G40 Victory Conditions

[Young Grasshopper]

As a lot of you know, I have been working on victory condition house rules for our G40 group that plays a 10 hour game, we want a winner at the end of the day and this is where I’m at so far.

The Axis Powers win if they achieve any 1 of the following 3 conditions.

1. The Axis Powers collectively hold a total of 11 victory cities at the end of any game round.

2. The Axis Powers collectively hold a total of 140 IPCs on the income tracker at the end of any game round.

3. The Axis powers have 4 of the following 7 *flag tokens on Axis controlled territories at the end of any game round.

*To begin the game, flag tokens are placed on the following cities: London, Cairo, Moscow, Calcutta, Tokyo, Sydney, and Honolulu. If one of these cities is captured, their respective flag token must be relocated to the the capital city of the nation that captured it. If that nation’s capital city is under enemy control, the flag token must remain on its original territory and may not be relocated. If multiple flag tokens exist on a territory that has been captured, they must all be relocated to the capital city of the nation that has captured them.

The Allied Powers win if the Axis Powers have not met any of the above conditions before the day ends.

[CWO Marc]

A couple of comments, both having to do with symmetry, or rather with asymmetry.  I notice that, with the sole exception of Tokyo, six of the seven flag locations are Allied cities.  Also, the Axis victory conditions are defined in positive terms (they have to accomplish something), whereas the Allied victory conditions are defined in negative terms (they have to prevent the Axis from accomplishing something).  These two elements seem to put the two sides in different operating modes rather than being on a level playing field.  How has your group said that it feels about this asymmetrical model?

[Young Grasshopper]

@CWO:

A couple of comments, both having to do with symmetry, or rather with asymmetry.  I notice that, with the sole exception of Tokyo, six of the seven flag locations are Allied cities.  Also, the Axis victory conditions are defined in positive terms (they have to accomplish something), whereas the Allied victory conditions are defined in negative terms (they have to prevent the Axis from accomplishing something).  These two elements seem to put the two sides in different operating modes rather than being on a level playing field.  How has your group said that it feels about this asymmetrical model?

Thanks CWO Marc,

Yes we considered this greatly, and the truth is that the Allies rarly win by accomplishing anything. In our group they win by preventing the expansion of the Axis and getting them to surrender. There are a few variables we had to consider…

1. We only have 10-12 hours to declare a winner (can’t keep the table setup, and we don’t want to transfer the info and force players playing Italy to go through that again in back to back gatherings).

2. The Axis always spread rapidly and the defence of key Allied areas becomes the focus of the Allies (same problem many experienced online players face).

3. The Allies never take an Axis capital, but if we make that a victory condition, the Allies will identify the best target and will go 100% Allied effort leaving other areas on the board unchalanged (we try to create conditions in which both sides of the board become important).

These are just a few of the issues we have had to deal with, of course other groups play different styles of strategy and have their own problems to deal with.

[Black_Elk]

One quick thought, in the old games it was usually USA that ended the game round, and the flow throughout the round showed more alternating by side (Allies then Axis, back to Allies and so on.) In G40 the game round concludes with Anzac, or I guess France, but there is this fairly long gap between Japan’s move and the end of the Game round, especially since Italy is such a non-entity in most games, and the American/British piggy back that happens before they even get to move. All that said, I wonder if “at the end of the game round” is even worthwhile anymore. It might be more fun, and more expedient for game resolution to just say if side such and such controls x, y, z “at any point.”