End of Round Victory

[triforce]

allow me to clarify.  i was not saying that this should not be discussed.  There is always value in discussion, but lets be fair VC or no does the US EVER go after the Phillipines? No. I’ve never even seen the US go Island Hopping.  So why bother.  I understand that it gives some histoical credibility to the game but we all know how history turned out and we all realize (i think) that this is only a loose intrpretation of history.  SO, play untill someone wants to admit defeat (which is how the war was determaned in all reality) and set up for the next game. It just make the game simpler and answers Jens question.

[trihero]

Defend better is a strawman argument.

One attacking infantry has a possibility to kill 100 defending infantry without being killed.  Probability is very low, but possible, this allows any ridiculous hail Mary attack to successfully win the game despite bad strategy.

I don’t understand. Any hail Mary attack can end the game. It doesn’t have to be on a victory city. Any time that a ridiculous hail Mary attack succeeds, you can win the game despite bad strategy. So why pick on the victory city system?

Why make such a big change for such an inconsequential happening? You want to extend every game by one turn so that in the 1/5000 games are “fair”? There’s nothing “fair” about bad dice, regardless of victory city conditions.

[triforce]

There is nothing fair about war either, which is why I like the dice element in this game.  The best laid plans often go astray.

[Romulus]

@trihero:

Defend better is a strawman argument.

One attacking infantry has a possibility to kill 100 defending infantry without being killed.  Probability is very low, but possible, this allows any ridiculous hail Mary attack to successfully win the game despite bad strategy.

I don’t understand. Any hail Mary attack can end the game. It doesn’t have to be on a victory city. Any time that a ridiculous hail Mary attack succeeds, you can win the game despite bad strategy. So why pick on the victory city system?

Why make such a big change for such an inconsequential happening? You want to extend every game by one turn so that in the 1/5000 games are “fair”? There’s nothing “fair” about bad dice, regardless of victory city conditions.

Really I think that the extension may be more than one turn. If the “winner” has not success in defending the 9 VC then games continues.

9 VC is a victory condition to have games end in shorter time than player surrendering.
So the game is flawless in that. We play 9 VC games when we want a shorter game. Otherwise we play dominance, that have not to be finished because sooner or later one side surrenders.

My interpretation of 9 VC is like a chekmate in chess. Your king is in chekmate, you lose. No matter how many pieces you have or what they are doing. Opponents has been quicker than you, or has applied a more efficient strategies etc.
I have to admit that in A&A there is another point: dice. So it could be possible to lose a game for unlucky results. But this may happen in every phase not only in the final turn. I have lost games that began bad and became worst cause unlucky dice rolling.

[Funcioneta]

I prefer VC. It forces you focus in some cities you would not defend in total conquest. And it’s good have a sudden death effect in game, because it forces you keep an eye on all the table. Anyway, you can say: “let’s play 9 VC, but you can surrender before if you think you lost”.

I have seen USA goning for island hoping more than once. I even seen UK. Manila is an example of good choosed VC, as Leningrad.

Only trouble is i would like more VC, so they would have greater effect in the game. Example:

USSR: Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Vladivostok
Germany: Berlin, Rome, Paris, Helsinki, Varsovia, Tripoli
UK: London, Calcutta, Canberra, Alexandria
Japan: Tokio, Nankin, Manila, Singapur, Seoul, Port Moresby
USA: Whasington, Los Angeles, Chongquin, Honolulu

So each side begins with 12. Fight for 18!  :mrgreen:

[Guest]

I will be honest…

A 9 VC game usually comes down to the defeat of Russia.  There are other ways to play it, but knocking out one of the Allies completely (Moscow and Leningrad) as well as securing Calcutta, without the Axis losing Paris, Berlin, Rome, Shanghai, Manila or Tokyo; is a pretty impressive situation.  The Allies pretty much have no choice but to surrender at that point.  IPC’s from JUST the VC’s totals $49.  Add in all the territories that it took to get there….

And for the Allies, it means either wiping out Germany completely to get 9, or Japan completely, or having both so severely wounded that that Allies are into their “core territories” and the Axis is seriously reduced in income.

8 VC is not a win.
9 VC is game over.

[Jennifer]

Yes, and what do you say to the situation I posted, Switch.

The Axis are not severely weakened, they just had a bad round with the dice.

All I’m asking is that you give the other team one opportunity to liberate a VC.  If the game is so in the bag, then it won’t hurt to let them try.  If the game is so flimsy that you can’t afford to let them try, then maybe you don’t deserve to win?

[trihero]

You’re basically saying the game is flimsy because of bad dice. Play low luck, then. Don’t blame the victory city condition, and don’t increase the game time by 1 round or more for 99% of games for the rest of us. You can play that way with whomever agrees to it, of course.

[trihero]

What would you be saying if the rules had been written with the other way around?

I don’t know, because they weren’t.

What would you be doing then?  Playing with your house rule?  Or petitioning for a change?

I don’t know, and how does it matter?

Just because the rule set as it stands happens to align with what you like doesn’t mean that it is the right way to do things.

It doesn’t mean it’s not the right way to do things.

The application of the Check for Victory standard at the end of a round of play is a purely arbitrary choice.

If you read carefully, this isn’t at all about victory checks. It’s about bad dice affecting victory check. It is arbitrary to blame it on the victory check condition.

While Jen has presented a highly unlikely scenario, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.  One should try to have rules that are able to handle all scenarios and give the player a chance to rectify the problem.

Slippery slope, should we give all bad dice situations a chance to rectify? If Russia lost 9 inf on W. Russia on R1, should we add a rule to help them rectify it? This argument is not at all about victory cities if you think about it, it’s about bad dice.

[Romulus]

I have an opinion about end of turn victory check and turn order.
In respect to the check for victory the latest the nation goes the more important are their action for achieving victory.
This is a way to give back to USA their importance in the conflict that is not represented considering IPC production, initial forces entity and deployments. I like A&A and I think that there are reason behind the decision made for the rules definition.

About the stealing victory I would make a comparison. In chess is possible for me being on the way of victory and … suddenly the other player counterattack and check mate my king. This may happen ordinarily in chess games, more than the speculative scenarios we have considered for A&A. But I have never heard of changing the rule of Chess.
When I play a game I must have knowledge of the rule and planning accordingly not against them.
Allowing an USA player to sneak in a VC is a thing that may be avoided, barring situation like 1 inf attacking and winning against 100 inf.
By the way in the last case given the Luck of my opponent I prefer to end the game and begin another after about one week…  :-D

Moreover the 9 VC is called “marginal victory” in LHTR and is thought for short games. 9 VC is thought for games that have to finish even if no one of the two sides is definitely defeated. For this the name: “Marginal Victory”.
To avoid the discussed problems, it is possible to play with 10VC or with 12 VC (Domination) or with the system you proposed.
In each of them there is also a different game experience. But I prefer to leave the 9 VC as it is.

The probability of this scenario is another point. In your case allied sneak in and captures the 8 VC. This means that Axis was reduced at 4 VC. Now, in my experience of play when Axis is at 4 VC the situation is bad enough. And is not a worthy argument to consider that several hundreds of IPC could be going around to attack somewhere instead of defending the motherland. They have performed well staying at home and playing defense.

So what are we discussing? To create an house rule for taking in account scenarios improbable and resulting from players errors or bad dice? Where is the problem? Anyone may do its own house rules. I think that the first thing in a game is enjoy the game, so if the house rules allow for a more entertaining playing experience, then do the house rules!
But this do not means that the rule of the game have to be changed for all the other to adapt to the house rule of someone.

[Romulus]

But I play using LHTR, in fact 9VC victory conditiona has been introduced in LHTR. And also LHTR check for victory at end of round.

Besides, if one is up 9 VCs, should a player really be afraid of giving their opponent a chance to try to come back?

I agree on the principle you expressed. I consider the 9VC a victory condition for “faster” game (in terms of A&A) and we use them in face2face team play (with 4 or 5 players).

[newpaintbrush]

@Craig:

My original observation on this was based on an early game of mine that was being played to 8 VCs in which the US was able to sneak in and grab an eighth VC for the Allies.  There was no real reason to end the game based on board position, but because the US had taken the eighth, it was over.

Yeah, I knoes!  I played a game of ping pong to 11, and just because my opponent got 11 points, doesn’t mean he shoulda won!!!one1catsup!  There was no real reason to quit, but he said he won, that cheating b**tard!  :cry: OHMIGAWD!

@Craig:

I just don’t get your need to make flippant replies to my questions.

Craig

You know, my psychiatrist and my wife don’t understand these needs I have either!  :roll:

–

I think that simpler IS usually better.  Less confusing.  Less time to explain.  Less funny constraints to keep in mind.  And that’s one reason why I don’t like the victory territory system that Yoper uses.  Also, Yoper is Satan.  Let us not forget that.  :wink:

[Jennifer]

The whole point is to give the other team to stop a default victory.  I’m not asking for 15 full game rounds.  I’m just saying we should allow the other team one turn (whomever that is) to stop the end of the game.

The corollary to that being that England or Russia or Japan could get that 9th VC and it would be up to the next player to liberate one.  It would put all the nations on an equal footing since no one nation would have more power to end the game or stop the end of the game then any other nation.  (The Russian turn after America would not count as the turn to stop the end of the game, btw, it would have to be Germany, however, Russia could move to see too it that the game did end.)

You still have the 9 VC winning conditions.  But no longer will 1 Infantry in S. Europe end the game unless Germany is captured!

[trihero]

I just don’t get your need to make flippant replies to my questions.

There is nothing flippant about my replies. I gave you a concise counter-argument without introducing any personal insults or innuendos. Nor did I dismiss out of hand anything. Just because I reply quickly and precisely and just because it happens to not be in your favor doesn’t mean I’m dismissing you.

I may have to “soften” my style of writing to be more accomodating.

But I still think that it is flawed because it is based on a VC system that I think is flawed.  That is why I came up with a different system.

I respect you for that. I think it’s a very cool system, and I am one of your many fans. But I don’t think LHTR should be changed to accomodate that.

The “bad” dice is just what happened when the situation occurred, not what gets the game to this situation.

I have to disagree. The “bad” dice is the main reason why this situation occurred. It was given as the example. The Hail Mary is the only reason why we are talking about this. It got the game to the situation to where we have to discuss the victory city condition. The “bad” dice is not some offshoot of a flaw in the victory system - the bad dice caused a perceived flaw. But don’t bad dice cause many perceived flaws? That’s why I’m saying it’s arbitrary to pick on bad dice to “correct” the victory condition.

As for which way the rules happened to be, why are you just shrugging it off?  I am not trying to start a fight, I am just trying to get you to look at it from the other side.

I’m not trying to start a fight either. You tend to be defensive for what I see as no reason, but perhaps I come off as too hard to many.

I can see your side. You want the Axis or Allies to hold the requisite number of victory cities for one whole turn starting from when they first took them. That does seem fair enough. But then Jennifer gave a bad example which primarily relies on bad dice - bad dice reveals the flaw - not hypotheticals. But do you see my side? Why extend all LHTR games by an extra turn for the one in thousand of games where Jennifer’s very outlandish scenario hold true?

You can’t prove a point by using a bad example.

Do you see how I see that Jennifer has consistently been talking primarily about bad dice? Refer to the first page where she says a hail mary shouldnt’ win the game. What I see that says is, bad dice shouldn’t decide the game. I just don’t make the connection why pick on the victory system? If you played low luck, the situation would not arise. So therefore if it is a matter of luck, then it is not a matter of the victory system.

I also like the previous example about chess, where getting checkmated is the end of the game. You could still have “greater positioning” and “greater number of units” but if you don’t pay attention to the object of the game, then you lose. The enemy could be down to one king and queen and you could have all units, but if you screwed up and exposed your king, then you’re done. That’s very fair - if you got distracted from the final goal, then it’s your fault.

I’m just saying we should allow the other team one turn (whomever that is) to stop the end of the game.

2 chances, you mean. One is defending with a proper amount of units. The other is retaking it. In your case couldn’t the Americans pull off a second Hail Mary and 1 inf survives against 100 tanks? Should the game end based on that, either?

[Jennifer]

If Germany liberates and America succeeds in another Hail Mary, then Germany would get another chance to liberate before the end of the game.

But what are the odds of two hail Mary’s succeeding in a row?

Meanwhile, in a big battle, it’s easy for a hail Mary to succeed, even if Germany ran the numbers and the numbers came back 100% German survival, we all know 100% means diddly when your attacker gets 50 hits in Round 1 and you get 3 hits on your defense, right?

[axis_roll]

I thought about this ‘house rule’ for a while now.

I do not think it helps/hurts either side more.  All this is is another way to play the game.

Different win conditions require different thinking in playing the game.

It is NOT better, nor is it WORSE to play by the current LHTR end of round victory condition determination.
The rules for how to win are a KNOWN fact at the begining of the game.

Account for this in your game play.

Argue all you want till your blue in the face… I’ve reached MY conclusions.

[Jennifer]

Axis,

How do you justify one infantry killing 100 armor and winning the game?  You cannot possibly be expected to account for that situation!  But if the allies are going to lose, as was the case in the scenario I posted, what’s to stop America from at least trying, especially since they are the last to move and thus they can single handedly decide the game!  All they need is to be extremely lucky!

[trihero]

How do you justify one infantry killing 100 armor and winning the game?

Here we go, again we see Jen’s real argument. It has nothing to do with fairness of giving every country a chance to gain victory territories, but about controlling bad luck. Maybe her heart is in the right place, but do you see how easy it is for anyone to construe her argument as doing with bad luck rather than the victory system?

Even Craig made a big quote earlier about something like giving every country a chance to deal with bad luck

One should try to have rules that are able to handle all scenarios and give the player a chance to rectify the problem.

If we start creating rules to counteract bad luck, there’s no reason not to simply play low luck. Do we start making more rules like you can’t attack a capital unless you can prove that you have a 80%+ win or higher, based on the reasoning that you could send 1 inf and win a capital and end the game? Do we allow people to reroll bad battles to give them a chance to rectify the problem?

[frood]

Regardless of victory conditions, if you can capture a capital with one dude, you’re in pretty good shape to win the game.

[Jennifer]

Capturing a capitol does not necessarily end the game without giving the other team a chance to keep going or surrender.  Beating astronomical odds with America (and it only works with America) does.

So yes, the real crux of the problem is that America can end the game through sheer good luck.  Thus you have negated skill, strategy and game mechanics just because you threw good dice and your opponent threw bad dice.  Yes, in any other battle it could be decisive as well, but in any other battle, as I said about capitols, the other team gets to chose to surrender or continue play.  Here you are claiming victory by fiat instead of victory through surrender or by superior game play.