I’ve done some searching and didn’t see a similar topic, so apologies if this has already been discussed at length.

But I was wondering about changing win conditions to help balance some of the OOB rules, which I think would also reflect actual political will at the time. Bidding has apparently done well, too, but something about it doesn’t sit right with me.

The win condition for the Axis is the primary issue, as there are scenarios in which Japan wins with Calcutta and Sydney, while Germany is in real distress and London is doing well. It just seems unlikely the Allies would surrender in this case.

Some options I’ve thought of:

1. since the Allies need to take and hold Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo to win, why not offer the same to the Axis? Take and hold any three of these four: London, DC, San Francisco, Moscow. The Axis already get National Objective bonuses for the other victory cities. The US cities are hard to take, but truly winning in both theaters means this can happen. Most games would probably end in resignation.
2. All capitals of Opponents held: DC, London, Sydney, Moscow (again, forgoing Calcutta as necessary). This would be similar to StarCraft where almost no games actually go to the final destruction of everything and you expect resignation. But for cheeky/BM players, there’s still a total victory condition.

Curious about thoughts on this.

@FranceNeedsMorePower good point

@FranceNeedsMorePower

I could also see one alternate situation where Axis hold both Calcutta and London, and then get to trade out the dominance of the Money Islands, but still need the three USSR victory cities

@FranceNeedsMorePower

@FranceNeedsMorePower said in [Global 1940] Alternate Win Conditions instead of Bid:

if Germany does a sea lion attack the US gets to declare war

That makes a lot of sense to me, and should probably include Scotland on that just to be clear, since that’s a staging ground.

@FranceNeedsMorePower said in [Global 1940] Alternate Win Conditions instead of Bid:

@chadikus

The axis also need to hold France

I was debating about this one. My feeling is that if the other conditions are true, and how much loss that represents, that this may not be required for an Allied surrender (considering Allies would have already lost France before, and now, with the Eastern Front gone, would be in for another slog again).

@FranceNeedsMorePower said in [Global 1940] Alternate Win Conditions instead of Bid:

@chadikus

The Axis also need to hold Cairo. And Rome

Seems fair. With these + Paris, the Axis win condition is the same in the European theatre as the OOB rules, it just doesn’t make a total Axis win, as the Pacific condition needs to be true, too.

@FranceNeedsMorePower that’s a good idea. so the win condition would be:

Axis – must accomplish both simultaneously for 1 whole turn:

1. European Theatre: hold Berlin, Warsaw, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow (could add Rome to this list)
2. Pacific Theatre: hold Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manila, all Chinese Territories, Korea, Borneo, Java, Malaya, Sumatra, Celebes, French Indo-China

Allies:

1. hold Tokyo, Berlin, Rome

That about what you’re thinking?

I’ve done some searching and didn’t see a similar topic, so apologies if this has already been discussed at length.

But I was wondering about changing win conditions to help balance some of the OOB rules, which I think would also reflect actual political will at the time. Bidding has apparently done well, too, but something about it doesn’t sit right with me.

The win condition for the Axis is the primary issue, as there are scenarios in which Japan wins with Calcutta and Sydney, while Germany is in real distress and London is doing well. It just seems unlikely the Allies would surrender in this case.

Some options I’ve thought of:

1. since the Allies need to take and hold Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo to win, why not offer the same to the Axis? Take and hold any three of these four: London, DC, San Francisco, Moscow. The Axis already get National Objective bonuses for the other victory cities. The US cities are hard to take, but truly winning in both theaters means this can happen. Most games would probably end in resignation.
2. All capitals of Opponents held: DC, London, Sydney, Moscow (again, forgoing Calcutta as necessary). This would be similar to StarCraft where almost no games actually go to the final destruction of everything and you expect resignation. But for cheeky/BM players, there’s still a total victory condition.

Curious about thoughts on this.