(Global 1940) New Victory Conditions

[GeneralHandGrenade]

I have been thinking of a way to update the victory conditions for the past couple of months that reflects the Global game as opposed to current conditions which really only reflects one side of the board or the other.

Axis Victory Conditions

The Axis must control 13 Victory Cities. I am also debating about making that number 12 and would like your input.

Allies Victory Conditions

The Allies must control 15 Victory Cities, 2 of which must be Axis Capital Cities (Berlin, Rome, Tokyo).

I made a short video explaining my rational for creating these conditions;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTLbgR_pAbw

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks for making this video.
Since we are talking houserule, why not try to add a Szechwan VC (Chongqing) too?
Or considering capture of all Burma road TTs, except India (Burma, Yunnan and Szechwan) as 1 VC.

So, you get an additional way for Japan to boost up total of points for Axis making 13 VCs more within Axis grasp without giving an easier winning ticket with 12 VCs (7 ETO + 5 PTO, or 8 ETO + 4 PTO).
In addition, as Shadowhawk put it in the post quoted below:

13 VCs means that basically the Allies only have to stop the Axis on 1 board in order to win.

Eventually, maybe Wellington might count as an another VC, since ANZAC is not only Australia. This is at least politically accurate for New Zealand Capital City.
So 13 VCs globally might be more workable by Axis on both sides. And make Allies having to work both theaters.

19 VCs:
11 ETOs
8 PTOs

With 21 VCs (+Chongqing and Wellington):
11 ETOs
1- Washington (20)
2- Ottawa (2)
3- London (6)
4- Paris (4)
5- Berlin (5)
6- Warsaw (2)
7- Rome (3)
8- Cairo (2)
9- Leningrad (2)
10- Moscow (3)
11- Stalingrad (2)

10 PTOs
1- Tokyo (8 )
2- Shanghai (3)
3- Hong Kong (3)
4- Manilla (2)
5- Calcutta (3)
6- Sydney (2)
7- Honolulu (1)
8- Los Angeles (10)
9- Chongqing (1)
10- Wellington (2)

If Chongqing is too easy, just adding Wellington might provide an interesting challenge for Japan to help Axis win when European side is an harder challenge because US put major resources against Germany.

---

What do you think of this other one?

@variance:

Victory Points.

Each victory city is valued at the IPC value of its territory.  At the end of each power’s turn, add up the total IPC value of all Axis controlled territories that contain victory cities.  The Axis win the game if the total is 40 or greater for one complete round of play.  The Allies win the game if the total is 20 or lower for one complete round of play.

@variance:

Here are some implications for this rule. First, let’s assume that in most games the following cities are fairly easy for the axis to get:
Germany ($5)
Poland (2)
France (4)
South Italy (3)
Novgorod (2)
Volgograd (2)
Japan (8 )
Kiangsu (3)
Kwangtung (3)
Philippines (2)
The total value of those cities is 34.

Now let’s also assume that in most games these cities are near impossible to get:
New South Wales (2)
Ontario (2)
East USA (20)
West USA (10)

That leaves the following cities available to the axis to try and get the remaining 6 points they need to reach 40 (assuming they actually hold all the easy ones listed above):
India (3)
Russia (3)
Hawaii (1)
Egypt (2)
UK (6)

With this rule in place, probably the easiest and fastest way for the axis to win would be a combo of India crush and rush Russia.  BUT if the allies do everything possible to maxx defend India (not Cairo), then Japan may suffer heavy enough losses taking it that their other gains may be unsustainable in the long term.  Other combinations might work out more or less like a standard game with a lot riding on Hawaii and/or Cairo.  Also notice how London is worth 6 versus the 4 you get for Leningrad and Stalingrad, so sealion threat and sealion defense should be top priorities.

For the allies to win they should basically need to reduce the axis to something like Tokyo, Berlin, and 2 other cities.  At that point it would be hard to imagine an axis recovery, but that point could be reached many hours before actually losing all 3 capitols.  So games would end with an actual victory for one side or the other; not just one side giving up.

This is another idea coming from a different thread:
@Stonewall:

Here are my thoughts on what could make victory conditions a bit better…

As said earlier, Axis must win one of two ways,

Either take 8 VCs on the Europe map and control at least 4 (more than half) on the pacific board, or…

Take 6 VCs on the pacific map and control at least 5 (more than half) on the europe board.

The Allies must win one of two ways,

Either take Berlin and Rome on the Europe map and limit the pacific Axis to no more than 3 (half of what they need) VCs, or…

Take Tokyo on the pacific map and limit the Europe Axis to no more than 4 (half of what they need) VCs.

So basically what this means is that to win you must completely rule one side and have the slight advantage on the other… Hope this helps!

[baron Münchhausen]

@ShadowHAwk:

@Hunter:

@Stonewall:

@Marshmallow:

I think what you’ve proposed is far too easy to achieve. Japan gets four VCs in the Pacific by sneezing, and likewise for Germany with five. In my opinion 13 VCs globally is a much better Axis victory condition – that creates a very real multi-front war in which the Allies and Axis are constantly maneuvering, looking for an edge, and waiting for the other side to make a mistake. 13 VCs globally would be 8 in Europe and five in the Pacific, or 7 in Europe and 6 in the Pacific.
Marsh

What Screaming Eagle means is that Axis must win (8 VCs Europe or 6 VCs pacific) one side and control more than half (5+ in Europe or 4+ in pacific) on the other side to win the game.

I agree with the 13 VC’s Idea. I personally use 12 VC’s as I find that the Axis has to work VERY hard to get 13, so I see 12 as a comfortable achievement.

13 VC means that basicaly the allies only have to stop the axis on 1 board in order to win. 14 is a win on both boards simultaniously.

Basicaly keeping Moscow and Egypt out of german hands will ensure that only 6 VC can be claimed there. So Japan will have to invade the US in that scenario.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

Thank you for your replies, Baron. Lots of interesting ideas and opinions expressed there and on YouTube. I hadn’t considered that making a total victory city condition like 12 or 13 would lead to US going all in on one side of the board but it makes sense for sure.

I like Stonewall Jackson’s idea that you posted above^^ and think that I may be able to work with that one and tweak it a bit. How does this sound;

Axis Victory Conditions

The Axis must control 8 victory cities on the Europe side plus 4 more on the Pacific side to win the game.
or
The Axis must control 6 victory cities on the Pacific side plus 5 on the Europe side (1 must be  Berlin). For India to count as a victory city you must control the Burma Road.

For the Allies to win the game they must control 15 victory cities, 1 of which must be either Berlin or Tokyo. India does not need the Burma Road.

Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I’m going to test this for a number of games until I’m satisfied that I have found the right formula. I am still open to any suggestions.

[baron Münchhausen]

It probably works. It only lack of simplicity in formulation, such as x number of VCs. As far as it is well understood, you can go with it. But it is probably for special situations. If Japan get 6 VCs, probably Germany is rarely below 5 VCs. IDK.

That’s why I was rather looking into adding 1 or 2 VCs in PTOs. So 13 VCs win is within reach from Asia and Allies cannot block it by going all out in ETO.

[General 6 Stars]

Why not put a VC in Kansu/Ganzu VC Capital - Lanzhou instead of in Szechwan ?

That would make Japan spend more money on main land and those Russian Inf by Bury next to Armur  could reach in 4 turns and maybe send a few Russian ground from Stalingrad. Seems like in our games the more Japan spends on land away from Calcutta the better for US and Anzac to take back money islands and save India.

Thought in most 40 games the 18 inf just sit where there at because most games they don’t make it back to Moscow. They only make it back if Germany is delayed a turn in advancement. Make Japan honest by Armur with buys and have China retreat a bit and protect there Capital.

[baron Münchhausen]

That’s was one of my worry.
I found Chongqing was on the way toward Calcutta and was less interesting.
Your VC is more interesting from that POV.

I still believe New Zealand should get one too. This is far away and requires more time to reach. Leaving USA more time to protect it.

The general idea is to get a single victory condition for Axis such as 13 captured VCs or 15 captured VCs for Allies, more VCs required in PTO.

In G40 Redesign, Yakut SSR (Irkutsk) was suggested as an other Pacific VC.
For this case, I’m less sure because this make incentive to do Russia Crunch.
But, this give an even number of 11 VCs on both maps:

19 VCs:
11 ETOs
8 PTOs

With 22 VCs (+Lanzhou, Irkutsk and Wellington):
11 ETOs
1- Washington (20)
2- Ottawa (2)
3- London (6)
4- Paris (4)
5- Berlin (5)
6- Warsaw (2)
7- Rome (3)
8- Cairo (2)
9- Leningrad (2)
10- Moscow (3)
11- Stalingrad (2)

11 PTOs
1- Tokyo (8 )
2- Shanghai (3)
3- Hong Kong (3)
4- Manilla (2)
5- Calcutta (3)
6- Sydney (2)
7- Honolulu (1)
8- Los Angeles (10)
9- Lanzhou (1)
10- Irkutsk (1)
11- Wellington (2)

[General 6 Stars]

Yes I agree that more VCs needed in PTO and Japan should have to work to get that 1 more VC in the PTO. I do have a VC Capital in Manchuria for my 40 game but with not having 18 inf in area it doesn�t seem to get pressured much.
Singapore is out of the question due to Japan being so strong by islands from G40 game reports. Got to make Japan earn it. Just some thoughts.