wasn't Paris falling that caused France to surrender. And in current day Iraq, it wasn't taking Badghad. It was the occupation of ALL of the major cities and the inability of Saddam (wherever he is) to give orders that caused Iraq to "fall".

Interesting point about needing six (or is it eight?) units to cut off the supply lines of a city. It really should be based on the "zone of control" that each unit projects, even if that zone is implied.

[ May 28, 2003, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...