Give up BUT keep playing?

[Grinchveld]

[warning: Idea stage. rules still being formed]
If anyone has played the small card game “air land sea” My idea is similar to that. In that game players constantly have the opportunity to cut their loses. This gives the losing player still meaningful decisions to make no matter how bad their hand is.

For Axis and Allies:
If after round 3 (or whatever) one side is losing enough they can concede the game. BUT the war goes on. The losers get some objectives. If they conceding side does well enough with those objectives, the game ends in a tie. This would allow players to still compete meaningfully, and give someone who thinks they have lost a new lease on life without having to clear the table/reset the board prematurely.

OBJECTIVE IDEAS:

1. War weariness? inflict enough casualties on the other side (thematic for USA or UK but not really for the others
2. Hold enough territory for the next 2 rounds
3. Hold enough Victory Cities for the next 2 rounds
4. Some negotiation track? Public opinion track?

Restrictions/Abilities Post Conceding?

1. After a side has conceded maybe they are allowed to build fortifications that are very strong
2. The conceding side is not allowed to attack any territory it did not start the game owning. And may only attack sea zones adjacent to those territories.

[vodot]

@grinchveld intriguing concept, and I usually find it fun to play from a losing/underdog position; and maybe there’s no time to concede, set the game up again, and give it another go.

I think a better way of achieving this might be to lay out from the outset conditions by which the game could end in a tie, and simply allow players to switch from a ‘victory’ set of objectives to that ‘draw’ set of objectives if and when it becomes clear that victory is going to be impossible. Chess, football and a dozen other games successfully employ the idea of playing purposefully for a draw, especially if tournament standings are favorable and there is no need to risk anything for a win.

[barnee]

yea I’ve always thought having a “Minor” “Major” “Dominate” or some such, as Victory Conditions. 1 point, 2 points, 3 points for each, would work good, especially in league play. Not a novel idea by any means :)

Time/Game Length and TTy/Objective Control being two criteria you could use. Obviously depends on which game as to what you decide on. Just a “Generic” type idea with the different type of “Victory Conditions” Game dependent.

I also play similar to Vodot. When I’m losing and or bad dice, I look at it as a challenge. Trying to get the best terms I can lol

[Grinchveld]

@barnee
I think we are not understanding each other.

Different Victory conditions are normally decided before the game starts. Which is fine, but not what I am talking about.

I want to give agency to the losing side. If you are confident you have lost already (barring a miracle) I want the losing side to have agency to change their game objectives.

The trick is to come up with a fair and meaningful way for the losers to have goals that they have a chance of attaining, but that the other side has a chance of spoiling. How to move the goal posts, given the game conditions after the first 3 rounds, so that the new goals are competitive between the sides.

i.e. of it not working. Germany failed to knock out Russia before the USA reinforced it. If the German player just says, well i bet you cannot take Berlin in 2 rounds, that is not interesting because there is no way the allies can do it. There needs to be some objective that is still hard for both sides to attain. Some new goal that gives both sides have a real chance of winning.

[vodot]

@barnee @Grinchveld Thinking about every possible victory condition for my “22 Victory Cities” AA50 map, I might try the below scheme:

(note that the ‘examples’ above give a possible or likely board situation resulting in the given outcome for the given side - E.g. for the Allies to secure a “Favorable Détente”, they could (for example) hold all original 1942 VCs while also managing to liberate France and, say, Singapore.

Here are the Victory Cites for that map, with initial control indicated for each setup:

Note that for this setup, compared to OOB AA50, I’ve included four more allied-controlled VCs: Rio, Cape Town, Cairo, and Singapore. This (and a recognition of the nigh-unassailability of North America) is the reason for the discrepancy between Axis and Allied VC requirements.

Any of these scenarios would be fun to play to in a set number of rounds; say 6 or 7. The number of rounds has a huge impact on outcomes, of course: “Total Victory” in even 8 or 9 turns would be extremely difficult, whereas 2 rounds is more than enough for Détente.

[vodot]

@grinchveld said in Give up BUT keep playing?:

I want to give agency to the losing side. If you are confident you have lost already (barring a miracle) I want the losing side to have agency to change their game objectives.

I think the easiest and fairest way to implement this would be the addition of a round limit and more granular victory conditions like I describe above, including “Draw” conditions that more or less preserve the board position at a “1942” position.

Doing so would not only make this type of dynamic “reassessment of aims” possible but even essential during play, allowing either side the opportunity to advantageously to fall back from a disastrous blunder or die roll while still continuing to play meaningfully around the edges of the board hoping to “hang on for another 3 rounds” to whatever victory condition can still be managed.

Any A&A game where a player fails a huge attack yet still hangs on to at least their starting VCs should be considered a win, since with fair dice against an equal opponent any major operational failure or blunder should mean the loss of the game.