8 VC Games

[Guest]

I’m just curious, is an 8 VC game almost always an Axis win?  Certainly there must be a way to delay the capture of India/Leningrad, in which case I see it being pretty balanced.  I like how in an 8 VC game, if you ignore either theater you lose, because all they need is one VC in each theater.  However, I can see Japan taking India too quickly if focused on it.  Thoughts?

[axis_roll]

@Rakeman:

I’m just curious, is an 8 VC game almost always an Axis win?  Certainly there must be a way to delay the capture of India/Leningrad, in which case I see it being pretty balanced.  I like how in an 8 VC game, if you ignore either theater you lose, because all they need is one VC in each theater.  However, I can see Japan taking India too quickly if focused on it.  Thoughts?

I have heard that an 8 VC game is playable if you give UK an IC in India in round 0.  In essence, giving them Colonial Garrison NA.

[Guest]

I play tested this on the boards a while back, and with the very specific rules of that play test (Allies still alive in 2 turns, and ONLY 2 turns), the Allies were able to hold.

In a regular game without turn limits, 8 VC is an axis win 90% of the time if played well by BOTH sides.

[Jennifer]

I think, personal opinion, that an 8 VC game could be doable if the VC in the Philippines was moved to the Solomons or Wake Island; if the Victory City in India was moved to Australia; the Victory City in France was moved to W. Russia (which makes little sense other than to put it at risk); and/or the Victory City in Karelia was moved to Caucasus (this one makes more sense, Leningrad is okay, but Stalingrad was the political/propaganda Hitler wanted desperately and Stalin did not want to lose even more desperately.)

Doing any two of those (maybe one if you select the right one) should give the allies the time needed to get rolling so that it becomes a challenge for the allies to win, but a challenge for the axis to win as well.

[Funcioneta]

The trick is holding India enough for UK could trade Karelia, Western Europe or South Europe. It can be done, of course, without axis bid.

[Jennifer]

The problem is it is exponentially easier for the Axis to get 8 VCs than for the Allies to get 8 VCs, Func.

[eumaies]

yeah, specifically russia almost has to drop troops off in india early.  A KJF approach is required in asia, but with no room for error in holding india it’s hard for the allies to properly pressure japan.  Seems like a fun challenge, though.

[Builder_Chris]

I agree, an 8VC game is almost always an Axis win, and usually an easy win.

I believe its key for the Allies to put pressure on both theaters in a “short game”.  The US can put a lot more pressure on the Axis in the Pacific in an 8VC game than they can in any other type of victory condition.  If the UK can slow the Japanese with a factory in India, buying time for the US to take the Philippines, and if Russia and UK can put enough pressure on Germany to keep Leningrad the Allies can win, but it’s usually an easy win for the Axis.

The Allies can do it, it’s just a lot harder for the Allies to win an 8 VC game because they don’t have the time they need to get their “war machine” fully flowing.

“Short games” favor the Axis; “Long games” favor the Allies.  I think the Germans believed this also, that’s why they developed the blitzkrieg, they new they had to take over their objectives quick because they believed they could not survive a “long war”.

I’m pretty sure that is why most tournament games are played with and “open bid”.  With an open bid, the bid can be “awarded’ to either the Axis or the Allies.  In a short game, the Allies should want the bid to help level the field, in a long game, the Axis should want the bid to help level the field.  That’s how I understand an “open bid”, its tool for “leveling the odds” depending on the length/type of the game/victory conditions.

That’s why to large degree I still favor the “IPC victory condition” of the classic game Most tournaments still use this to determine winners if the 9 VC is not achieved in so many hours/rounds because it is an easy way to see who is “winning’.  I think everyone would agree, regardless of who controls some of the victory cities that the Side that is making the most IPC every round is going to win.  If you make more IPC, you make more units, more units is always better than less units.

[Jennifer]

It may be plausible to do an 8 Victory City Game if there is a 1 round non-aggression treaty between Germany and Russia.

Note:  Germany could still take Egypt.
Note:  This guarantees that Germany will have 6 Fighters on Round 1 instead of the more typical 5 fighters.
Note:  This would allow England and Russia to set up to defend Karelia/Caucasus better.

You might have to state that Germany cannot reinforce W. Russia just to give Russia a fighting chance though.

[Funcioneta]

More easy: give UK 1-2 infs bid to India. You need make a ind/sin + z55 fleet strat, of course

[eumaies]

I’m not sure it’s so much an issue of resources/troops as it is just predictability.

Leningrad obviously can’t hold out, but with India you have the option of moving russian tanks and air (and later other troops) to hold onto it on turn 1 and beyond.

In a regular game this might not be a terrible strategy, but in any game where it’s the only strategy, that’s kind of lame!

But still giving britain more troops until india isn’t credibly threatened just pitches the advantage back to the allies.  I could see doing that if you then took away troops from africa to compensate.

Alternately, changing Japan’s VP city from Kwangtung to Manchuria might be an interesting counter-balance to make sure the axis feel the heat more often.