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.
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
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.
OK. Well, then by your logic - historical significance and RL strategic value not being that important - Washington is also a “stupid VC” as (a) London will fall first and (b) the Allied player(s) have usually given up by then.
In fact, it’s stupider since the chance of Axis holding that is even less than their chance of holding Ottawa.
Really then, looking at how the games play out as our guide, I guess there shouldn’t be any VCs in the Western Hemisphere since establishing an Axis foothold there is (a) uncommon in gaming and (b) requires such an Axis juggernaut that continuing play is futile?
#475
Really then, looking at how the games play out as our guide, I guess there shouldn’t be any VCs in the Western Hemisphere since establishing an Axis foothold there is (a) uncommon in gaming and (b) requires such an Axis juggernaut that continuing play is futile?
#475
Sure. You could probably cut down the VCs necessary for endgame to 10 or something, since its so unlikely to occur.
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
Where are you getting your information?
@Brain:
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
Where are you getting your information?
I read this on Harrisgamedesign.com in the forums. Looking again however the question was whether it would be out by June 2010, Larry’s response was “you bet.” So i may have read it wrong the first time or read that it was coming out in May from another site that i cannot remember. Either way, the release date is still up in the air….?
I read this on Harrisgamedesign.com in the forums. Looking again however the question was whether it would be out by June 2010, Larry’s response was “you bet.” So i may have read it wrong the first time or read that it was coming out in May from another site that i cannot remember. Either way, the release date is still up in the air….?
Larry dont sell this games, he just develope them. WOTC sell them, and you cant trust any date or promise from them. I remember AA50 Anniversary ed coming out half a year after the promised date of release.
I also remember a promised re-print of AA50. What happened?
Doesnt it say
“july 2010” on the back of the pacific box?
Thats good enough for me
WOTC will at least get it out either a month before or month after that
