It seems that a majority of us agree that it’s too easy for Japan to obtain 6 VCs and win the game.
I’m wondering if simply changing that number to 7 would prevent quick victories. Make Japan take and hold Hawaii or SF rather than just sailing down to India and then over to Sydney for quick wins.
I’ve been trying to think of good ways to even out the game without making major changes. I feel like one or two tiny tweaks could make all the difference
I agree, India and Australia both falling should be required along with Hawaii or San Francisco.
I think if you want to do it right, you should also adjust the Victory conditions for Allies.
Right now the conditions for Allied victory are silly. Control of Berlin, and Rome and Tokyo and 1 original capital? Seriously? Who expected us to play out a game for that long?
Currently people determine Allied victory based on whether or not Axis can achieve their VC objectives, and not based on the Allied victory conditions themselves. Basically you win as Allies, when your opponent no longer has a prayer of achieving the 8 VCs in Europe, or 6 in Pacific. This is kind of ridiculous.
Allies should have a set number for Victory the same as Axis. Whatever the exact numbers are, both sides should have a simple target number that applies equally to both theaters. I think the break 8/6 is stupid, and encourages a weirdly separated game. This is Global, it should have its own special conditions of Victory, not just mirroring the independent theater boards.
Think about it, how does it make sense in Global, to restrict the Victory conditions for Axis such that they can only win/or lose based on the VCs in a single theater? It doesn’t make sense at all, at least for the unified board. Pick a simple number and have it apply universally
Axis victory at 12 or 13 VCs, something along those lines.
Allied victory at 15 VCs etc.
If you really want a nail biter, make it Allies at 14 controlled by the end of the round, Axis 12. This would mean in order for Axis to win they don’t necessarily require an Allied capital, and same thing for Allies. Perhaps the game could support a straight up 13 VCs or 14 VCs for both sides, by the end of the round (Paris and Hong Kong would ensure Allies don’t win in the first round.
Or whatever you want, so long as its just a single number for each side, and not split up by theater. The way the rules stand at present, beyond a certain point, what happens in one theater ends up being entirely irrelevant to whether or not Axis can achieve Victory in the other theater. This does not make for a well integrated Global game, and glosses over the fact that we’re trying to join these two theater boards together to create one seamless “World” board.
Basically anything would be better than what we have OOB right now, with the impossible Allied Victory conditions and relatively simple 6 VC win for Japan.
Maybe 7 VC but Moscow would count for both the Europe and Pacific maps maybe?
@Cmdr:
Maybe 7 VC but Moscow would count for both the Europe and Pacific maps maybe?
I’m surprised to say that this actually has some merit. Good one Jennifer! I feel like if you make Japan get 7 VC’s on the Pacific side alone it would be too difficult, but maybe this would allow US to spend a lot more heavily in the Atlantic.
@Cmdr:
Maybe 7 VC but Moscow would count for both the Europe and Pacific maps maybe?
Does that mean that Japan would have to take Moscow? OR, Germany takes Moscow and Japan has 6 VCs on the Pacific board?
Black Elk had a good idea of Allies win at 14 VCs and Axis win at 12 VCs across the whole board. Perhaps you could also add the following:
Allied win = Allies control 14 victory cities at the end of a round and one must be a major Axis capital (Berlin or Tokyo)
Axis Win = Axis control 12 victory cities at the end of a round and one must be a major Allied capital (Washington or London)
While I know Moscow is technically a major Allied capital, it can’t count because first it is a major German objective anyway and second it requires no boats to be purchased. All the other capitals require the other side to purchase boats to get there, thus they are harder.
Perhaps you could also add the following:
Allied win = Allies control 14 victory cities at the end of a round and one must be a major Axis capital (Berlin or Tokyo)
Axis Win = Axis control 12 victory cities at the end of a round and one must be a major Allied capital (Washington or London)While I know Moscow is technically a major Allied capital, it can’t count because first it is a major German objective anyway and second it requires no boats to be purchased. All the other capitals require the other side to purchase boats to get there, thus they are harder.
I think this would be ideal. Washington isn’t really contested, so in practical terms this puts added emphasis on London. Tokyo or Berlin is challenging, but achievable. But I like it because it gives Allies a way to actually win in the course of a normal game, instead of the current system where Allies can only win by denying Axis a way to win. Moscow still counts as a VC, so the total number of VCs required for either side would still be doable.
For players that want to play a fast paced sudden death game you could remove the Capital requirement. For those who want to play a more decisive game, you can add in the Capital requirement, which ensures something a bit more climactic. I like it
The way I was thinking was that Japan would need to have 7 Victory Cities and 1 of those 7 must be Axis control of Moscow. OR Germany/Italy could win on the Europe map.
Of course, the way I found personally seems to work best is to require the Axis to win on both maps in order to win the game.
@Cmdr:
The way I was thinking was that Japan would need to have 7 Victory Cities and 1 of those 7 must be Axis control of Moscow. OR Germany/Italy could win on the Europe map.
Of course, the way I found personally seems to work best is to require the Axis to win on both maps in order to win the game.
Yeah, but that would be really hard then. Not impossible, but really hard. In most games it seems to me that if Japan is winning then Germany/Italy is getting beat down or visa versa.
Although I have seen a few games where both Axis sides were cleaning the Allies’ clocks, but that is usually due to poor Allied planning or the Allies losing certain battles and sort of “giving up” on the rest of the game. Not actually surrendering, but they just start playing sloppy, like launching attacks that end up leaving them exposed or buying fighters and tanks for defense instead of infantry.
@Cmdr:
The way I was thinking was that Japan would need to have 7 Victory Cities and 1 of those 7 must be Axis control of Moscow. OR Germany/Italy could win on the Europe map.
Of course, the way I found personally seems to work best is to require the Axis to win on both maps in order to win the game.
I think it would be impossible for axis to win. US just goes 100% Japan until he literally takes his capital, and then swings his other units around towards Germany/Italy.
Can we just pause for a second and consider how ridiculous the conditions for “Allied victory” are? Because honestly, they’re ridiculous!
Official:
The Allies win by controlling Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo for a complete round of play, as long as they control an Allied
capital (Washington, London, Paris, or Moscow) at the end of that round.
I mean consider this situation… say Allies control Berlin and Tokyo, but then Italy prevents the win? Or Allies somehow control Berlin and Tokyo and Rome, but somehow don’t control 1 original capital of their own? I mean when would that ever happen? Why even bother to write it down?
:-D
The way we should approach “Victory” in A&A under the current the VC system, is to think about it from the losing players perspective. In other words… At what point does it become unreasonable to expect the losing player to continue playing?
Right now I’d venture to bet that few people, among those who have clocked Allied wins in Global1940, have truly been winning under the game’s stated “Victory Conditions” for the Allies. The game is basically Axis concession, either Axis win or Axis decide they’ve lost, but there’s basically no good way for Allies to win outright. If you’re going to use the total number of VCs as the determining factor in scoring a Win, then I think the number should settle on something particularly climactic and decisive.
There are 6 Allied capitals, we might say 3 major capitals (London, Washington, Moscow) and 3 minor capitals (Paris, Sydney, Calcutta) along with 8 more VCs for a total of 14 VCs to start.
vs
3 Axis capitals, 2 major (Berlin and Tokyo) and 1 minor (Rome). Beyond this Axis hold only two VCs, meaning they have just 5 VCs in total.
Axis Victory is split by Theater, and probably too easy to achieve.
Allied Victory is Global, and requires an unreasonably masochistic axis opponent to play out to conclusion.
Neither of these Victory conditions is particularly climactic. I mean, say you just ignored VCs and Victory conditions altogether? Because that’s what many people do. Its not because the rules aren’t clear that people are ignoring them, its because the rules aren’t fun! They lead to this weirdly disjointed game where it doesn’t matter for Axis what’s happening on one side of the board, so long as things are going well on the other. That’s your Axis advantage right there! hehe Because for Allies, you have to manage the whole thing, not just one side of it. The way the OOB conditions are worded, Allies can only win by preventing the Axis from winning, which is weird.
Both sides need a viable way to win, and the board should be integrated.
One set number of VCs, for each side (Axis/Allies), counted on both sides of the game map (Europe/Pacific.)
The game just cries out for an HR like this. So I say why stop short, redraft the VC conditions for both sides. Not just for Japan in the Pacific, but both sides of the map, and for Allies too.
Yeah, I understand what you are saying Black_Elk. The sad part of this is that the original victory conditions for the Axis was 14 victory cities across the whole board. What ended up happening was the Allied players virtually ignored the Pacific and pounded the Euro Axis into the ground, then turning their attention to Japan. No matter how big Japan got, they would never be able to get 14 victory cities before Berlin fell and the Allies started turning things around and started reclaiming what Japan had managed to capture. So, not only could the Axis never win, there was no significant action on the Pacific side except for whatever Japan was whomping on. Perhaps a lot of fun for the Japan player as they got to spread their empire farther and farther.
So, they changed the victory conditions to make it more fair for the Axis: 8 victory cities in Europe OR 6 victory cities in the Pacific. Unfortunately, this ended up reversing things for the Axis. Now it is the Allies that have to pay attention to both boards while the Axis can kind of concentrate on winning on one board while basically leaving the other to whither away. There are a number of Axis strategies that involve sending units, usually air power, to the other side to help that side win. Japanese planes strafing Soviet units for an easier attack by Germany. German bombers flying over to the Pacific to can open for Japan navy.
Perhaps the victory conditions for both sides need to be changed.
By the way, I like your example where the Allies control all three Axis capitals, but don’t control any of their own capitals. Imagine that game where ALL capitals were under enemy control. I bet there would be very few units left on the board for either side, otherwise one or the other would be able to liberate a capital for their own side. I’m imagining a big US fleet with plenty of transports but no troops to put on them, just endlessly floating around the board.
OK so 14 in both theaters was too high, I could see that. But to go straight from that to 8 in Europe 6 in the Pacific seems a little silly doesn’t it? I mean from from 14 required down to just 6 VCs in the Pacific to achieve Victory? And breaking it apart into separate theaters?
Why wouldn’t you try 13 VCs total, or 12 VCs total, before you drop it all the way down to 8/6? If 14 VCs was the original idea, 6 is less than half of that!
I still think the Allied victory conditions are beyond crazy. In what A&A universe, can you reasonably expect the Axis player to keep playing until Allies have taken Rome, Berlin and Tokyo for a whole round? Never going to happen. People will quit long before that. I swear, VCs will not be a real and effective means of determining overall victory, until the requirements are roughly balanced by sides.
And, I’ve said it before I know, but it bares constant repetition, VCs would be better if they had a more significant gameplay value unto themselves. You know, like being worth +1 ipc, or +3, or +5. Right now they have no influence on the actual gameplay during the game, they only determine when the game ends. Alas. We need to fix this too. But at least get the numbers right first. Allied requirements are way too steep. For Axis 14 was too high, 8/6 is too low. Find a number somewhere in between, counted for both theaters, and then give the Allies a number that works well in comparison. That would be much better.
Just making Axis pacific victory require 7 VCs doesn’t solve the underlying problem. It still leaves you will a game based on Axis concession. Because Allies have no viable way to achieve Victory by the book.
Some of the victory cities are worth IPCs to the Axis players, at least with NOs.
Japan gets 5 IPCs each for control of Calcutta, Sydney, Honolulu and San Francisco.
Germany gets 5 IPCs each for control of Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. Also, all though it was left out of 2nd edition, I still include the $5 for German control of London.
I guess there are none that I can think of for the Allies.
Young Grasshopper came up with an idea to give IPC values for all the victory cities. I think it was either $3 for regular VCs and $5 for Capitals, OR $5 for regular VCs and $10 for Capitals. I believe this was meant to replace all the current national objectives but could even be used along with the national objectives if you want to get more income into the game.
What if the Axis should be required to own at least one major allied capitol on either map (as part of the 8 in Europe or 6 in the Pacific) to win? For Japan that would be San Francisco to be easier to get than Washington DC.
So for Europe that is 1 of: Moscow, London or Washington D.C. and a total of 8 Victory Cities
For Pacific that is 1 of: Moscow, San Francisco and a total of 6 Victory Cities
I think it is kind of nuts that the Axis can win without an allied capitol.
I agree, India and Australia both falling should be required along with Hawaii or San Francisco.
A crazy idea:
What would happen if Japan Victory Conditions (JVC?) were only to hold:
all Australian territories and
All Pacific Islands group, including Hawaiians in addition of
their originals territories?
Is it too easy to counter?
Will this become much like historical WWII where IJN was fighting hard to conquer all strategic Pacific Islands until the defeat of Midway and Solomons?
Do you think it is possible to formulate a different Victory Conditions for Japan to not get this continuous incentive of going on Center territories?
@Baron:
I agree, India and Australia both falling should be required along with Hawaii or San Francisco.
A crazy idea:
What would happen if Japan Victory Conditions (JVC?) were only to hold:
all Australian territories and
All Pacific Islands group, including Hawaiians in addition of
their originals territories?Is it too easy to counter?
Will this become much like historical WWII where IJN was fighting hard to conquer all strategic Pacific Islands until the defeat of Midway and Solomons?
Do you think it is possible to formulate a different Victory Conditions for Japan to not get this continuous incentive of going on Center territories?
I forgot to say that 6 Victory Cities are still needed.
Amongst San Francisco, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Calcutta, 2 must be captured.
Ceylon is not a part of Pacific Islands but Sumatra and Java are and both must be captured by Japan.
Aleutian Islands must be taken too. But Alaska is not needed.
This Pacific Ocean Hegemonic Empire Victory Conditions, is it too hard for Japan?
This imply 30 additional territories to hold against other Powers.
I’m not sure, if you’ve ever tried just taking all of Australia in a game, you’ve probably seen how monstrous UK Pacific and America can get. The difficulty with this Hegemonic Empire thing, from a Victory conditions standpoint, is that Japan doesn’t make much money as they go along. To pull it off you’d have to take Hawaii early on, but then you’d be all cash strapped.
Some sort of additional NO to support this kind of Victory condition would probably be needed.
I do like the general thrust though, of trying to get Japan to take islands. The income spread doesn’t seem to encourage this much right now. All the air bases and such are nice, but without a money incentive, Japan never concentrates on them.
The actual NOs are:
When Japan Is at War with the Western Allies (United States and/or United Kingdom/ANZAC):
5 IPCs if Japan controls the following territories:
Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, and Solomon Islands.
Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.5 IPCs per territory if Japan controls
India (Calcutta), New South Wales (Sydney), Hawaiian Islands (Honolulu) and/or Western United States (San Francisco).
Theme: Major Allied power centers.5 IPCs if Japan controls all of the following territories:
Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes.
Theme: Strategic resource centers.
Do you think that simply double IPCs bonus (10 IPCs) for each of the 4 VCs and for the 4 islands (Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes) above can make it?
And for the 5 islands of the outer defense perimeter, gives 20 IPCs (quadruple) bonus instead of only 5 IPCs?
Is this enough incentive?
Here is UK’s and Anzac NO’s:
United Kingdom: The British Empire
At the time the war broke out, the United Kingdom had stretched its empire around the world. But the empire was stretched thin and was trying to retain its control on its old centers of power.
When the United Kingdom Is at War with Japan:5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls both Kwangtung and Malaya.
Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.ANZAC: Australian-New Zealand Army Corps
The ANZAC pre-war plans to defend Southeast Asia from a potential Japanese attack were primarily centered on Malaya (Singapore).
They were also focused on defending the strategic islands north of Australia.
When ANZAC Is at War with Japan:5 IPCs if an Allied power controls Malaya and ANZAC controls all of its original territories.
Theme: Malaya considered strategic cornerstone to Far East British Empire.5 IPCs if the Allies (not including the Dutch) control Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands.
Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.
To provide some way of balancing the above, maybe give 10 IPCs bonus (double) instead?
