This has been on my mind recently too.

I think that it adds an extra (and valuable) element to the game to have Governments in Exile.

Anything that encourages players to communicate has to be a good thing, given how often the level of correspondence ina game decliens over time. The active participants may be more inclined to speak with a party with whom they are not in competition. Elininated players may also have more time - or a more balanced outlook - to be able to offer insight into a position.

Having said that, it seems to be something that has never really happened to any discernibel degree. I think that there are a couple of reaons for that.

Firstly, the ego of some eliminated players may prevent them from remining active in a game that they have already lost. Likewise, some remaining players may not be interested in the views of a vanquished player.

However, I think that the main reason stems from the postal hobby. When having to negiotiate by mail, there was much more effort (and cost) involved. Players would be less likely to expend that money and time on a game that they no longer had a vested interest in. As a result we have 'learned' not to keep up the contact.

Of course, there is no such penalty in online play (or F2F) but as the postal hobby really kept the game alive for several years, it's an old habit that dies hard.

I'm in a PBEM game at the moement where Austria has just been defeated. As I'm playing England I may offer Budapest to chance to set up a Legation in London!

As an extension to this idea - I wonder is there would be interest in a variant where an 'eliminated' Power was able to be supported by another - effectively as a puppet state. I'm thinking a little bit like the Free French Brigade & Polish RAF in WW2.

Provided the unit has not been destroyed (i.e. forcibly disbanded through lack of valid retreats, another Power due a build could forego this and allow the last remaining unit to remain in play; effectively, 'loaning' them a dot.

Th's 'Supported' Power would not have any opportunity to build themselves until two of their original home centres was reclaimed - one for the loaned dot and one for a new unit. It wouldn't matter which Power - either Hosting or Supported - actually captured them.

The Hosting Power would also be entitled to any other gains made by the supported unit and all gains made by either Power would count towards the solo SC count for the Host until the original 'loan' had been repaid.

In terms of orders, though, the Supported unit would still be controlled by the 'eliminated' Power. It might be expected the follow the lead of their Host but, as ever, there would be no guarantee.

This is very much the situation that Churchill & Roosevelt faced with de Gaulle and the Free French. They could never be completely sure what they were going to do but still had to supply them with equipment!

It would be an nightmare to code for online play but would work really well in F2F or PBEM. It would add an extra element of frisson to the mid-game and would keep all players involved until the end of the game.

What do people think. Does it have legs?

Why not? Real life is full of examples of defeated governments in exile causing as much political strife for their more successful enemies as possible, so by trying to stop it you would be taking away an aspect of realism. This is rarely desirable. As you say, there's nothing against it in the rulebook. Let those who wish to make mischief do so to their heart's content.

In practice, though, it's relatively unusual in online games. Ultimately people have better things to do more often than not.

DougJoe wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 07, 2020 6:16 pm

I am currently spectating a game where one of the players who was previously reduced to controlling zero supply centers was making comments in the global chat with the seeming intent of influencing the remaining players. It got me wondering, is this something that would be accepted or frowned upon? Do the limitations of the site by nature end up making it different than how things would happen in a face-to-face game?

I gave the current Avalon Hill rules a quick scan and found nothing in the rules about what happens when a player is reduced to zero supply centers, so I'm curious what other players think about this.

I've only played in 1 ftf game, but in that game emotions were much higher than online play and so when players were eliminated you bet they were trying to influence the game still (it was that or go home pretty much). It was a game among friends, so that influenced things too.

I am currently spectating a game where one of the players who was previously reduced to controlling zero supply centers was making comments in the global chat with the seeming intent of influencing the remaining players. It got me wondering, is this something that would be accepted or frowned upon? Do the limitations of the site by nature end up making it different than how things would happen in a face-to-face game?

I gave the current Avalon Hill rules a quick scan and found nothing in the rules about what happens when a player is reduced to zero supply centers, so I'm curious what other players think about this.