Victory Conditions

[Krieghund]

The biggest two complaints that I’ve heard about this game are that it’s too hard for the Allies and that the victory conditions don’t represent the actual historical German objectives of the campaign.

I’ve had an idea of a possible way to tweak the victory conditions to help remedy these issues.  This idea is simply to subtract the number of rows of full hexes on the west side of the board that are completely free from German occupation from the Victory Point count.  In other words, if the Axis forces have only pushed as far west as Bastogne, five points would be subtracted from the Victory Point total after counting Cities.

This would force the Axis to push westward, at least to some degree.  As the Axis player, you wouldn’t be absolutely required to do this, but if you didn’t you’d need to collect more Cities to make up for it.  This would naturally make the game a bit easier for the Allies.  It would also promote the Axis pursuing the historical objective, without actually requiring it (which would “script” gameplay).

This idea is completely “blue sky” at this point.  I haven’t tested it at all, and it’s possible that it could completely throw the game out of whack, so I’m asking for feedback from veteran players.  What do you think that the impact of this would be?  Is it worth pursuing further?

Moderators:  Please don’t move this thread to the House Rules area, as it is a completely theoretical discussion of victory conditions at this point.  If it bears fruit, I’ll write it up as a house rule in the appropriate forum.  Thanks.

[frimmel]

Well, with no detailed records of my games that is I think a defacto/automatic 2 point subtraction for the Axis. I’ve never gotten west of Huy (and I’m pretty sure I was only there once) in the north and Roche and Libramont in the central/south areas.

I also think requiring that sort of deep penetration will make it too easy for the Allies to turn the flank of the Axis line in the north.

I don’t know that it is a bad idea but the real problem is that it is hard to play the Allies not that victory is too easy for the Axis. Most games are about taking ground not orderly retreat. It is tough to grasp.

[losttribe04]

@frimmel:

I don’t know that it is a bad idea but the real problem is that it is hard to play the Allies not that victory is too easy for the Axis. Most games are about taking ground not orderly retreat. It is tough to grasp.

You described that very “interestingly.” (If there is such a word.)

I don’t know as I would even describe A&A D-Day as meeting that discription even though it’s the only other A&A game that comes close.

The Axis and the Allies have very diffrent objectives in this game.  As such they would have to go about them diffrently.  In any other A&A game you can almost jump into any other player seat and do alright (if you know the game.)  In this one you may have players that are better at the Axis then the Allies and vise-versa.

You just gave me a whole new dinamic to think about with this game, thanks.

LT

[Krieghund]

@frimmel:

Well, with no detailed records of my games that is I think a defacto/automatic 2 point subtraction for the Axis. I’ve never gotten west of Huy (and I’m pretty sure I was only there once) in the north and Roche and Libramont in the central/south areas.

The question is this:  Does the Axis not press westward because it’s too hard, or is it just easier to spread out in the east?  What percentage of games where the Axis didn’t press westward do you think it still could have won if it had to take another City or two?  What percentage were so close that requiring another City or two would have lost it the game?

@frimmel:

I also think requiring that sort of deep penetration will make it too easy for the Allies to turn the flank of the Axis line in the north.

I don’t know that it is a bad idea but the real problem is that it is hard to play the Allies not that victory is too easy for the Axis. Most games are about taking ground not orderly retreat. It is tough to grasp.

I agree.  That’s why I’m concerned that this change might make it too tough on the Axis.  Spreading out the Axis forces will make it easier for the Allies to counter-attack.

[frimmel]

I had just had the idea that maybe instead of changes to points or distance of advance maybe you just make it so Axis can’t win before turn 6?

As to LT’s point, my ‘moment of clarity’ came when I realised that I wasn’t going to stop the Axis from gaining ground.

Krieg posted while I was typing – I’ll get to that later.

[frimmel]

The only games with penetration past Bastogne are games the Axis were always going to win.

Ever since early on I stuck a bunch of tanks out on a limb and lost them all after not getting them gas and bullets I’ve been of the Blitzkrieg Myth opinion that the distance of advance isn’t how far the tanks can get but how far the gas can get.

That the Axis don’t simply ‘go west’ is mostly a matter of creating the likelihood of leaving rear cities vulnerable to Allied counter attack. So that anything you gain with your depth you stand to lose in your rear areas at the same time as cutting off supply for your deeply advanced units. The Axis don’t have enough trucks to supply both units at the tip of advance and in the rear with the gear.

IMO requiring more depth/westward advance from the Axis doesn’t change what the Allies have to do to win under either victory condition– conserve units while buying time for the weather to clear and preventing deep penetrations by the Axis.

[Krieghund]

@frimmel:

The only games with penetration past Bastogne are games the Axis were always going to win.

Yes, but in the games where the Axis didn’t penetrate past Bastogne, how often would it have been fairly easy for it to pick up an additional five points in Cities?

Also, what’s the percentage of victories for Axis vs Allies in your experience?

[frimmel]

Also, what’s the percentage of victories for Axis vs Allies in your experience?

I’ll take the easy one first. It is still slighted towards the Axis at about 75% but lately I’ve been unable to get a ‘regular’ game and I’ve been playing with lots of new people. It is about 75% to Axis. I’m the only one with any Allies wins. I  can take the game the distance as Allies everytime now (luck or inexperienced opponents?) but I also now play a sharper game as Axis having a better idea of what holes warrant blitz moves with my tanks. So that is keeping the % skewed to Axis. I’d say about 75% to Axis.

@Krieghund:

Yes, but in the games where the Axis didn’t penetrate past Bastogne, how often would it have been fairly easy for it to pick up an additional five points in Cities?

I don’t think very often. I’ve been thinking about this for about a day now. There are only about 13 points I would guarantee the Axis.

The Axis usually always get:

Diekirch for 2
Clervaux for 1
St. Vith for 4
Malmedy for 2
Trois Points for 1
Vielsalm for 1
Houffalize for 1
Martelange for 1

That is 13.  From here it gets tricky. I can usually get into:

Eupen for 2
Verviers for 3
Werbomont for 2 bringing it to 20.  (I don’t really consider Werbomont ‘west of Bastogne’ despite technically being so.)

So now it starts getting all ‘it depends’ on us. How much have the Allies kept? How’s the Axis supply situation? And most importantly are the Allies getting any ZOC over the road from Stadtkyll to Werbomont and how are they holding up at Bastogne to La Roche?

The Axis can get into Bastogne that is the last four and game over. If not they have to bypass into La Roche and still need to either evict from Bastogne or get into Ortheuville or cross the river at Werbomont and get into Marche for the last four to get to 24. Or they can get into Liege for the last four. Neufchateau is doable but units there without taking Bastogne and Ortheuville are out of supply.

So going west at this point is just raising the victory point requirement. The Axis have to take Liege and cross the river and get Marche or Huy or break the line at Bastogne and get Ortheuville or La Roche or some combination of that which would make Neufchateau more attractive.

This brings me back to my point about not really changing anything for the Allies except to give them more time. A ‘more west’ requirement just allows the Allies to move the ‘here and no further’ line back to the river from Liege to Marche to Ortheuville to Neufchateau or Martelange (quite doable I think if you don’t have to hold Bastogne.)

It goes back to what LT and I were mentioning about a different mindset for the Allies. Most players coming to this game are coming from the IPC A&A games. Defense in those games doesn’t require any depth. Any ground you are losing and not getting back or trading is the game slipping away from you. In BOTB you have to endure that feeling of it slipping away from you for five or six turns.

[frimmel]

No one has chimed in on this.  :|

I’m left wondering if I made my point or made absolutely no sense whatsoever.  :lol:

[losttribe04]

I understood what you said but since I’m a novice to BOTB I felt I’d just better sit back and let the big dogs work on this one.  :lol:

[Krieghund]

Sorry for the delay.  I haven’t had any time to look at this lately, but today I do.

@frimmel:

So going west at this point is just raising the victory point requirement. The Axis have to take Liege and cross the river and get Marche or Huy or break the line at Bastogne and get Ortheuville or La Roche or some combination of that which would make Neufchateau more attractive.

This brings me back to my point about not really changing anything for the Allies except to give them more time. A ‘more west’ requirement just allows the Allies to move the ‘here and no further’ line back to the river from Liege to Marche to Ortheuville to Neufchateau or Martelange (quite doable I think if you don’t have to hold Bastogne.)

Moving the “here and no further” line back as you’ve suggested may or may not help the Allies.  If the Germans take everything up to that line, even if it’s at Martelange, that’s 22 VPs (26 - 4).  Taking any one City along the line (except Martelange, but Neufchateau would work if the line is there) would put them over the top.  Of course, I don’t know for sure how possible this would be at that point, and I trust your experience on the matter over my own (I don’t get to play nearly as often as you do).  You seem to think that the Allies have a really good chance of stopping the advance there.

The thing that disturbs me the most about this is the possibility that the Allies may feel that they can get away with giving up Bastogne without a fight.  That just won’t do.

In the book on page 6 we see the historical German advance.  If we apply my proposed victory conditions, they end up with 22 VPs instead of 23.  So maybe the solution is to also reduce the VP requirement to 23, which still beats the historical outcome, satisfying the object of the game.  I’m sure this opens up a whole new can of worms.   :evil:

[frimmel]

Well the here and no further line only gets moved back if you are taking points off for not getting far enough west.

@Krieghund:

The thing that disturbs me the most about this is the possibility that the Allies may feel that they can get away with giving up Bastogne without a fight.  That just won’t do.

Exactly. The 101st has spot on the reinforcement chart and you pretty much HAVE to put them in Bastogne (well my OCD self HAS to put them in Bastogne.) Funny how making sure that happened came at about the same time as things turned round for the Allies.  8-)

I don’t know the Allies would be able to give up Bastogne but if you increase the Axis requirement for victory it becomes a lot more possible. Especially if the Allies are holding the northern towns.

But any change doesn’t really change what options the Axis has to get over the top. The axis would just have to achieve more of them. Meaning more time for the Allied Air Forces to win it.

[murraymoto]

had to ponder all this a bit after being outta town last week…

@Krieghund:

Also, what’s the percentage of victories for Axis vs Allies in your experience?

My estimate is similar to frimmel’s, maybe at this point it’s even alittle better than 3-quarters of the time for the Axis to win, but the Allied victories are starting to come along and a couple have been beat-downs.

@Krieghund:

What percentage of games where the Axis didn’t press westward do you think it still could have won if it had to take another City or two?  What percentage were so close that requiring another City or two would have lost it the game?

I do think that most of the games are within the 3-5 point range for the ultimate decision.  I’ve blitzed to Huy once and to Neufchateu once each to win.  I don’t think that in either of those though that Bastogne had fallen.  It’s generally either the 3 towns to the north, Bastogne or Werbormont-LaRoche-Marche that will have to fall–further penetration is generally open on a mistake or hot dice and the concern for turning a flank becomes all the more great.
  I don’t think it’s harder to win as the Allies, just takes longer to understand how, but when you do, it gets easier.

@Krieghund:

In the book on page 6 we see the historical German advance.  If we apply my proposed victory conditions, they end up with 22 VPs instead of 23.  So maybe the solution is to also reduce the VP requirement to 23, which still beats the historical outcome, satisfying the object of the game.  I’m sure this opens up a whole new can of worms.   :evil:

new can of worms, yeah–here’s a tangent that looking at historical map gave me.  the odds of getting the axis to repeat the same penetration in the game as history according to the pg 6 map would have to be astronomical.  Supplies would never make it along the road(s) without the allies dropping supply dumps all over that the axis swoop up.

[Krieghund]

@murraymoto:

new can of worms, yeah–here’s a tangent that looking at historical map gave me.  the odds of getting the axis to repeat the same penetration in the game as history according to the pg 6 map would have to be astronomical.  Supplies would never make it along the road(s) without the allies dropping supply dumps all over that the axis swoop up.

True, and that’s probably the final (and biggest) nail in the coffin for this idea.  There’s only one good path for Axis Supplies through the middle of the board, and it would be very vulnerable to disruption.  Thanks for your input, guys!