If the league gets up and running post results here
How will AA42 promote a Pacific Theater?
-
A thing I don’t understand is why Larry made that bunch of totally flawed chinese rules and didn’t do the simpler special rule many of us are asking for: Japan-USSR non-agression pact
Larry made a difficult one instead the easy one. It’s not a surprise it was a mess
-
/Imperious leader
I like the idea of separate victory conditions. But doesn’t 12 VC fit into the picture you’re describing quite well and with less change to the game?
The speculation about possible scenarios in the actual war need to be tempered by the fact that the Allied condition of “unconditional surrender” could have been forgone by the Russians if they got pressured enough. I’m sure Stalin would have agreed to a peace if Moscow was taken and Caucasus oil wells cut off. And Hitler didn’t have the idea of conquering all of Russia, the goal was Arkhangelsk to the Volga. The war could have temporarily ended there, to be sure only to be taken up again when France would revolt and Russia been bolstered for a new war, but Axis being able to win a peace isn’t a fantasy scenario. Had the Germans armed for a three year campaign in Russia with cautious advances and a strategy of not alienating the Soviet satellites they invaded and instead got Estonian, Ukrainian etc troops to support them, they could have won. Soviet manpower reserves were not endless and were getting exhausted towards the end of the war, and Germany didn’t mobilize for total war until 1944.
-
The Classic MB 2 ed had individual victory option, and this was the best winning condition of all A&A games. The nation with the highest increase in IPC income was the winner. Since you already keep track of your IPC income, an economic victory is better than to count Victory Cities. IMHO.
An individual economic victory condition will look like “Diplomacy”, wich is my favourite game. The allies must cooperate to bring the enemy down, and then they can start backstabbing each other in order to win individually, just like in “Diplomacy”. And this is just what actually happened in the real war too. UK and USSR was not friends, but they shared some kind of “Community of interrests” in a given time. After Germany was down, they startet the cold war againsts each other.
So bottom line is, the winner is the first nation to reach x IPC income.
It can not be easyer. Also I belive this will promote a Pacific Theater, since the Allies can not let Japan win. They must go after both Germany and Japan, and when one Allies gets to strong, the other two must backstabb him so he dont win the game. Like in Risk, where everybody attack the strongest player to bring him down. Now I must e-mail Larry this new ideas.
-
@Imperious:
If they eliminate the VC and just make the game where each axis wins differently:
Japan must capture: Hawaii, Australia, India, China, Alaska. etc plus get to X IPC level for one complete turn
Germany must take : X, Y, and Z, plus get to X IPC level
I dont agree that Japan MUST capture Hawaii, India etc. The rule should say, Japan must get to X IPC level for one complete turn. Then it is Japan’s decision if he want to collect his IPC’s in Russia, China or the Pacific.
Also Germany did not neccesarily have to capture Russia. It should be Germany’s decision if he wants to collect his IPC’s in Russia, Africa or somewhere else. I dont like scriptet games.
-
individual victory conditions are a great idea
-
I like the idea of separate victory conditions. But doesn’t 12 VC fit into the picture you’re describing quite well and with less change to the game?
Well i look at it like this:
Both axis were after specific territories in order to accomplish goals. Resource rich territories and for various political ends. They were not after cities themselves even though some battles took place in some cities. Id rather see some large outline on the map that traces out what either the Germans or Japanese must capture to win like those old war maps that show the maximum extent of Axis occupation in Europe ans Pacific. That would be even more clear of what you need to do to win ( AKA conquer all territories inside red line). I like the cities to just show where historically important localities were just so people can learn, but to say the Axis started a war over “cities” including localities required and located in weird places like Canada.
Bottom line is each axis player has to capture said CORE territories, plus income basis of X to win. Each axis player would have a different requirement.
Its easier to do this because after all you already add up income each turn.
I think people hate this because it totally repudiates 1 VS 1 player, which was my intention. For me AA must have two teams of players and AA must have the aspect where both axis players are trying to win only not together, but at times will trade favors ( e.g. if i go out of my way and destroy the UK fleet off Persia, you must attack and take back India. Also the Soviets need to be able to win individually as opposed to ‘team allied victory’ IN the war the Soviets won with US coming in second and UK distant third, Japan forth and Germany last.
-
Why are we having this discussion ?
Larry decided the victory condition a long time ago
-
AA42 will probably have the same victory conditions as Revised, but we’re discussing what we think it should be…
-
well in this thread everything is speculation. I too think nothing will be changed except IPC costs and some SBR and sub/transport rules more like AA50
-
@Imperious:
I like the idea of separate victory conditions. But doesn’t 12 VC fit into the picture you’re describing quite well and with less change to the game?
Well i look at it like this:
Both axis were after specific territories in order to accomplish goals. Resource rich territories and for various political ends. They were not after cities themselves even though some battles took place in some cities. Id rather see some large outline on the map that traces out what either the Germans or Japanese must capture to win like those old war maps that show the maximum extent of Axis occupation in Europe ans Pacific. That would be even more clear of what you need to do to win ( AKA conquer all territories inside red line). I like the cities to just show where historically important localities were just so people can learn, but to say the Axis started a war over “cities” including localities required and located in weird places like Canada.
Bottom line is each axis player has to capture said CORE territories, plus income basis of X to win. Each axis player would have a different requirement.
Its easier to do this because after all you already add up income each turn.
I think people hate this because it totally repudiates 1 VS 1 player, which was my intention. For me AA must have two teams of players and AA must have the aspect where both axis players are trying to win only not together, but at times will trade favors ( e.g. if i go out of my way and destroy the UK fleet off Persia, you must attack and take back India. Also the Soviets need to be able to win individually as opposed to ‘team allied victory’ IN the war the Soviets won with US coming in second and UK distant third, Japan forth and Germany last.
What I wonder is, if you can just set the map up in a way to where there is no need for VC’s so you can have more streamlined open ended play with less “special rules”. For Example: set the map up so in most games if Japan has taken over Hawaii, Aus, India, etc and germany is still in decent shape (whatever that means), it would pretty much be game over in all but name only (the axis would have a tactical/ economic advantage that could only be lost through very bad luck or incredible stupidy/oversights).
While I still don’t like the Idea of VC’s at the moment, I do like the potential they present for balanced multi theater warfare (something I have always wanted in AA) and a more interesting multi player system. I just think they should look into ways that should have one set of rules before going into a VC mentality.
One of the main reasons why I think Japan should have the very real option of threatening the WUSA if left with poor defense by the US is to force multi theater play. The WUSA should be a far easier and more realistic option for Japan to attack than Russia because the way the board would be set up.
-
I agree about separate victory condition, fore each nations in the factions. A sort of NOs but they should not give money, they should give victory!
Maybe the 1 vs 1 game do not benefits of such approach but it is really a good addition to f2f A&A with more than 2 players.
-
@Imperious:
I think people hate this because it totally repudiates 1 VS 1 player, which was my intention.
Then it will not be A&A, b/c A&A can be played by 2-5-6 players.
And there are many who prefers 1vs1 rather than multi.
-
Actually, I started the thread because the number of Victory cities and the victory conditions as well as the IPC value of Pacific territories DID change from AAR to AA50, so I think maybe that will might be possible in AA42 as well. There might not be as many VCs as in AA50, but if Warsaw, Hongkong, Ottawa and Sydney don’t make it into the game that’s not much of a problem. Honolulu and Stalingrad are essential, though, as well as a VC condition where both Leningrad and Stalingrad doesn’t have to be included, since that usually is the same as Moscow.
I get your idea, Imperious leader, and maybe you could have a combination of IPCs and VCs? Something like the A&A 2nd ed IPC increase condition together with a VC condition for your side. Then you do win together but one power can win more than the other, so to speak, creating some interesting tension if you have a multiplayer game.
-
A sort of NOs but they should not give money, they should give victory!
yea i dont like NO’s I would rather have strategic resource centers that if occupied reduce the enemy IPC by X.
So each player could have some area(s) that if occupied by the enemy would cost additional income like what they did in AAE with the oil fields.
Japan would have theirs on Borneo and Indies
Germany in Romania
Soviets in Caucasus ( need a new territory because Caucasus is too large)
UK would be India and Iran/persia and some sea zones
USA would be some sea zones, possible hawaii or whatnot. -
Miss a few days and a thread adds a dozen posts - wow.
I like the idea of a non- aggression pact. Maybe with a time limit? Expire in 4 turns or something. Simple, and makes Japan look elsewhere.
Cheers
-
Miss a few days and a thread adds a dozen posts - wow.
I like the idea of a non- aggression pact. Maybe with a time limit? Expire in 4 turns or something. Simple, and makes Japan look elsewhere.
Cheers
Once again, I think a special rule could be easily bypassed just by a simple redesigning of the map. Just have Japan have to get through a few literaly worthless Russian territories (0 ipc) and the start hitting up cheap 1 ipc territories that won’t effect Russia’s production that much; add to that a beefed up china, a UK factory, and a US naval presence and I think you will see a Japanese threat to Russia greatly mitigated. No gimmicky rules needed and you still have an openended “sandbox” style of play.
Besides Russia and Japan did fight each other in the beggining and the end of the war.
-
What if Hirohito changed his mind?
In some AAR games, Germany can actually capture UK on G2, if the UK player is not focused on ftrs landing in WE G1, or a G1 transport buy, and/or UK landing everything in Africa UK1 and not guarding the capital. This happens probably less than 1 in 50 games, but nonetheless, if the odds are good, the axis player will do this.
Should this option also be removed by the same inappropriate logic, a “Germany-cannot-capture-any-other-capital-than-Moscow” or “Germany-cannot-capture-London” rules?
Japan can also take Alaska, this is easy in almost every game, same goes for Australia and India, both in AA50 and Revised. This could not happen in WW2, not if the game starts in 41 or later.
-
The idea of IL, is not to give scripted strategy or force player to do “historical” things. The idea is bound to geography (or maybe geo-policy).
Why Japan attacked USA at Pearl Harbour? For having free hands in conquering Philippines, Indonesia, Borneo, etc. And why? Because there Japan could found: oil, rubber, metal ores, etc. They are not after cities. And they are also not after capitals. They look for economic resources and strategically relevant territories.
So the war effort should be aimed to conquer key territories on the map that gives economic benefits, while at same time negating them to the oppoents.
With a wise allocation of economical objectives that bring victory for the side that conquer them while cripple the oppoennts economy, player have to devise strategy to achieve goals that go in the direction of promoting operation all over the map.Another thing, that I have tried to do as an home rules, is victory based on collecting victory points. Each turn a natio ncollects victory points based on the control of key strategic and economic territories on the map. Increasing of such points is the measure of the strategic and economic advantage a nation is achieving while at same time having less point collected “simulate” the moral factor of a nation that may give up in a fight if continually defeated for the control of strategic key points or economical resources or national territories.
So the victory conditions should be individual for each nations and composed of several factors: economical (IPCs), strategical (control of key territories), moral (bringing war in the enemy territories while preserving own territories). Each end of round victory points are given to each nation for the obvjectives achieved. Victory is gained reaching X victory points, with the additional constraints of having an advantage of Y victory points on the other side. (having less then Y victory points allows the war to continue, the advantage is still not decisive).
I know, I have gone too much off topic but what I would like to have is a of assessing the winner, simple (counting victory point at the end of the round is not too much complicated) but also bound to the geography and policy of the wolrd.
-
Why Japan attacked USA at Pearl Harbour? For having free hands in conquering Philippines, Indonesia, Borneo, etc. And why? Because there Japan could found: oil, rubber, metal ores, etc.
Maybe the time is right for Axis & Allies: Supremacy edition!
-
Once again, I think a special rule could be easily bypassed just by a simple redesigning of the map. Just have Japan have to get through a few literaly worthless Russian territories (0 ipc) and the start hitting up cheap 1 ipc territories that won’t effect Russia’s production that much; add to that a beefed up china, a UK factory, and a US naval presence and I think you will see a Japanese threat to Russia greatly mitigated. No gimmicky rules needed and you still have an openended “sandbox” style of play.
I 100% agree with putting more spaces in the back of Russia and making them worthless. Crossing 15 000km of swamp, mountans and boreal forest really should be of little gain and quite difficult (Not to mention doing it in winter with the cold, in the spring with the flooding and mud, in the summer with the mosquitoes - and a supply train several thousand kilometres long). I also agree the same should be done to China as well as beefing them up. But I doubt that has happened to the game. House rules involving separate victory conditions like I’ve read so far - but on a time limit so the allies don’t have time to concentrate on only Germany - seem to be the way to go that I like so far. Within the constraints of the map we will be provided.
Adding more ships the Pacific I don’t think will work. I would still take my US fleet and move it to the Atlantic to help cover transports rather than build a new fleet to protect against German attacks.
Great ideas on here - I’m finding this useful.
Cheers
Suggested Topics
