Victory Cities

[eumaies]

are we talking about the same game?  AAR = axis and allies revised, i believe.  if so, the presence of such a volume of ships would represent strategic investment in and control of access to a region like western europe.

but anyway, the point of VC’s, placed however they are placed, is exactly that.  you have to do “dumb” stuff to defend them because they matter politically.  Maybe the liberation of paris would do nothing to the real german war effort but the propoganda benefit is represented in game terms by the over-emphasis germany has to put into defending it.

they would have to be placed pretty badly for me to agree with your point.  only leningrad, of all the vc cities, is truly indefensible outside the bounds of luck.  and in any 9 VC game, enough are always going to be outside of the bounds of luck that there’s no lack of strategy – only careful defense and focused offense, over multipe turns of planning.

[Jennifer]

In AAR it is almost routine, when you are allowed technology anyway, to see 20 or so destroyers on the board for the allies.

It’s not really that big of an investment in a 10-15 round game if you think about it.  Since America starts with 2 destroyers, that means you only need to build 18 (and I’m assuming the two England starts with are destroyed, the first in SZ 15 by Germany, the second in SZ 59 by Japan.)

That means 9 rounds of 1 destroyer a round. (both sides should have 1 battleship from their starting units, so I’m not including it as a purchased unit.)

1 Destroyer a round, on average, is NOT an unrealistic amount.  Not when you realize that each destroyer will pay for itself over the first few rounds of it’s life through off shore bombardments.

Now, if the VC in France was moved to say the Balkans and the VC in Caucasus was moved to Karelia and the VC in W. USA was moved to Hawaii, then we’d be talking a more realistic move.  Those are territories that SHOULD be defended anyway and if they do fall, then it is not likely they fell because of a suicidal hail mary so much as out witting your opponent.

So the real question is:

Do you A) Like 9 Victory Cities and play a game of luck instead of skill and strategy or B) Like a game where you have to actually win the game and Victory Cities are just those cute little stars on the map?

I honestly want to play the strategy part.  If I want to play luck, I’ll shoot craps at the casino.

[Black_Elk]

In AAR it is almost routine, when you are allowed technology anyway, to see 20 or so destroyers on the board for the allies.

I never buy destroyers in Revised.  :-D

Even with the technology advance, it still seems like a poor purchasing decision to me. Espcially with 2 trans or a Carriers at a cost of just 4 more ipcs. Plus, anytime you design a strategy around technology you are taking a huge gamble already. What if you fail to achieve the bombardment tech? And all that money on DDs, is money you’re not investing in transports or boots on the ground, which has gotta be giving the Axis some openings. Bedsides, if its a tech game, then what’s to stop someone from rolling Heavy Bombers, or LRA and screwing up the game out of the first round? Tech is too volatile in OOB Revised. The game is just better without it. Even in LHTR, it totally throws things off balance, and reduces everything to the craps game you mentioned above.

Do you A) Like 9 Victory Cities and play a game of luck instead of skill and strategy or B) Like a game where you have to actually win the game and Victory Cities are just those cute little stars on the map?

I really think the problem with VCs in Revised, is that they have no influence on the game other than the stated victory conditions. It just makes them too easy to ignore. They need to actually do something for you (in real gameplay terms) and then people might start to take VC wins more seriously. Tweaking the numbers or the locations alone won’t fix the problem.

[Rhineland]

Fun look at my game with Morden.

I did not defend the victory city because I could easy counter attacked anything that he did. Becuase in my house games we play with VC but they are not a hard rule just an I have 9 do you conceed thing? If the person has a chance they do not. Plus why are the allies given the chance of making a stupid attack without any defence where as the axis are not. Its just a glitch in the game. Espically if the axis own the game and you can only win using this then its a cheap out.

So the axis should make horrible strategic moves becuase they are only to lose one more city? It makes no sense unless the game has no game left. I thinkn at worst the next axis should be given a chance like the allies are becuase of the turn order.  Another bad rule just like the 84 rule in classic whcih I hated as well. Made the allies defend things that shouldn’t be defended as does any hard VC limit.

P.S. Mr. Morden this is not surpose to be a slap in the face to you. Just a hatred at the stupid rules.

[Jennifer]

Transport + 2 Infantry = 14 IPC
Destroyer = 12 IPC

Destroyers are cheaper.  Especially when their cost is compounded over subsequent rounds!

9 Destroyers = 108 IPC (barely 4 rounds pay for England, less than 3 rounds pay for America - hardly a burden when spread over 10 rounds)

Cost of shore assaults: 3 IPC (infantry)

Meanwhile, Transports cost minimum of 32 IPC for England and require 8 units to maximize their efficiency per round (minimum 24 IPC, but realistically at least 30 IPC probably 32 IPC.)

30 IPC over 10 rounds = 300 IPC.  Not 108 IPC.  That’s almost three times the cost!

Technology should cost about 17-18 IPC to achieve on average. (1 in 6 chance at 5 IPC per chance.)

So your choice:

Shore Bombardment + Destroyers for (rounding) 170 IPC (1 ground unit + existing transport + 9 destroyers + technology for 10 rounds)

or

Standard amphibious assaults for (rounding) 340 IPC (4 transports + 8 ground units per round for 10 rounds)

---

Bear in mind, for 30 IPC you are getting 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 armor each round.  That means, with the battleship bombardment you are expecting 3 hits each assault doing about 9 IPC in damage each round. (Punch=20 with the BB added in.)

Versus:

9 Destroyers + Battleship (this assumes all your starting destroyers were magically destroyed and you only bought the 9) + technology + an infantry would do: 5 hits each assault for about 15 IPC in damage each round. (Punch=32 with the BB and DDs added in.)

---

---

So destroyers + technology is cheaper, it’s safer (what idiot is attacking 9 destroyers, battleship, transport with 5 fighters and a bomber?), it does more damage to the enemy, has significantly less risk to you and allows you to build up more men and units in reserve for massive hits later down the road (or just to land in friendly territory to bolster defenses.)

So, given that it’s overwhelmingly smarter to go the tech/destroyer route, why should we force Germany to stack gobs of men in France?  At least S. Europe and Germany can only be attacked from one sea zone and you can put a submarine in it to stop shore bombardments from at least England.  France would require you to build a complex AND build two submarines a round to stop England from bombarding you. (Note, America would never be stopped from bombardment.  England would always be able to clear the Sea Zone allowing America to bombard.)

And when you give up after routinely losing 10-14 infantry a round trying to defend France from 2 attacking infantry, you will have given the Allies a primo Industrial Complex in W. Europe!  Not to mention a blasted Victory City and probably the game.

---

---

Anyway, the funny thing is, all the supporters of Victory Cities seem appalled at the idea of actually having to HOLD 9 Victory Cities giving the other side a chance to liberate before the end of the game.

So I have to ask:  Are your strategies so bad and your moves so dependent on luck of the dice that you need to be able to snipe a victory city or two in order to win your games?  Obviously you have no faith in your ability to hold them, which tells me you want to be able to land one unit in a victory city to steal a victory out of the jaws of utter defeat.

It’s a cruel way to put it, but honestly speaking, the rule should have always been take the cities AND HOLD THEM denying any liberation attempts for a full turn.  Then you have proven you are in a superior tactical position.  Otherwise, you are just proving that your opponent is better than you are and you cannot hold your own, so you’ll use tricks to steal a victory.

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

It’s a cruel way to put it, but honestly speaking, the rule should have always been take the cities AND HOLD THEM denying any liberation attempts for a full turn.  Then you have proven you are in a superior tactical position.  Otherwise, you are just proving that your opponent is better than you are and you cannot hold your own, so you’ll use tricks to steal a victory.

Either this or just remove VC’s entirely from the game. Usually game ends with concession.

[Jennifer]

@Subotai:

@Cmdr:

It’s a cruel way to put it, but honestly speaking, the rule should have always been take the cities AND HOLD THEM denying any liberation attempts for a full turn.  Then you have proven you are in a superior tactical position.  Otherwise, you are just proving that your opponent is better than you are and you cannot hold your own, so you’ll use tricks to steal a victory.

Either this or just remove VC’s entirely from the game. Usually game ends with concession.

Are you agreeing that you should have to hold them for a turn, giving your opponent at least a chance to liberate one or are you advocating the allowance of letting someone make a bone-headed, stupid move to win the game through luck instead of skill?

Honestly, if you had to hold them for a round, would Germany care if you got W.Europe for 9 VC with one dude in it?  Nope.  They could easily liberate.  Therefore, that cheap victory would be gone.

If you had to hold them for a round, then would Japan and Germany waste all their manpower attacking Caucasus ending with maybe one tank left after losing all their fighters and bombers to get that 9th VC, even though Russia could easily liberate with the couple of infantry and tanks in Russia?  Of course not!  So that cheap victory would also be gone.

But you could still win with 9 VCs if you really had the superior position to hold them.  It wouldn’t be hard.  It would require taking W. Europe with enough to defend it or Caucasus with enough to defend it.  That’s all I’m saying.  If you have enough to actually HOLD IT, then you won legitimately.  If you do not, then it’s a cheap victory and you’re an inferior player to your opponent.

[Rhineland]

If you do not, then it’s a cheap victory and you’re an inferior player to your opponent.

I think this statement is not interally true but the premise is very valid. It removes making shitty strategic moves for tratical purposes. The ONLY reason I can see this was the game testers were like SHITTa Germany can turttle and stil defend there content and get significant money. This really lengths the game so lets just add in allied win after end of AMerica turn. The thing is it is a horrible rule. Works for most of the world that only plays this game a couple time and then it sits on their shelf the rest of the time.

Just Hold it for a turn and if you could and have the game then the other side will win. Or for the League have 2 mods review the game or something.

[Lucifer]

I think one side must hold VC’s for one complete rnd, not only end of US turn, or use 10 or 11 VC’s.
Most players know if they won’t win, but in f2f casual games some ppl might not think as (time) effective as we do, we concede when opponents TUV is too much to fight.

[Jennifer]

I agree, Subo.  In a f2f game you do not have the access to all the dice calculators and literally days to think about your move and play with the pieces on the board in privacy. (I don’t know about you guys, but I write down my moves then physically move the pieces around to see what it looks like before posting them.  In f2f games this can give away the entire strategy!)

Honestly, if you are a superior player (this is not an indictment on your character or personality, just your game play) then holding your victory cities for the win shouldn’t pose a challenge to you.  It may delay the game an extra turn, maybe two, so you can line up the extra units you’ll need.

However, if you are an inferior player (again, not an indictment on your character or personality, just your ability to play that specific game) then you won’t be able to steal a victory by suiciding your entire army and air force for all your powers on one territory to get that one unit there to win and preventing the other side from even getting a chance to kick you back out.

In real terms, did France surrender everything the instant Hitler rolled into Paris?  No.  They had a resistance that kept fighting.  Same with Norway and some other states.  Should Germany have been declared the winner of the world just because France fell for a brief time and the allies didn’t immediately liberate it on America’s “turn” to move?  Of course not!  That’s just silly!

Now, I realize this is a game, and as such, there needs to be a way to declare a winner without taking both enemy capitols just for the sheer reason that some players are so pig headed they’ll refuse to concede defeat even when reduced to one island nation with no navy.

That, in my humble opinion, is why there are Victory Cities.  (The reduced numbers were probably added after the fact for those who want to play Axis and Allies in 30 minutes or so.)  The idea was, if you get a significant amount of Victory Cities, say 9, then you should be in such a position that you are almost certainly going to win.  I do not think the idea ever was:

“Oh crap, we’re getting our butts handed to us.  Quick, America, if you attack S. Europe with everything in range, and kill all your fighters and bombers before that last tank, you have a 70% chance to win the game before Germany can move to kick you out!”

or

“Oh crap, America and England have a HUGE frakking army in E. Europe.  But England failed to take W. Europe this time and we have barely enough firepower, if we suicide EVERYTHING Germany has except those few units that cannot reach and everything except that last tank from Japan to take Caucasus and get the 9th VC for a win, assuming the dice fall with average to above average results!  Quick, Germany suicide your airforce, you need 4 hits so that I have a chance to take Caucasus with Japan!!!”

I cannot believe that was EVER the intent of Victory Cities.  Not ever, never.  They were NEVER intended to be used as get out of losing free cards.  They were only intended to give a player with almost insurmountable odds of victory a way to say “game over, you’re losing, and it’s 1 am.  If I don’t get home by 1:30 am, I won’t get sex and then I’ll really be pis*ed.”

[eumaies]

… and that’s where you’re totally wrong, IMO.  VC’s are an alternate victory condition for those who like the complexity of playing to more than one potential game-winning objective.  They serve that purpose by potentially being different from a typical winning objective of destroying your opponent.

The argument about dice calculators makes no sense, as the same is true when judging how carefully to defend your capital in the face of an unlikely attack.  Odds judgements and walking a fine line are just a central part of this game whatever the victory conditions.  Some of us like to have more things to consider rather than fewer.

The 10, 11, and 12 VC victory conditions are all sufficient alternatives if one wants to be sure of being completely ahead in the game before winning.

… and don’t get me started on building destroyers in AAR, but feel free to try it against me should we ever play a game :)

[Rhineland]

Well put Jen. The system has a hole and people are exploiting it when it is played as a hard set rule. If the game takes 8-10 tursn to win whats the h-a-r-m in letting it another round when the turns are very short. I’m all for 9 VC just not as a hard fast rule. The rules should not matter the order of the turns but collect position on the map. Its the principle of the rule that matters not the letter of the law!

[Jennifer]

Sounds similar to AARe there, Craig.  But yes, I agree, that’s a much better way of handling it.

Honestly, I have no problem with the concept of victory cities.  AARe fixed the over all problem of sniping a victory city to steal a win from the jaws of certain defeat by just adding 3 more victory cities to the game and requiring the allies to get 11 and the axis 10.

That means you can still win without taking a capitol city, but you have to basically control the entire board to do so.  In other words, you are in such a strong position that it’s virtually impossible for your opponent to recover.  Or, basically, the original intend of victory cities in the first place.

However, there are some who prefer to make the absolute minimum changes to the game to correct an unbalanced situation. (This is Caspian Sub’s basic premise I believe.)  The absolute MINIMUM to fix this problem is not to add more cities (which would necessitate making new maps, figuring out balanced places to put them, adjusting units to compensate, etc.) and would not add more cities to win (which would require significantly more time and effort since you have to maneuver to more places.)  No the absolute MINIMUM fix is to just require that you hold all 9 victory cities for a game turn.  If you get the 9th on Japan’s turn, then you wait until Japan’s next turn, if you still have all 9, then you win.

This does not take any new units, new maps, no tactics, or anything to accomplish.  The only thing it would do is stop the snipers from stealing undeserved wins due to luck and return the game to it’s strategy core.

[Rhineland]

This does not take any new units, new maps, no tactics, or anything to accomplish.  The only thing it would do is stop the snipers from stealing undeserved wins due to luck and return the game to it’s strategy core.

\

Again well said. The point is to make the game end when it does and ahve everyone happy with that. Instead of taking a place with retard atack knowing it losses the game for your straticalyl but you because of a X rule. Why play a long long game for such a shitty ending.

[a44bigdog]

Obviously we have people here talking from different perspectives. In the league and tournaments here, VC’s are a win condition eumaies. And yes some people take forever to go off and analyze their moves with dice calculators and all that.

Personally I agree with Jenn VC,s should have to be held for a full game turn to decide a win. If you are actually winning that should not be a problem.

[Jennifer]

Perhaps we should have a poll.

Darth, if you are reading this thread, if we had a poll would you make it binding for the league?  Maybe not tournaments since most players will give more attention to what they are doing in those than they would a league game where you can get 2 more rematches if you get snookered.

We’d make it a simple poll:  Should Victory Cities be counted at the end of America’s turn or at the end of a game turn after you get the 9th?

[toblerone77]

What is AAR League? And where are these tourneys? I’ve seriously never heard of any of this? except here.

[a44bigdog]

toblerone77 in the play by forums section you will find our league and tournaments section. Most of the players here use Abatlemap to play online with. Abattlemap is a simple virtual game board used to track the moves and the dice are rolled via the forum. Such as.

Rolls: 2@1 1@3 1@4; Total Hits: 12@1: (4, 3)1@3: (6)1@4: (2)

Abattlemap can be found here http://www.flames-of-europe.de/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=2

[toblerone77]

Thanks everybody.

[Rhineland]

Does anyone have any new opinions to share?