Victory Cities
Ok, now for our VC discussion. This should be fun. I found this list on Larry Harris’s board (creator of A&A) and thought it would be a good starting point for our discussion. For the most part I like this list except for a few cities which I have noted. I have also listed some possible replacements/additions.
The VCs are tiered with 20, 15 and 10 point cities. Each nation has one 20 and 15 point city and three 10 point cities. (I may be in favor of reducing this to two 10 point cities for a total of 4 cities per nation.)
20 point cities are:
Washington
London
Moscow
Berlin
Rome
Tokyo
15 point cities are:
San Francisco
Calcutta
Stalingrad
Paris
Athens
Peiping
10 Point cities are:
Honolulu
Manila
Panama City (Not sure if I like this one)
Canberra
Cairo
Singapore
Leningrad
Baku
Vladivostok
Oslo
Warsaw
Budapest
Tripoli
Mogadiscio (Not an Option on our Map Needs to be replaced)
Palermo
Okinawa
Seoul (Not sure if I like this one)
Taipei
Others Options
Cape Town
Bangkok
Shanghai
Chungking
Milan
Taranto
Larry Harris’s Thread
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=546&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
South America is fine now. It wasn’t really involved in WWII… Still, I would like Portugal to be added, you add the Azores (colony of Portugal, but not the Homeland) while I know it is only neutral… and add the name of Corsica.
On victory cities I have some more suggestions;
Batavia on Java. (East Indies where important to Japan!!)
Guadalcanal on the Solomon Islands (not really a city, but the most known area and historical important)
Madrid (Spain), Istanbul (Turkey), Stockholm (Sweden)
Tobruk (see it on the map, but not in your list)
Cape Town (South Africa)
Basra (Iraq)
Kiev (Ukraine)
Ploesti or Bucharest (Roumania) Very important to Germany
Rangoon (Burma) Important to the Burma Road
Gibraltar (Was very important to the Allies for entrance to the med. and to Italy)
Valletta (Malta) Most bombed place of WWII
Micoom,
Tobruk (see it on the map, but not in your list)
Yes, there are cities on the map that are not victory cites. Hong Kong, Tobruk, Chungking are not victory cities.
Thanks for the suggestions on the victory cities but…
I think your list is way to long, actually I think my list may be a bit too long. We can’t add every city that had conflict or that was a point of interest. We need to keep it concise balancing game play with historical fact. I am also not in favor of victory cities in neutral counties, they encourage players to invade neutral territories that were not invaded during the war, I can understand why some might want them on the map but in my opinion they are unnecessary.
You make a good counter point on Portugal. The difference is that Portugal allowed Britain to use the Azores as an airbase. Not really neutral is it? I will make a test and see what the group thinks.
Thanks for the input, I’m glad you have a different point of view.
It isn’t necessary to use all cities, but choose the best from all. My understanding was that your list isn’t the final one. So I made some extra suggestions.
First off its nice to see Micoom around here. Now i know this will get better.
Heres your list with my suggestions:
This is now modified according to those guidelines you just posted:
1. Equal cities for each nation. (Italy will have a hard time with this)
2. “Fairness†None of the cities should be easier to be captured than another, in theory.
3. Not so many cities that when a player loses one they say “Oh well†and move on. Losing cities should still be a big deal.
4. Keep the number down, but more than the current AA game. (I like the idea of 4 to 5 cities per nation, beyond 30 cities is just way too many.)
5. Encourage fighting in the historically correct regions of the world, but allow for creative plans of attack.
6. No two cities adjacent to one another. (I know Warsaw is next to Berlin, but I figured you guys would go nuts if I left off Warsaw and I would have to agree.)
20 point cities are: 6 total
Washington
London
Moscow
Berlin
Rome
Tokyo
15 point cities are:12 total
San Francisco-US
Honolulu-US
Singapore-JP
Hsingking-JP
Leningrad-SU
Milan-ITL
Taranto- ItL
Stalingrad-SU
Paris-GER
Canberra-UK
Ploesti oil center-GER
Cairo/ Alexandria/ Suez- UK
10 Point cities are: 18 total
Archangel-SU
Manila- JP
Calcutta-UK
Panama canal-USA
Baku-SU
Peiping-JP
Oslo-GER
Warsaw-GER
Addis Ababa- ITL ( capital of abbysinia in africa)
Tunis-ITL
Toranto-UK
Okinawa-JP
Shanghai-USA
Chungking-USA
Tobruk-ITL
Kiev-GER
Chelyabinsk (Tankograd)-SU
Cape Horn-UK
wild card points: 5 total
Ankarra-neutral
Madrid-neutral
stockholm-neutral
Istanbul-neutral
Mosul-neutral
ok now each nation has 1 -20 point , 2 -15 point, and 3 -10 point= 80 points each X 3= 240 per side and 480 total. I woulkd like to make wildcard cities variable in the game Roll one die on conquest : 1-2= 10 points, 3-4= 15 points, 5-6= 20 points
note that eastern SU is not attractive to Japan due to not points… hopefully japan will leave Russians alone.
I could make four 5 point spots for each player which would give each player 100 points to start… nice round number.
Micoom,
I apologize if my last post sounded negative that was not my intent.
I assumed that your list was an addition to the current list which I feel would be way too many cities.
But if they are replacements then some of them could work.
Some of my goals for VCs. But not the requirements, I can be persuaded by a good argument.
1. Equal cities for each nation. (Italy will have a hard time with this)
2. “Fairness†None of the cities should be easier to be captured than another, in theory.
3. Not so many cities that when a player loses one they say “Oh well†and move on. Losing cities should still be a big deal.
4. Keep the number down, but more than the current AA game. (I like the idea of 4 to 5 cities per nation, beyond 30 cities is just way too many.)
5. Encourage fighting in the historically correct regions of the world, but allow for creative plans of attack.
6. No two cities adjacent to one another. (I know Warsaw is next to Berlin, but I figured you guys would go nuts if I left off Warsaw and I would have to agree.)
7. Minimize the amount of math. Keep the scoring simple.
8. The majority of the group is happy with the final list.
I’m not too keen on the island cities; I feel that the current list has enough cities in the south pacific to entice Japan to move south.
I don’t think Toburk will work due to its proximity to the current VCs and the fact that it is in the hands of the UK. So I guess we could use it if we removed Cairo but I feel Cairo is better suited for a VC.
I like Cape Town, I have put it on the map a few times, only problem is if we keep the current count what city does UK lose to add CT?
Same with Kiev I like the fact that it is closer to the Russian border and away from Germany but what does Germany lose to add Kiev?
I could live with losing Budapest for Bucharest. It’s further away.
The others were important but I don’t feel they warrant VC status. Just my opinion.
Thanks for the suggestions that is what I and the rest of the group are looking for.
Hey, Deepblue, great job of the changes and edits you’ve made to the map. They look great. I should probably apologize for posting the map and then just disappearing. I’ve been without internet for while.  Anyways, unless you really don’t want to, I’d love it if you kept working on the map. You’re more on top of getting outside input than I ever was, and frankly I have a feeling I’d be too busy to do it right. All I ask is that when you’re done, post the .psp files with everything in layers still. That would be awsome. After looking at your updated map, I do have a few issues, though…
A. Having Germany start so close to Moscow might create some game play issues. Namely I think it might cut down on a lot of the possible dynamics on the eastern front. Unless the starting setup is done extremely well, games might often play out with Germany buying all tanks every turn to send right towards Moscow, and with Russia buying all men every turn to defend Moscow. Also, by starting Germany so far forward, you pretty much force the German player to always commit to going after Russia first. Granted, this is how games normally go either way, but it would be nice if the German player would at least have the option of going defensive on the eastern front and then trying an Operation Sealion or a big push through Africa and the Middle East.
Remeber, in the new rules I posted with my map originally, the new turn order is…
1. Germany
2. Russia
3. Japan
4. United Kingdom
5. Italy
6. USA
Having Germany go first, while already all the way in Western Russia might really restrict the starting setup. I would suggest putting Baltic States, Western Russia, Eastern Ukraine, and Crimea back under Russian control at the start of the game, and then have Germany’s starting setup put them in a position to take those four territories on the first turn of the game, if they decide to.
B. Italian Territory. In the turn order above, you’ll see that United Kingdom gets to move before Italy. This means, that you could give Italy a little more territory at the start, such as Abyssinia or Italian Somaliland, and then just make sure that the UK starts in a position to take these on its first turn and bring the map back closer to historical alignment. Granted, Japan goes before both UK and Italy, and its generally assumed that Japan’s first turn signifies December of 1941, however from a gameplay standpoint, Japan’s first move has pretty much zero impact on what’s going on in Africa, so I don’t think it would necessarily be bad to fudge things there just a little bit for the sake of gameplay.
C. China and new infantry. I saw that someone earlier in this thread posted the rules from Axis & Allies: Pacific on how China gets new infantry each turn. When I made this map, I never intended for it to be played with those rules. I compensated for them by just giving China a larger number of men in their starting set up. I think you should still put the Chinese capital symbol in Chungking, however you should probably make two different starting setups so that players can play both with and without the AA:P rule. Also, the AA:P rule will probably need to be modified slightly, even if it is used. In regular AA:P, China only starts with control of two territories with an IPC value. In my map they start in control of 9 such territories. If you followed the AA:P rules with no modification, I think that would be far too many new infantry for China to get each turn. I think a simpler route would be to just give China more starting men scattered through out all their territories. The men in the west would then take a few turns to get to the Japanese front, which would probably work out the same as having a few new men pop in at Chungking each turn.
D. Burma Road, Trans-Siberian Railway, Trans-Continental Railroad. I saw there was some debate about weather to keep these or not. Personally I would suggest putting them back in. Without the Trans-Siberian Railway, it would take the Russian player 7 long turns to send new infantry or artillery to a possible Japanese front. By the same token, a Japanese player who’s trying to make a push against Russia would have to take 7+ turns to get infantry or artillery to Moscow. Without the Railway, I have a feeling most games are going to end up playing out in two seperate theaters, with Japan and Germany not ever working together on a more tactical level. With the railway there, players have the option of not following history, if they desire to. The Burma Road is probably the least necessary of the three, however my goal with it was to give the UK player a way to reinforce China in a somewhat timely fashion. As for the Trans-Continental Railroad, without it, it would take US infantry 4 whole turns to move between Western United States and Washington. That seemed like too long of time to me. With the railroad the US player can shuffle troops between both coasts in only two turns, which is how it is in normal revised AA.
E. Northwest Territores. I would suggest moving this text more over to the right so that it clearly touches the land mass north of Quebec. This would make it more clear that this land mass is supposed to be part of the Northwest Territories. (Assuming that’s what you intended.)
F. The long, thing island north of Japan. I have no idea what the island is supposed to be called, but since you added to many other small islands, you might as well put a name on it. The other option would be to clarify that its part of the main Japanese islands, and thus Japan touches that sea zone. If it is supposed to be part of the main Japanese islands, then I would move the border line south of it more to the north, so that it passes through the middile of the small, thin island. This would make things more clear.
G. We should probably clarify weather or not two two sea zones on the left and right of the Philippines touch or not.
H. I saw you got rid of the Battleship image in the Atlantic to make room for the Azores and Bermuda. You might as well get rid of the destroyer and bomber images in the other two oceans, too. I know some people don’t like stuff like that on their game board anyways, and with only two images left, I don’t think they add much anymore.
Anyways, that’s all I can think of right now. Keep up the great work. Once you get it down I’ll have to print out a new copy to replace my old map.
I totally agree with posi with Germany’s starting Pos., Pull them back. If you keep it this way every game will be the same, sad to say but true. I want to see German panthers rolling in red square also, but not every game
The original map works great with the exception of a few things. They have been addressed. and them some :cry:
1. Control of Libya changed –Done
2.Spelling and area miss Identification-- Done
3. Victory Cities-- They look great.
4. Siberian Rail way, Burma Road, Transcontinental Railroad—Put them back as they were Please :cry:
5. Madagascar-- Good
6 Not sure if I like Sahara Going all the way to Atlantic.
7. I think I like Japan’s old color better. Matches Red Jap pieces better from pacific
8. Probably Mundane But Anchors and Airfields Are missing. ( I’m sure U no this)
9. China’s Inf. production should be based on the income they collect they make 9 IPC’s so thats 3 Inf. Place them along Burma road and their capitol. Also If you are Giving China a “capitol” Burma Road should not run through West Bengal. That way it is still 4 spaces from Calcutta. And as long as china gets a capitol Do they get a factory? or option to buy 1 with American $.
10. Text missing from Neutral’s
11. Portugal not needed
12. Where is Saigon? Definatly needs to be there. the territory that is.
13. I like Greece in Italian Hands.
Just some of my thoughts. Thanks for your time on this project. I think we almost have got it.
IL’s, VC system looks good, Japanese attacking Moscow will be limited. That is a GOOD thing.
Deepblue, I wasn’t offended or anything, we just seemed to misunderstood eachother… You have the lead, Me and others just try to help, and sometimes try to convince you that things should be done different. We all want the best game!
German Strategy issues. Well with your chosen setup of Dec. 1941 you have the same problem as Revised has in 42. Germans are already at the Moscow gate. So indeed same basic strategies, because of more territories better then revised, but still same restrictions. Therefore change the setup to June 1941. Germany still has to start it’s war against Russia. US player, can only move the Chinese on the first turn. Japan may attack only Chinese on the First turn. Somewhat like that…
Yes Micoom’s suggestion does work if gets pushed back like that. Also in June, Italy just lost the East African Holdings, but it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to make use of Positronica’s suggestion giving those back to ITaly. I like the suggestion of having USA only play China turn one, by the time round two rolls around we could be right at PEarl, bringing USA fully into the war.
The island north of Japan is Sakhalin, which was disputed territory between USSR and Japan.
pushing back the starting date and the German advance could give Germany more options rather than just the eastern front, but what if they choose not to go there, then the Soviet Union has all this extra income with which to invade Germany and now Germany has lost the complete tactical surprise that they historically had. Here the SU knows that they are going to fight, but historically they didn’t listen to warnings of the coming attack. I have questions that pushing Germany back here and allowing Germany to engage elsewhere would only lead to the same German/SU battle, only in Poland rather than Stalingrad/Moscow with the advantage to SU. No matter where Germany starts they could attack elsewhere, say decide to invade UK. With the Eastern Front pushed so far into SU, they have additional time to prepare Sea Lion while slowing the SU advance.
Perhaps there should be something put in similar to the Russia/Japan non-aggression treaty where if the Soviets attack Germany, there is an immediate addtion of troops to that front.
On the other hand, if Germany is going first, I could see Russia still holding at least Western Russia so at least they don’t attack Moscow on turn 1
I guess I think there should be a close look at what this setup would entail to gameplay/history. It’s a big change this far into the discussion. Perhaps it could be a second map itself.
IF Germany starts so close to Russia on this map I DON"T want it. Might as well play revised cause thats what you got
In my opinion You have improved somethings which is great, thank you, but on the other hand you have ruined this map and it’s ability to be realistically different, game in and game out. Right now it is just not so. Please fix and put back the way it was or I will change this map with Photo shop my self. I don’t want to sound rude sorry but I think Positronica definatly hit a home run on the first go, minus a few clerical errors.
Yea why not push back the starting date to june 41… then some of those territories that are under axis control in africa look a bit better… and the axis get the ability to begin her fight in the Soviet Union. This will keep out the US and Japan for a turn or two, while the Soviets have their space from germany.
It kinda solves alot of issues at the same time. It will probably give the balance in victory cities that are needed.
Absolutly Imp. Pull GE back.
The godfather returns! Good to see you back on the thread Positronica.
Glad you like the changes.
You make valid points.
It brings us back to the underlining struggle of game play vs. historical fact. Where do we draw the line? This group seems a bit more vocal towards the historical rather then game play. My view is to stay historically accurate as long as it does not sacrifice game play. If I have to choose I will choose game play.
Counterpoints to your changes:
A. Great point makes sense but…
1. I think murraymoto is right they are going to fight it out from turn one on no matter what. We just get to decide where.
2. With the increase of territories this increases income, but we have not increased the cost of units so in theory Germany should have the extra income to support offensives in other regions of the world.
3. No matter where the line is Germany can choose to turtle and bleed the Russians as they come.
4. I did not take into account the game play order, not to sure if I like it in its current order but give me some time to chew on it.
With all that said I am not averse to moving the date back a bit. It will probably solve some other issues as well.
B. When I started this project I moved the date back to accommodate Italy’s control of eastern Africa. I like the idea of putting more conflict in Africa and it fits Larry Harris’s VC list better. But I did not like the affect on other parts of the world and the fact that the US player is now removed from turn one. But I am in favor of this setup with some creativity. Micoom’s suggestion below could solve some of my concerns about the US.
C. I agree all the additional rules and the setup we are planning to use (example China’s forces) need to be looked at in detail and will need modifications.
D. The roads and rails. Your points are accurate. They would allow for easier movement. I just don’t think putting roads/rails on the map is the way to do it. This is too granular. Where are the roads and rails in Europe? Don’t the Germans get to move troops between their two fronts? Also wouldn’t the Russian sabotage/destroy their rails as they retreated? Hindering the Japanese advance. I think games like Europe Engulfed have solved this problem easily and effectively. They use strategic moves. This would be simple to implement.
Example:
Combats moves, resolve combat, non combat moves, strategic moves.
Each nation would get a fixed number of strategic moves that reflect the amount of transportation infrastructure they had.
They would get to move that number of pieces any where within their colored territory Red for Russian, Grey for Germany (this is a modification from that actual EE rule). So the Russians could move troops to the east if they need to react to the Japanese, the Americans could move troops to the California coast if necessary and the Germans could react to an invasion of France.
This is a very simple system and I ask everyone to think about it. Maybe download and read the rules for games like EE and give it a chance before dismissing it.
Also, the rule set can be modified to better fit our needs.
E. It was my intent and I will do.
F. Not sure what to do with that island. Hopefully the group will express their opinions.
G. My first response is to make it one sea square by lowering the bottom boarder so it surrounds the islands. I am trying to remove any vagueness from the map. Players should not have to refer to the manual to see if a square is touching another.
H. The battleship is not gone just displaced for the moment. At first I was not a big fan of the images but they are growing on me. I was going to address this later once we have discussed the sea zones in more detail.
If you want GE to have it’ tactical advantage over Russia while pulling back the Russian front, just have Russia make a smaller portion of there income. This is to represent Peace time Russia not a full blown war economy. Once Russia is involved in the World War then they get there full Pay, or You could give them, GE, two attack moves on the first turn, or both.
Roads, Put a Road in Europe and call it the Autobahn. I think that would be a great Idea. Would the russians destroy them from Japan, I’m sure they would. So make it so roads don’t give any benifits the turn they are captured.
Each nation would get a fixed number of strategic moves that reflect the amount of transportation infrastructure they had.
This is a much better idea its called strategic redeployment. here is where it would look like if using a balanced historical data approach:
Germany 9
Italy 5
France 5
Soviets 6
England 5
USA 9
Japan 6
9/5/6=20
5/6/9=20
The idea of puting rail lines on the map looks kinda strange, but i do like the burma road thing, perhaps you should make a trade route for murmansk convoys and lend lease from persia. if the Axis cut it off then Soviets are reduced on Lend lease payments?
Imp,
I’m glad you like the idea. Your numbers maybe a bit to high but I could live with them.
Also, if this rule is in place a player could choose to strategic bomb strat moves instead of IPCs, giving a player more options.
Also, if this rule is in place a player could choose to strategic bomb strat moves instead of IPCs, giving a player more options.
That would be a cool idea, to bomb strategic redeployment. Only decide then, if the dice is rolled for reducing the total, or just for blocking that specific area you’re bombing.
Removing the railways and roads would probably work if you put in some sort of other strategic move. Â Another simple option might be to just say that infantry and artillery can move two spaces during non-combat, however that might prove too unbalancing. Also, the idea of having SBRs affect this tactical move ability is an interesting one, and might actually make SBRs more usefull.
As for the starting position of the eastern front, I stand by my suggestion to pull it back a tad, especially if Germany gets to move first. Â Ideally Germany’s starting setup would put them in position to be breathing down Russia’s neck at the end of turn one, but doing so would leave Germany spread a tad thin. Â Also, I don’t we need to get super hung-up on making sure the entire map ALL starts in the same month of 1941. Â The turn order itself can signify the passage of time, and thus I think the European Theater can reflect a slightly earlier period than the Pacific Theater. Â As for Italy, after looking at the new map a bit more, I don’t really regret the changes to Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland as much. Â Giving Greece to Italy makes up for it enough, and I think Italy still has a lot of play options at its disposal.
As for the turn order, it could possibly be changed from what I have listed. Â Whatever its changed to, though, there’s a few considerations that I think need to be followed. Â First off, the turn order should always alternate between an axis player and then an allied player. Â That would keep things more fair by not allowing either side to have two powers move back to back. Â Secondly, USA should always have its move after Japan, assuming that the starting setup for Japan is right before Pearl Harbor. Â Here’s a few other possible turn orders that I think would work well…
1. Germany
2. Russia
3. Italy
4. United Kingdom
5. Japan
6. United States
The benefit of this turn order is that all the real important stuff in the Pacific Theater doesn’t happen until the very end of the turn sequence. Â This helps justify having the European Theater start at a slightly earlier date. Â The downside of this order though, is that Italy gets to move before the UK, which depending on the setup might allow Italy to make more initial gains than would have ever been historically possible. Â However, with Italy’s territories changed the way you have them on the new map, I think this turn order might work better than the one I originally had listed.
1. Russia
2. Germany
3. United Kingdom
4. Japan
5. United States
6. Italy
This turn order would be closer to regular AA:Revised. Â (The new order I put together for my map originally was based on combining the turn orders from AA:E and AA:P.) Â If you went with this setup, I would still pull the eastern front one space back towards Germany, however don’t give Russia the front line power in its starting setup to have a realistic chance of pushing Germany back any farther on its first turn. Â Instead the Russian player could either gamble on pushing Germany back, or he could reinforce his front lines and try to balance how many reinforcements he can put on the road to Moscow without leaving the road to Stalingrad wide open. Â It would give both Germany and Russia more gameplay options on their first turns. Â Having Italy go last probably wouldn’t be too bad either, and with the UK going before Italy, you could give Abyssinia and/or Italian Somaliland back to Italy and put the UK in a position to take them on the first turn if he chooses to.
1. Germany
2. United Kingdom
3. Italy
4. Russia
5. Japan
6. United States
This order would allow the Russian player to see what both Germany and Italy are going to do before having to make his move. Â It would also put the allies in a better position to see how the UK if fairing before deciding what tactical routes to commit to. Â The UK would still go before Italy, which could justify giving Abyssinia and/or Italian Somaliland back to Italy, and the Pacific Theater would still be kept at the very end of the turn order.
So, anyone else have any comments on which of these turn orders, or any other turn orders they think would be he best? Â To be honest, I think we should try to settle on a turn order sooner rather than later, cause I think the turn order can greatly impact the allocation of starting territories.
