House Rules for Victory Cities

[Imperious Leader]

OK so i notice the allies need 11 more cities while the axis need 14 to win… Also, what was the direction of this idea? to balance victory conditions or to solve the “problem” of production limits on infantry buys? or was their some relationship between these two ideas that you felt needed to be addressed?

I favor Victory based on point value… example: take your values of 5,3,2,1 and assign them to those cities… the axis have to score a total of X points to win, so some cities may not to be a problem since they are only one point, while say moscow is 5 points. The problem that is addressed and possibly solved under this system looks more at the historical value of certain cities over others… E.G. Moscow is worth more than Calcutta on points, but in the OOB rules its counted the same value. Id impose victory condicitons that reflect the nations possiblity for victory… e.g. Germany does not need Calcutta to win, but it needs Moscow, leningrad and stalingrad, and London to win… This way its possible to have a game where germany wins and japan can lose…and a game where say the allies all win and the soviets can win individual victory conditions… I can elaborate on this… I like some of what you posted, but the infantry placement thing needs to be more streamlined… But to address that i need to know where your going with that.

[theduke]

OK so i notice the allies need 11 more cities while the axis need 14 to win… Also, what was the direction of this idea? to balance victory conditions or to solve the “problem” of production limits on infantry buys? or was their some relationship between these two ideas that you felt needed to be addressed?

Allies need 11 VC points, and Axis 14 VC points. Since it’s easier for the Axis to capture VCs early on I decided to balance the difficulty out a bit by letting the Allies win a major victory with slightly fewer VCPs. I know it’s not that simple to determine a balanced set of major victory conditions. You really have to play it to see how balanced it is.

The infantry idea can be separated from the VCs, which is why I posted them in separate posts. However the 2 ideas are still related in that the VCPs of each VC define the number of infantry that can be placed there per turn.

I feel strongly that a new system for deciding how infantry can be placed is needed. My intentions with this infantry idea is to get a fairly simple system that allows a few infantry to be placed closer to the front lines so as to speed up the game. I felt that how I defined VCPs seemed to fit in well with what I wanted to do with infantry so I went with it. So the infantry placing rules need to:

a) allow only a few infantry to be placed in the front lines so nations will still have to place the bulk of their new infantry at home. If nation’s could build many infantry units on the front lines then this principle would end up dominating the game and I don’t want that either.

b) limit the number of infantry units that can be placed in any 1 territory. How many infantry are placed in Germany during initial setup, 3 I think? So if 3 is approx. proportional to the number of real infantry in Germany in early 1942, then does it make since that Germany can place about 3 times that many infantry in Germany every turn?! Since a turn represents several months or so, this is very unrealistic. I think it’s more realistic to make the limit in the capital at best 5. 5 is a good compromise between realism and congruity with the other rules Larry Harris and crew already came up with.

How would you change the limits I came with? Thinking in terms of mechanized infantry and the ability to quickly get infantry to the front lines as well as how many Canadian, Australian and Indian etc… infantry should be represented in the game, do you agree with these limits?

[Imperious Leader]

In other games i have used this:

Infantry can be built in territories you allready own even if their is not complex limited by the value of the territory. So in France thats 6 infantry, in captured territories its 1/2 rounded down. So a 3 value territory can build one infantry. Factories only allow you to build “armor, ships and planes” at the limit of what is printed of the territory. I feel that is more simple allowing for your builds to get into the fight right away. Another example: germany can build 10 infantry and up to 10 other items of any type as long as they are not infantry class units ( mechanized or regular infantry).

On the VC idea what you think about the point value based idea?

[theduke]

Infantry can be built in territories you allready own even if their is not complex limited by the value of the territory. So in France thats 6 infantry, in captured territories its 1/2 rounded down. So a 3 value territory can build one infantry. Factories only allow you to build “armor, ships and planes” at the limit of what is printed of the territory. I feel that is more simple allowing for your builds to get into the fight right away. Another example: germany can build 10 infantry and up to 10 other items of any type as long as they are not infantry class units ( mechanized or regular infantry).

I don’t understand the rule. Number of infantry=number of IPCs? That means Germany can place too many infantry on the eastern front. Russia now needs to take Ukraine to take the added pressure off of 3 German infantry placed there next turn. Even if Russia takes Ukraine, Germany is likely to be able to put 2 infantry in Belorussia, 3 in E. Europe and 3 in Balkans. Germany has bought so many infantry for those 3 territories that they will buy hardly any infantry to place in Germany, and that seems unrealistic. Also, Germany can place 2 infantry in Africa on G1. Why worry about transports? Moving on to the UK, UK can place literally a ton of infantry in Africa at the drop of a hat.

If you were going to use a rule like this I would have it so number of infantry=number of IPCs-1. This would not nearly be as exploitable while still being a simple modification.

[Imperious Leader]

Well in occupied territories its 1/2 rounded down… i guess the “occupied” soviet territories should be treated as 1/2 rounded down… how that look?

[theduke]

by ‘occupied’, do you mean captured? captured territory=1/2 rounded down and originally occupied territory=same as IPC value, right? This would mean UK could put 1 infantry in every African territory they occupied at the start of that turn. That’s big, too big!

IMHO if you really want to define infantry placement limits by IPCs instead of VCPs then do infantry limit=IPCs-1 for originally occupied territories and infantry limit=1/2 rounded down for captured territories. Even more realistic for captured territories would be 1/2 rounded down for captured non-capitals and a limit of 3 infantry for captured capitals.

originally owned soviet territories can be IPCs-1 like all other originally owned territories and it will be good.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok thats fine… id go with that… Under revised Its a bit different than how the rules applies in the other games that the rule works well in… These games have many other territories and the income level is higher so in revised the “scale” makes a huge difference in gameplay.

[theduke]

I simplified down the infantry placing limits a lot. Look at the changes in the 2nd post in this thread. Opinions?

[Imperious Leader]

The only exceptions to this are that a maximum of only 3 infantry per turn may be placed at the UK and US capitals and only 1 Japanese infantry per turn at each of the Japanese major and moderate VCs.

+++++++++on this im not sure why its not the same for all…this complicates the rule… is this for play balance?

-For captured Allied VCs, the occupying Axis nation may purchase and place no infantry at a captured minor VC and 1 infantry per turn at all other captured VCs.

-For captured Axis VCs, the occupying Allied nation may purchase and place 1 infantry per turn at a captured minor VC and 2 infantry per turn at all other captured VCs.

++++++++this may lead to imbalances of mobilization. i think it should be the same for axis or allies.

-If any territory containing a VC is attacked before the defender’s first turn, then the defender of that VC gets to immediately purchase any number of infantry not exceeding more than the respective maximums outlined above and place them at that VC. These infantry units are purchased and placed just before the battle takes place. This rule applies only before the defender’s first turn.

+++++++++Yikes… i hate that rule…wow… wont this extend the game? does this add something to the game? what is the “philosophy” …er what was the problem that this idea is to correct???

-The cost of purchasing an IC now depends on the number of VCPs within the territory where it will be placed. Cost of IC = 15 – 3(# of VCPs within territory) Simply put, ICs cost 15 where there is no VC, 12 at a minor VC, 9 at a moderate VC and 6 at a major VC.

++++++This is actually not bad at all… i have to look into this…good job here.

-The total IPC value of all non-infantry units placed per turn at any IC in a given territory may not exceed 4 times the IPC value of that territory.

+++ again what is this rule fixing? and how?

[theduke]

All of your questions make total sense. When I made all those rules I thought there would be some questions about them. I feel that they are needed to avoid any possible exploitations in the rule as well as increase the realism of the game. Let me know, everyone, if you feel different about it and why.

The only exceptions to this are that a maximum of only 3 infantry per turn may be placed at the UK and US capitals and only 1 Japanese infantry per turn at each of the Japanese major and moderate VCs.

Why only 3 in the capitals?Â

If Western Allies can build only 3 in each capital per turn, it will do 2 things: 1) it will slow down D-day a little, thus helping the Axis (improves game balance). 2) it will restrict the Western Allies to spend more on heavy priced units (enhances realistism).

As for the first (game balance), the Allied assault won’t be slowed that much, but it will require more planning on the Allies part. The US can supplement infantry placed in the capital by placing a couple in C. US too and moving them over next turn. The Allies might end up being slowed down 1 turn extra.

Let me add that infantry are too powerful in the game! Fodder is such an integral part of the game that if you want to find the easiest and simplest way to handicap someone I believe you should restrict his infantry purchasing ability. Infantry placed in the western capitals usual go on to assist in D-day. Added restrictions in these capitals will balance out D-day better than it’s already represented in the game.

The 3 infantry limit will also emphasize a little bit better how many more men the Germans and Russians had over the Western Allies.

Why only 1 Japanese infantry per mainland Asian territory?

Otherwise Japan could build 7 inf per turn without needing any transports. That’s too powerful. I want to speed up the game by allowing German and Russian troops the ability to be more quickly placed on the front lines, not by making it even easier for Japan to take over Asia. First, moving men through Asia is a lot harder than through Europe. Second, Japan can beat up on China too much already. I want the Second Sino-Japanese War to be represented a little more accurately in difficulty for Japan. With these new rules, Japan can start out building 3 infantry in mainland Asia compared to 4 for the Western Allies. That’s pretty even, but slightly favoring the Allies more than it is with the out of box rules. That’s good. Sure, this favors the Allies which is at first thought bad, but the reduced infantry placing limits for the Western Allies coupled with the ability for infantry to be placed directly on the front lines (which arguably helps Germany the most… 2 in Ukraine, 1 in Karelia with Russia only able to put 3 in Caucasus) more than compansates for this. The result is a simple change can give an overall advantage to the Axis while enhancing the realism globally on all fronts.

-For captured Allied VCs, the occupying Axis nation may purchase and place no infantry at a captured minor VC and 1 infantry per turn at all other captured VCs.

-For captured Axis VCs, the occupying Allied nation may purchase and place 1 infantry per turn at a captured minor VC and 2 infantry per turn at all other captured VCs.

The Axis are more likely to take over VCs (at least early on). I don’t want there to be an avalanche effect when these VCs go down early. Thinking of realism and game balance again, I don’t want Japan to be able to build 2 infantry in China when it falls. My god, that’s like a free IC! I want China to hold out a little longer for a nice compromise between realism and game balance, but when it falls I don’t want Japan to run over Russia that easy.

In fact, if you look at every instance on the board, you’ll see that 1 infantry for all non-minor captured Axis VCs is the most realistic representation.

As for the Allied VCs, the major factor for this decision is realism. I have them able to place 1 more infantry in each VC because most of these swing Axis VCs rose up to more significantly help fight against the Axis when they were freed. France? Italy? Ukraine? Freed Chinese provinces? But does this realism throw off the game balance? Not really. Remember that the Allies need to take over the VC and hold it for 1 turn first. This means that the Axis were pushed back 2 turns ago. 2 turns after the Axis get pushed back the game is just about over anyway, and besides, 1 extra infantry is not that big an advantage especially since the Allies can’t consolidate these extra infantry for a compound fodder effect (that’s what you really have to look out for!).

-If any territory containing a VC is attacked before the defender’s first turn, then the defender of that VC gets to immediately purchase any number of infantry not exceeding more than the respective maximums outlined above and place them at that VC. These infantry units are purchased and placed just before the battle takes place. This rule applies only before the defender’s first turn.

Remember it’s only before the 1st turn, so it applies to Germany attacking Cairo, but not Leningrad (Russia already had their 1st turn by the time Germany moves). It applies to Japan attacking China, but not Buryatia or India (yeah, like Japan can ever attack India turn 1 anyway! :lol:) So, it only applies to Egypt and China. Both these places held out pretty well against the Axis! How are they falling in turn 1?! I think a good balance between what actually happened and what needs to happen in the game for balance purposes is to give these VCs a little boost if they are attacked on turn 1. As for extending the game, I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Any VC that can be attacked on turn 1 will be certainly captured by turn 2-3. Resistance is pretty futile for these VCs! :evil: Also, this rule acts as a deterrent against Russia attacking Ukraine, Norway or Manchuria and UK attacking FIC, Kwangtung or Philippines on turn 1. This is pretty big for the Axis.

-The total IPC value of all non-infantry units placed per turn at any IC in a given territory may not exceed 4 times the IPC value of that territory.

+++ again what is this rule fixing? and how?

I don’t want India building 3 armor units, or even worse yet, an armada that could rival a Japanese battleship. Isn’t it more realistic to have territories worth 3 IPCs to be restricted to either 3 rtl or 1 rtl and 1 armor, or 2 armor, or 1 non-capital ship, or a fighter? More realistic for territories worth only 2 IPCs to only make either 2 rtl or 1 armor or 1 transport or sub? Now the high priced units have to be built in the capitals (or S. Europe and W. US) where they should be built! Now we’re talking realism with a very simple modification! That’s what I like to see.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok… here is a proposition:

I would like you and i and our common friend Andersson to remake the revised game along the lines of these new changes/house rules… Those poor chaps over at avalon hill forums have created that “AARe” edition and i would like the 3 of us and others (who have yet to join our team) to come up with a competing variation for revised… AS you may know i have redone the revised map and am more than willing to share it so you can get a copy printed… Do you agree with what i have outlined? Otherwise we are just pushing dirt under a rug with these “house rules” without any purpose for the enjoyment of the general public… what we need is a SYSTEM and true varient of ideas.

[theduke]

I’d be happy to work on producing some organized ruleset, but I’m not quite following what your proposition is exactly. Is this a different project than the one you’re working on at Larry’s site? When it’s finished will it just be posted in this forum for the public to access just like the AARe edition in the AH forum? If so, then won’t you need to also post your map for the public to print out anyway?

[theduke]

I’ve been thinking about tweaking the cost of IC equation from

Cost of IC=15-3*(VCP value of territory) to Cost of IC=15-(VCP value of territory)*(IPC value of territory)

and also adding these rules:

-ICs that were present at the start of the game are permanent (i.e. ICs that were never purchased can never be destroyed).

-Purchased ICs can be destroyed at the defender’s discretion when the attacker wins the battle over that territory.

-An IC can only be placed in a territory that was in your possession at the start of your turn. Non-infantry units may only be placed at an IC that was there at the start of your turn. (this means once you take over a territory you have to wait 1 turn to build an IC and yet another turn to build units).

How does this change things from the old equation? Now it only costs 3 IPCs instead of 9 for Germany to build a W. Europe IC. Wow that’s cheap…I think an IC frequently placed there would have cool implications or strategy. ICs in China and Australia now cost 11 instead of 9. An IC in Egypt costs 13 instead of 12. You get the point. All likely IC placements for the Axis either cost the same as before or less. All likely IC placements for the Allies either cost the same as before or more. This slight change would then balance the game a little better (if people think the Allies have the advantage with the old IC rules I proposed).

Does anyone plan on using any of these rules soon? I’d love to hear how they play out. I think people will be pleasantly surprised.

[Imperious Leader]

I’d be happy to work on producing some organized ruleset, but I’m not quite following what your proposition is exactly. Is this a different project than the one you’re working on at Larry’s site? When it’s finished will it just be posted in this forum for the public to access just like the AARe edition in the AH forum? If so, then won’t you need to also post your map for the public to print out anyway?

Not at all this idea is to replace the rules i have been “borrowing” from that AAR enhanced thing that they hype over at avalonhill.com. I basically decided to rework the map and produce some quick fun rules to go with it…. But those losers at Avalon Hill are seriously stuck in the mud with all sorts of blinders on accepting anything thats outside of this AARe…
  Furthermore i only used those ideas because i was lazy to produce my own and invest the time for something that was basically “free” however my thought now is to demonstrate my resolve and put something out that will push the envelope further and come out with a true variant with original ideas and make it available for everyone.

BTW i have posted those caspian sub papers under that thread… i know you hate that Yahoo sign in crap as well as i do.

[Imperious Leader]

As far as larrys site your more than welcomed to join the team and help out with “advanced” which at this stage is only an idea.

[theduke]

I think these victory city house rules are just about finalized. I’m thinking about submitting them to the Rules section of this site fairly soon, so if everyone has any additional questions/concerns please post it quickly. Thanks.

Imp, I had the same unflattering impression of the AH posters. It was pretty sad that that’s what the official site has come to. A while ago I took a glace at the AARe rules and although I don’t remember the rules I do remember that they were pretty darn bad.

I finally registered at Caspian Sub. They have some very good ideas over there.

I’m thinking of taking a more active role on Larry’s site. I’ll probably be posting these house rules there soon.

[Imperious Leader]

All that sounds good… I want Mr. Andersson to come aboard as well… i like his NA’s and i think they will help the project out…

here is something that addresses some ideas for this project ( which by no means are permenent solutions or ideas for this varient).

OK here is a list of ideas that i would like to begin with to state the overall projects scope for improving AAR.

1. New turn sequence as follows:
   Turn Sequence:
   1. Develop weapons
   2. Purchase units
   3. Collect income
   4. Movement
   5. Combat
   6. Non-Combat movement
   7. Place newly purchased units
   8. Determine Victory Conditions

The idea behind this is to end those “dead zones” of back and forth combat, forcing players to keep what they win in the battle… this is why you collect after to purchase so it reflects just what you own before you begin new attacks. You also retain the ability to pay for SBR, Rocket attacks, etc.because your using the money you allready have in your hand.This also ends those million invasions of France, etc. that develop…this is a waste of time.

2. Victory conditions change:
   Victory cities should have a point value, rather than saying “Berlin has the same value in terms of victory as Calcutta”… Victory cities should have a point value, so it will no longer place each city on an equal footing. Values can have a range of 1-3 or 1-5. what is important to understand at this point is they are not exactly equal. This will change the dynamic of strategy, and make the “opening startegy” more open ended

3. Changes in AA guns must be installed:
   Each VC or Industrial Complex should have a built in anti-air defense, while artillery should be given the duty of land based defense of aerial attacks.The specifics will be addressed later

4. Additional units:
   Adding a cruiser, Mechanized infantry, and a few other units will add flavor to a players diet of builds. The two mentioned are a must, but a few other nation specific units should be included.

5. D12 system: This is an optional idea…and i understand many hate change even for the best. The system does not rely on D12, it just works better. All existing units can be plugged in to this system, or we can now come up with nation specific values ( e.g. German tanks attack at 8/9 for example)

6. Defender retreats:

7. Cheaper prices for naval units:
   Many also use some of these ideas and have proposed similiar changes

8. Adding neutrals:
   The idea of “fuggetaboutit” and making it impossible to interact with those light grey territories is the worst case of brushing dirt under a rug i ever saw. The whole war started when Hitler invaded Poland which is neutral. They must have armies, a Value, and the alliance value to each side should be considered.

9. ALL AXIS, ALL ALLIES movement sequence:
   This will do the following:

10. Save lots of time, about 35%

11. As you know war is conducted in simutaneous fashion, while in axis and allies its broken up into no fewer than 5 distinct operations, while their is no real coordination between allies and axis. AARE added that “combined D- Day” thing, but thats only a basic fix for a much larger problem. Another problem is UK often was able to attack Japan in the spring of 1942? excuse me? in April 1942 Nagumo’s carrier force was basically ready to totally deep six admiral sommervilles fleet around Ceylon, The Brits had to retreat due to substantial threat of destruction. In the game its more like the other way around.NOt at all historical

10 ) adding Italy as a 6th player

11. adding convoy boxes and the concept of submarine warfare/ASW into the game

12. adding rules covering lend lease

13. adding the factor of “OIL” into the game… As you know the war had the focus on the concept of oil. IN AAE we got a taste of this, but it was ignored in AAR. Japan started the war with USA because we cut off the oil to fund Japans war in China, Also in 1942 the focus of Germany’s campaign in the cacasus was the need to secure the Baku oil center et al…This can be done with a simple system.

[theduke]

That sounds good Imp, but I think we should start this in a new topic. Move your last post to start the new topic (still in the house rules forum) and we can start organizing from there. I just looked again at AARe. It’s awful and so convoluted in places. Maybe we should also start yet another new topic discussing all the things that are wrong with it!

[theduke]

Victory Cities

Every nation starts with 5 victory cities (VCs), each worth a certain number of victory city points (VCPs). Of these 5 VCs, 1 is designated as a capital (worth 5 VCPs), 1 other is designated as a major VC (worth 3 VCPs), 2 others are designated as moderate VCs (worth 2 VCPs each), and the last one is designated as a minor VC (worth 1 VCP).

The following is the list of VCs, the corresponding VCP value for that VC and the territory in which each is located. The VCs are organized by nation.

Russia:
Moscow (5)–Russia
Stalingrad (3)–Caucasus
Leningrad (2)–Karelia
Novosibirsk (2)–Novosibirsk 
Vladivostok (1)–Buryatia

Germany:
Berlin (5)–Germany
Rome (3)–S. Europe
Paris (2)–W. Europe
Kiev (2)–Ukraine
Oslo (1)–Norway

UK:
London (5)–UK
Toronto (3)–E. Canada
Calcutta (2)–India
Sydney (2)–Australia
Cairo (1)—Anglo-Egypt

Japan:
Tokyo (5)—Japan
Changchun (3)–Manchuria
Shanghai (2)–Kwangtung
Singapore (2)–FIC
Manila (1)—Philippines

US:
Washington (5)–E. US
Los Angeles (3)–W. US
Chicago (2)–C. US
Chongqing (2)–China
Honolulu (1)–Hawaii

Infantry Unit Placement at VCs

ICs no longer build infantry units. Infantry units are assembled only in territories containing VCs. They are still purchased and mobilized at the same time as non-infantry units. In order to purchase and place any infantry in a VC, that VC must have been in your control at the start of your turn (placing an infantry unit in a VC can be considered the same as placing the infantry in the territory containing that VC).

For each of the 5 VCs that are originally owned by each nation, the maximum number of infantry that may be purchased and placed at the VC per turn is equal to the corresponding value of VCPs. The only exceptions to this are that a maximum of only 3 infantry per turn may be placed at the UK and US capitals and only 1 Japanese infantry per turn at each of the Japanese major and moderate VCs.

For each captured VC, the infantry placement limits differ between the Axis nations and the Allied nations. For captured Allied VCs, the occupying Axis nation may purchase and place no infantry at any captured minor VC and 1 infantry per turn at each of the other captured VCs. For captured Axis VCs, the occupying Allied nation may purchase and place 1 infantry per turn at each captured minor VC and 2 infantry per turn at each of other captured VCs.

If any territory containing a VC is attacked before the defender’s first turn, then the defender of that VC gets to immediately purchase any number of infantry not exceeding more than the respective maximums outlined above and place them at that VC. These infantry units are purchased and placed just before the battle takes place. This rule applies only before the defender’s first turn. For example, it can apply to Russia attacking the Ukraine on Russia’s first turn but cannot apply to Germany attacking Karelia on Germany’s first turn (since Russia already had their first turn by the time Germany gets to move).Â

Non-Infantry Unit Placement at ICs

All non-infantry units are still built at ICs, however, unit placement limits at ICs have changed. The total IPC value of all non-infantry units placed per turn at any IC in a given territory may not exceed 4 times the IPC value of that territory. If a certain territory contains both a VC and an IC, then the infantry placement limits for the VC are treated independently from the non-infantry placement limits for the IC.

The cost of purchasing new ICs now depends on the territory in which the IC will be placed. Any player purchasing an IC must declare where the IC will be placed during the ‘Purchase Units’ phase. The IC is still placed during the ‘Mobilize New Units’ phase. To determine the cost of an IC in a given territory, multiply the number of IPCs for that territory by the number of VCPs within that territory and subtract this number from the base IC cost of 15. For example, an IC in India, FIC or Kwangtung now costs 15 - (3 IPCs)(2 VCPs) = 9 IPCs. An IC in W. Europe or C. US now costs only 15 – (6 IPCs)(2 VCPs) = 3 IPCs.  All ICs in territories not containing a VC cost 15 IPCs since 0 VCPs multiplied by any number of IPCs always results in a reduction of no IPCs from the base cost.

An IC can only be placed in a territory that was in your possession at the start of your turn. Furthermore, non-infantry units may only be placed at an IC that was there at the start of your turn. (This means once you take over a territory you have to wait 1 turn to build an IC and yet another turn to build units).

All ICs that were present at the start of the game are permanent (i.e. ICs that were never purchased can never be destroyed). Purchased ICs can be destroyed at the defender’s discretion when the attacker wins the battle over that territory.

Victory Conditions

Just like in the AAR box rules, players agree before the start of the game which set of victory conditions they will use; Total Victory, Major Victory or Minor Victory.

Total Victory: The winning team is the first to control every territory by the end of any US player’s turn.

Major Victory: The Axis win if they control 40 VCPs at the end of any US player’s turn. Likewise, the Allies win if they control 50 VCPs at the end of any US player’s turn.

Minor Victory: Both sides bid the number of turns that they want the game to last if they are the Axis. The team that bids the higher number of turns gets to play as the Axis. The game will automatically end after the US player’s turn on the turn number that won the bid. The team controlling the majority of the VCPs at that time wins the game. Note: This is unlike the major victory conditions or traditional victory city rules in that the winner is not the first side to reach a certain number of VCPs, but the side who maintains control of the majority of the VCPs by a certain turn number agreed upon by both sides. This is intended to better fix the game duration and to allow for quicker games if players are pressured by a time constraint.

[Imperious Leader]

OK heres a few comments:

The total number of possible allied infantry builds is 13 more units than the axis… so the axis have to get over a hump both in terms of regaining paridy of allowable Infantry builds and total Victory points.Furthermore the axis have a comparative demerit on what they conquer vs. what the allies can take. This also makes it difficult for the axis to get over this “manpower hump”

Im not sure why the japanese specifically have a further demerit of one infantry build at major and moderate VC’s This also puts the axis in a manpower bind.

I really like this idea about how for example the germans can immediatly protect those Soviet territories from attack, because in every game with that the Soviet attack was either a disaster or cost them dearly. The japanese benifit from this also if the Soviets attack Manchukou. However i think its not relavent because i think the turn order will eventually be as follows:

1. russia
2. both axis
3. western allies

Determining the cost of Industrial Complex is good and it makes sense, except I would add initially a factory in France, 3 in the Soviet Union ( leningrad, moscow and stalingrad and possibly one in india, Austrailia, or canada.

Lastly, i think Hawaii was far more important to US than Kwangtung. Hawaii should be 2 and Kwangtung should be 1. This change allows more fight in the pacific, rather than china.

So i think the manpower problem should reflect an equal oppurtunity for the axis to “equalize” more quickly with the allies.

I think this can be easily solved with installing limitations on numbers of infantry… for example:

Soviets: 8
Germany:14
Japan:8
Uk:6
USA:8