Stephen Crane wrote:
I split up the Political Will loss between Australia and the Mandates making them 1 each. The Political Will loss for Australia is now also permanent. My reasoning for this is while Australia was not as important as India or China I felt it was worth at least 1 permanent PW loss.
The reason for the Mandates is Guadalcanal and the Solomons are so engrained in American Pacific War lore I felt it deserved a nod to the battles that took place there.
I've played my share of Pacific games and I think EotS gets more right than the others, plus the cards are great. I make no claim to historicity or balance of my house rule. The game plays fine without it but it makes the game more fun for me and thats the point of house rules. I just thought I would share.
If a variant makes a game more fun for you, then you should definitely play it. Having said that, while neither the rules nor the designer notes mention it, I doubt Australian surrender in the game actual represents the surrender of the Australian government to the Japanese.
The hexes required for Australian surrender are a bunch of forward bases and country towns, and don't represent any significant economic, political or demographic centres. While they were important bases for the prosecution of the war, and the psychological impact of their loss certainly justifies the PW loss in the game, it wouldn't have made the government surrender. More likely is that "Australian surrender" in the game represents most of the Australian army pulling back to the "Brisbane Line" (a rough line drawn between Brisbane and Adelaide, mostly behind the Darling River, all of which is off-map), which is where I expect the lost future reinforcements go. Also, this explains why the Australian units currently committed to the theatre aren't removed upon surrender.
Edit: Apologies for thread necromancing ... just realised the thread is over 6 years old!