Whenever I play and the USSR captures Berlin I alway play this song on Youtube. The reaction is great.
Victory Cities
-
9 VC’s for the axis is the same as playing without any VC’s, Sure you can take LA from a USA player but then he deserves it. Other then that you need 1 capital and how many will continue playing if you lost 1 capital and the enemy is looking strong still?
9 VC’s for the allies is relaxed you can get 10 without attacking a capital so a lot easier to do.
That was the basic idea behind the discussion. It’s possible for the allies to “snipe” a VC for the win. Sniping is landing one or two guys there and taking a VC for the win because the opponents either do not get a turn to liberate or are not in position to liberate regardless of who is winning.
It’s also the idea that one team should not be rewarded from making a tactically insane move by being awarded the game. If you plow 48 bombers into S. Europe with an infantry and a tank, taking it (at the cost of 48 Bombers) and the Axis have 100 tanks in Central USA (between the east and west, the one that is not a VC) and America only has a couple of infantry in E. USA and W. USA combined, did the allies deserve to win just because they denied the axis another round of play (which probably would have resulted in the Axis getting +3 Victory Cities for Toronto, LA and Washington!)
It’s just an ill-thought out rule. Requiring a team to hold all 9 victory cities does not change the game, it just prevents one side or the other from pulling a hail mary or sniping a territory for the cheap win.
As I said back in December 2008, if you are in a position where winning is assured, then it should be a simple thing for you to hold all 9 VCs for a game turn, right? Many people who use the 9 VC system like to argue that if you can manage to get 9 VCs then you are going to win the game anyway. But it’s been demonstrated that the premise is false. 9 VCs do not necessarily mean you are going to win. In fact, it means absolutely nothing tactically. HOLDING 9 VCs shows you have strength and position on the board.
-
9 Victory City is good rule. I find that here rather then 8 or 10 in box rules and I like. Allies, I guess people mean United States, grab the 9 Victory City in United States turn mean Axis not play well and leave opening for Allies.
Japan have India by Turn 4 and Allies not able to trade for many turns after. That 1 Victory City to Axis.
Unless Germany or Japan fall which is game over Axis, Allies need Western Europe, Southern Europe, Philippines Islands and Kwangtung to have 9 Victory Cities. If United States has moved into Pacific Ocean that they can take both Philippines Islands and Kwangtung from Japan in their turn then is not “snipe” is bad play by Axis player.
If Axis have only Germany, Japan, India to start turn, Germany in trouble and Japan is on defense. United States have Pacific Fleet and Allies have control of Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Allies also hold Karelia S.S.R. Axis not win from that position unless Allies throw game or dice change game big way. Is surrender for Axis.
-
@Cmdr:
9 VC’s for the axis is the same as playing without any VC’s, Sure you can take LA from a USA player but then he deserves it. Other then that you need 1 capital and how many will continue playing if you lost 1 capital and the enemy is looking strong still?
9 VC’s for the allies is relaxed you can get 10 without attacking a capital so a lot easier to do.
That was the basic idea behind the discussion. It’s possible for the allies to “snipe” a VC for the win. Sniping is landing one or two guys there and taking a VC for the win because the opponents either do not get a turn to liberate or are not in position to liberate regardless of who is winning.
It’s also the idea that one team should not be rewarded from making a tactically insane move by being awarded the game. If you plow 48 bombers into S. Europe with an infantry and a tank, taking it (at the cost of 48 Bombers) and the Axis have 100 tanks in Central USA (between the east and west, the one that is not a VC) and America only has a couple of infantry in E. USA and W. USA combined, did the allies deserve to win just because they denied the axis another round of play (which probably would have resulted in the Axis getting +3 Victory Cities for Toronto, LA and Washington!)
It’s just an ill-thought out rule. Requiring a team to hold all 9 victory cities does not change the game, it just prevents one side or the other from pulling a hail mary or sniping a territory for the cheap win.
As I said back in December 2008, if you are in a position where winning is assured, then it should be a simple thing for you to hold all 9 VCs for a game turn, right? Many people who use the 9 VC system like to argue that if you can manage to get 9 VCs then you are going to win the game anyway. But it’s been demonstrated that the premise is false. 9 VCs do not necessarily mean you are going to win. In fact, it means absolutely nothing tactically. HOLDING 9 VCs shows you have strength and position on the board.
Yep that is my point also except that i dont agree that 9 is really fair, 8 would be more fair and would force the allies into suboptimal moves removing the bid thingy.
Example if japan captures india turn 1 and germany has karelia as well you would win next time japan’s turn comes around and both zones have not been traded hands.
That removes the sniping thing but at the same time forces the player into suboptimal moves sometimes.Well, the problem is 8 is less fair than 9 (too ez for the Axis generally). I agree in principle that the game would be more interesting if the Allies couldn’t abandon places like India. Maybe the introduction of more VCs in Anniversary is a step in the right direction.
-
I don’t understand why people still have discussions about VCs. Its not what this game is about. It’s about conquering the world. Global victory. I cannot remember any opponent who started to talk about VCs during games, and I have never done this myself.
VCs is only a minor issue, and only for new players. After getting some fundamental experience in the AAR/AA50, games are ended when one player concedes.AA Pacific is designed differently then AAR and AA50. Pacific is tactical game in which time, like in number of moves and rnds are determining the winning factors of the game. If VCs was meant to be important in global games like Classic, revised and AA50, all these games had to be designed radically different. The premise for A&A Pacific is different than AAR/AA50, b/c AAP is not mainly about resources. AAR + AA50 is about resources and economy, as well as strategy. If A&A Pacific was to be designed the same way as A&A global games, then Japan would loose every single game.
It would be very unhistorical and bad for game play if Larry Harris changed one of the basic premises for the A&A game series of global conflict. WW2 was a struggle of raw materials and resources, technology and manpower.
-
The game is won by VCs, that is the target and there is not other. If rival concedes, OK. If not, you must continue until someone reaches the target of the game (the VCs). If someone chooses ignore VCs (the goal of the game) and only keep the eye on capitals (they are not the goal of the game), it’s not so strange that the player(s) who chosen go after the game goal (the VCs) win the game. Complaining about a rival wining because has enough VCs is like playing chess, losing the king, and complaining because you had still the queen, the rooks and many other pieces.
And there are many, many things more unhistorical than VCs: Japan attacking soviets all games, the ignore Japan strat, a lone fighter or sub auto-killing infinite trannies without chance of escape and China falling round 1 :-P
-
In AAR we can choose from 8-12 VCs. In AA50 it’s 13, 15 or 18.
The standard number of VCs in AAR is 10, and in AA50 it’s 15. So AAR and AA50 is about global domination. Thats how these games are designed, and if the number of VCs are reduced, then it’s not the same games anymore. There are some similarities with chess and A&A. And there are more differences. Chess is not about economy and resources like A&A.
With standard number of VC’s A&A is about killing your opponents units, not putting opponent check mate by taking VCs. In chess attrition can be useful, but only for the aim of killing the king of your opponent.
In chess it’s not crucial to have more valuable pieces on the board, but its useful, and only useful for protecting own king, and killing the opponents king. In A&A the crucial factor of the game is money/resources/economy b/c you buy units each rnd, and the way to win a game of A&A is to kill more units relative to the damage that your opponent can do to you. This is the big difference between chess and A&A.
I have played many games of A&A since classic, and VCs have never been mentioned once, it’s always I or my opponent who concedes.
Most games that I played, I played in the triplea community, and some players use dice, some LL, some use tech, others prefers no tech. Every setup option of the player who are hosting games in the lobby can be seen by others, also w/o joining the game. It’s often 10-20 games hosted continuously at any time during the day, I can only remember once in 10000? hosted games, that the player who was hosting stated 9VCs as a game option.I can hardly recall that any game I played or watched, have been close to reach 15 VCs in AA50, or 10 VCs in Revised. Players concede long before it comes this far. Also players concedes quite often even before any capital is even threatened.
-
Complaining about a rival wining because has enough VCs
Thrust me, I will definitely surrender long before you accomplish 15 VCs if you played against me in AA50, and my position was not very strong… :roll:
And if I had the upper hand, I could possibly play until I kill the last single enemy unit on the board, if the opponent thought he could still have a chance. I don’t think I got close to 13 VCs yet in AA50.
-
I have won 3 games in Revised league taking 9 VCs as allies without taking a capital (and one as axis taking Moscow). And I ever keep an eye on VCs. Just in case
Sure, there are big differences with chess, but the point was that, in both cases (check-mate and VCs) we are talking about the target of the game.
-
A funny coincidence–I just played a game today where I lost due to VCs, even though I was close to taking Moscow. But ultimately I lost fair and square—I set the game to 9 VCs and the USA had a successful Pacific offensive followed by taking Western (the Brits snagged Karelia). I was down to 3 VCs and lost.
Of course, this kind of thing rarely happens.
I don’t know if I would have lost if the game was at 10 VCs, but that wasn’t the game I was playing.
I think if you really want to avoid these problems go with 10 VCs–if one side has 10 at the end of a turn the game is over.
And yes, 8 VCs is slanted to Axis unless you use a rule like Japan can’t take India for 3 turns. I’m not saying a good Allies can never win it–but between equal players Axis will win 80% of the time.
-
My point is that AAR/AA50 are ipc driven games, money is the most important factor, and represents also materials and such.
If VCs had a NO system of some kind, like France is worth 5 ipc more b/c its a NO for both sides, then the VC system could be as important as it perhaps should be. Then all VCs had to be worth much more than they are today. As it is now, players go for the money not for the VCs. This is logically right imo, although one might think that when VCs are in the game in the first place, they should matter. We don’t even need a NO system to make the VCs worth more, but within the current game design philosophy, this is the only way to make VCs viable, so it could mean that all VCs should be worth 5-10 ipc.
-
@Subotai:
My point is that AAR/AA50 are ipc driven games, money is the most important factor, and represents also materials and such.
That it’s totally true: you need the money to conquer enemy VCs, so good players will go for money. But since VCs are the goal of the game, the best strat is go for money AND defend your VCs. Usually is enough keeping the eye at your VCs and being sure they are not taken, without great economical effort, because you cannot sneak that 9th VC unless the opponent don’t watch it
-
I’ve never played a game that got to the VC conditions (9 in AAR or 13 in AA50). The group I play with knows when they’ve lost and concedes at that point.
-
9 is all that you really need to know who won in A&AR. Very rarely will someone still have a chance if a side holds 9 after the USA turn and that is usually when one side made some silly mistake. But to be absolutely sure, 10 would be needed.
I play with 9 becuase that’s all all I really think is needed. I play at GTO so the game will end when I have the 9th, whether my opponent wants it over or not. It keeps track of stats and some will drag their loss out to the bitter end. If I played with 10, then many games would drag out for no reason, even though it’s clear the game is over.
I always quit if i’m sure I lost. The ones that don’t, I feel are mini-stallers. Even in a 9 vic game, some will stack that 9th vic, just to prolong the end. A waste of time, imo. I refuse to ever play with 8. That is not a game based on conquering the other side and it isn’t that hard for the axis to get 8 and win, even though the game is far from over.
Suggested Topics
