Bad News, Good News… How about ANY News!

Actually, personally I’ve never had a problem with the idea of Ottawa being a VC.
It’s an absolute pain to capture sure but… realistically what else would have made the US throw in the towel? 
Cairo?

Not to say Cairo shouldn’t be a VC but c’mon comparing the strategic impact… one you’re losing sleep about oil field IPCs and the Suez but the other… man you might as well start checking Amazon.com for discount English-German dictionaries!

#471

@allboxcars:

Actually, personally I’ve never had a problem with the idea of Ottawa being a VC.
It’s an absolute pain to capture sure but… realistically what else would have made the US throw in the towel? 
Cairo?

Not to say Cairo shouldn’t be a VC but c’mon comparing the strategic impact… one you’re losing sleep about oil field IPCs and the Suez but the other… man you might as well start checking Amazon.com for discount English-German dictionaries!

#471

Meh, gives more reasons for the Allies to put troops in the center of the board rather than exist on the fringes…  The US still had awesome production advantages but if you’d have cut the Middle Eastern oil supplies to the Allies it should be reflected somehow in game.  Canada?  How in hell are the Axis realistically supposed to take and hold that for a turn?  You got both Britain and the US right there.  Canada should not be the final say on how a game ends…  “With the seizure of Ottawa, the Allied powers have conceded to the military superiority of the Axis powers and have declared a ceasefire…”  Right.

@allboxcars:

Actually, personally I’ve never had a problem with the idea of Ottawa being a VC.
It’s an absolute pain to capture sure but… realistically what else would have made the US throw in the towel? 
Cairo?

Not to say Cairo shouldn’t be a VC but c’mon comparing the strategic impact… one you’re losing sleep about oil field IPCs and the Suez but the other… man you might as well start checking Amazon.com for discount English-German dictionaries!

#471

Supply to your troops becomes alot harder when you got to go around the horn rather than the canal.

Cairo is imporant and the new vc reflects that.

And it’s unrealistic to expect Ottawa to be taken. Realistically the game was over long ago if Ottawa provided final victory.

@squirecam:

Supply to your troops becomes alot harder when you got to go around the horn rather than the canal.

Cairo is imporant and the new vc reflects that.

And it’s unrealistic to expect Ottawa to be taken. Realistically the game was over long ago if Ottawa provided final victory.

Agreed with all your points and - like I said - Cairo should be a VC.

But the question is should Ottawa be a VC or just another territory.
I’d say the former.
Not saying the number of VCs should be so limited that you HAVE to take Ottawa.
Not saying taking it should be easy or frequent.
But IF (and yes, it is a huge IF but we’re only making the map once and for a diverse bunch of gamers) IF the Axis land troops there, gaining a foothold in North America, you can’t tell me it’s of trivial concern.
Something has to reflect that it’s in the heart of the USA’s hemisphere.

#472

@SgtBlitz:

“With the seizure of Ottawa, the Allied powers have conceded to the military superiority of the Axis powers and have declared a ceasefire…”  Right.

So, instead it should be:
“Axis powers have seized Ottawa today but no one seemed to care. Onto the important news, the fate of Warsaw has the broken the back of the war effort and the towel is being thrown in…”

OK.
Honestly I don’t see making Ottawa an additional VC as either ahistorical or unbalancing game-wise.

#473

all this news is weeks old and has been located in the Pacific/Europe factsheet in the Pacific page of the forum

@allboxcars:

@squirecam:

Supply to your troops becomes alot harder when you got to go around the horn rather than the canal.

Cairo is imporant and the new vc reflects that.

And it’s unrealistic to expect Ottawa to be taken. Realistically the game was over long ago if Ottawa provided final victory.

Agreed with all your points and - like I said - Cairo should be a VC.

But the question is should Ottawa be a VC or just another territory.
I’d say the former.
Not saying the number of VCs should be so limited that you HAVE to take Ottawa.
Not saying taking it should be easy or frequent.
But IF (and yes, it is a huge IF but we’re only making the map once and for a diverse bunch of gamers) IF the Axis land troops there, gaining a foothold in North America, you can’t tell me it’s of trivial concern.
Something has to reflect that it’s in the heart of the USA’s hemisphere.

#472

Well, theres a few ways to look at it.

First, lets exclude the “total war” game. One where your opponent wont conceed till the whole map is axis. In such games, taking Ottawa is a necessary pre-condition to holding Washington.

When you are playing for “x” number of VC’s, the axis have few options to win. If its not Ottawa, then it must be London, or some equally difficult place, like Los Angeles. Its why I was always in favor of a 9 VC revised game (the ninth being moved from LA to Hawaii).

If the axis got Lenningrad, India and Hawaii, they were “generally” on their way to a win, but games never took till death or were unrealistic in forcing the axis to get London or LA. It also made sure the USA at least played somewhat in the pacific.

But isnt the North American region already important? I mean, there are two US VC’s there, plus the point of Alaska as a staging area either offensively or defensively. That region already draws attention. Yet you could conquer an entire continent (Africa) and get no VC, despite the huge amount of resources this would have provided.

I agree that Canada/North America is important. But having three VC there and none in another area (where the oil is) doesnt seem to me to be good VC use.

Keep both as VC. Thats fine. But if you’re saying there has to be a choice, then I’m glad is Cairo.

@squirecam:

Keep both as VC. Thats fine. But if you’re saying there has to be a choice, then I’m glad is Cairo.

Oh no, not a choice.
Cairo, although already a strategic gateway to the Middle East, should be a VC for sure.  8-)

#474

I made Cairo an added VC back in Fall 2008 under my map files for AA50. But i also added Polesti for the axis. Same rules but made the VC more historical because that last VC was too me too far removed from any Historical interpretation for what an Axis victory should involve.

But i also added Azores, Sicily, and Malta and this AAE40 only has considered Malta.

Or dear lord, LONDON will be going first before Ottawa falls if the game has tipped that far to the Axis!  Britain has lost most of its ipcs and is the hardest to reinforce by then, nevermind that the US player can easily retake Canada before the round is up, if British counterattacks from England can’t do the job themselves.  Ottawa is a stupid VC in Axis and Allies anyway, Washington and London are better targets endgame, and the Allied player(s) have usually given up by then too.

(This isn’t that I hate Canada, lol, its more about game design.  BLAME CANADA!!! BLAME CANADA!!!)

Id like to see 12 victory cities

Washington
Ottawa
London
Paris
Berlin
Warsaw
Rome
Lenningrad
Stalingrad
Moscow
Cairo
Bucharest

Making the global game total 20, The axis needing to take 14 for a minor victory, 16 for a major victory and 18 for a crushing defeat

Id also like to see a rule that if London is taken, ANZAC and Canada continue to operate normaly

Why wouldn’t the game just stop at 14? At the very least you’d think the allies would realize their position is deteriorating and just concede.

@Gwlachmai:

Why wouldn’t the game just stop at 14? At the very least you’d think the allies would realize their position is deteriorating and just concede.

Some people will claim that “anything” could have happened, and therefore, if they are not totally beaten then its a “draw”.

I usually avoid playing such people…

They can’t really claim anything could happen, at the very least there would be a minor victory for one side. My question is why would you play it out any further then, that unless there was a set number of turns as well.

14 leaves 6

Washington, San Fransisco, Ottawa, London, Moscow, Sidney

All allied capitals are intact, but all readily avalable VCs have been captured by the axis

Two more taken would be a total defeat.

The allies reduced to only 2 powers, becuase Sidney and either London or Moscow would be next

Right, but, why continue once I have 14 cities…I’ve won, after that we’re just arguing about degrees.

you have expended your army beoynd its breaking point

Lets say to capture leningrad and stalingrad, germany only built armor.
There are only sparse pockets of german units in between moscow and berlin
Leningrad and stalingrad are held by only one armor a piece

A higher number of victory cities encourages teams to play fair, you cant sacrifice protecting yourself just to take some VCs.

The game isnt fun if its just a race to get a slim VC majoirity
Its a race to get a substancial VC majority, while offering the enemy no chance to recapture any of his.

I say, “Play to the bitter end.” Do away with the VC’s.

Me and my friends usually play until one side feel defeat is inevitable. VCs are a great way to do tournaments where there is a time limit.

We’ve seen crazy scenarios like : Russia taken by Germany, France (taken by UK) + Italy taken (USA), Germany taken soon after (UK). Russia liberated fairly easily. WUSA taken (The axis knew they’ve lost UNLESS they could secure a victory in WUSA with very low probability. You know, something like USA has 20 infantry and japan only 6-8 ground units but 10 fighters, and still win (if I remember well, only 1 fighter got hit by AA gun)…). EUSA Taken shortly after… Allies concede (Will you play this game where Japan has close to 80 IPC against a 40-50 UK and 20-25 Russia? We decided the Allies couldn’t win :()

I read the same thing about Europe40 coming out in May. Any update on this being pushed back til July or after?! Please say its not so  :x