Can you calculate when to concede (or call "check" on your opponent)?

Well, for starters you could compare your TUV (total unit value) with your opponent as a percentage.

For example, if I have 1600 IPC’s worth of value compared to your 1800, I have 1600/1800 = 88.9% as much as you.

Everyone would agree that at some low percentage - say 20 or 25%, you have no chance of winning.
But I suspect you are looking for a point at which no one has ever come back and won, or a point at which you would only have, say, a remote chance of winning (1 or 2% chance). I think you will get a lot of different opinions about what point that is.

But it’s not as simple as saying “if you get below 75% of your opponent’s TUV you will lose”. As in chess, position (situation) is extremely important, and many players IMO overemphasize TUV. For example, say a power has 125 IPC’s in warships in an ocean that is not being contested. The warships absolutely do not have the same value as 42 infantry defending one of the capitals. So TUV is only a rough gauge of the strength of one’s situation.

I don’t think you really can come up with an objective calculation for the point at which someone has no hope of winning a game because

1. Player attitudes (confidence, mood, fatigue, perceptions)
2. Player skills (If a better player has 80% of the TUV of a less skilled player, he has a much better chance of coming back and winning than a worse player losing to a better player)
3. Dice (Every A&A player knows that anything can and often does happen)

All that said, it would be interesting to look at several actual games that have been played. You could start by looking at the ultimate winner of the game, and determine if the winner was ever behind in TUV, at what point of the game were they behind by the most, and at what percentage were they at when they were behind the most. This would be difficult to do with games you haven’t played or watched, so if I were to do this I would look at the games that I have played. Or, one could track it going forward.

Not sure exactly what you’re getting at, though, Dave, so I’ll post this and see what you or others say…. Anyway, I enjoyed thinking and writing about it…

Our group just prefers to play until the regular victory conditions are met.  In the case of Allied wins, that usually means that the Axis forces are pretty much wiped out because usually either Tokyo or Berlin is the last territory taken.
In the case of Axis wins, it can be a whole different picture.  In some cases, the Axis can win with 8 of 11 VCs on the Europe board or 6 of 8 VCs on the Pacific board yet be totally stomped on the other board with the Allies being very strong.  Sometimes we will simply be tired of playing or want to start a new game so we will simply concede the Axis victory.  Occasionally, we get curious to see how it would really play out so we keep going.  With those games it takes many more rounds and usually ends up with an Allied victory.  It’s kind of like if the actual war didn’t end in 1945 but dragged on until 1949 or 1950.

@Gamerman01:

Well, for starters you could compare your TUV (total unit value) with your opponent as a percentage.

For example, if I have 1600 IPC’s worth of value compared to your 1800, I have 1600/1800 = 88.9% as much as you.

As Gamerman01 correctly pointed out, TUV is a good indicator for a start but it can be also flawed, I can have 20% less units but most of my army can be standing at the doorstep of the enemy’s capital or I can have 20% more but it is all in ships and I’m outnumbered on land. You’ll need to get a 30-50% TUV advantage to really be sure of victory.
Another method as reliable is the total of units for each side. If you keep destroying more enemy units than he can replace then you’ll surely have the advantage.
Another one: income. For instance, the total board income for Revised/AA42 is 166. Axis needs to get that value at least up to 83 and keep/increase it. If Allies can’t stop it then usually the Axis starts outproducing the Allies, who also have to distribute the money between 3 countries instead of just 2.

It also depends on the ‘strategy’ being taken towards winning - you can either go for the VC conditions, which always involve taking at least one capitol and go for the knock-out, decisive victory.
But what most players are usually not aware is that you can win the game with an ‘economic’ victory, if they have the time. Basically, it means that you keep your capitol(s) safe but focus more on keeping the advantage in units and income until you achieve an overwhelming superiority - at that point a skilled player will usually concede because he’ll realize that he can’t beat the advantage. And for those, the TUV, income and unit count are usually what determine victory.

If I am making DOUBLE what you’re making,  you have lost - no arguement.

That said,  any “check” conditions, should be made to the opponent BEFORE the game is started, so they are aware there are other “victory” conditions.

And beyond considering TUV and general economic output I do a “theatre” evaluation.

For example…  Germany,  You have no ships, and 2 planes.  You have no units in Africa, no units in scandinavia, and no ability to reproduce your navy.  Therefore, by the deduction of theatres.  No Air theatre, no African Campaign, no nothern holdings,  you can ONLY win by victory on the eastern front.  Unless victory is impending in your ONLY theatre of operations, you are defeated.  If all respective enemy countries are “theatre” removed and isolated, the game is over.

@Gargantua:

And beyond considering TUV and general economic output I do a “theatre” evaluation.

For example…  Germany,  You have no ships, and 2 planes.  You have no units in Africa, no units in scandinavia, and no ability to reproduce your navy.  Therefore, by the deduction of theatres.  No Air theatre, no African Campaign, no nothern holdings,  you can ONLY win by victory on the eastern front.   Unless victory is impending in your ONLY theatre of operations, you are defeated.  If all respective enemy countries are “theatre” removed and isolated, the game is over.

Not so sure you can summarily dismiss the state of other theatres of the world.  In your example, Japan could be kicking a$$ all over the world since the Allies are playing a KGF strategy.  In this case, all Germany has to do is not lose her capital.

@djensen:

So this isn’t really a house rule but this is more of a general Axis & Allies gaming topic.

Can you calculate objectively when you have no hope of winning a game?

It seems like this should be possible and it would be immensely helpful for when you go “on tilt” after especially bad or good rolls.

1. What’s the calculation?
2. It’s likely a different different in the middle of a round versus the end of the round.

Be careful about every using this calculation on your opponents chances.  Some people don’t take lightly being told they have lost the game (even when it is obvious they have)

@axis_roll:

@djensen:

Can you calculate objectively when you have no hope of winning a game?

Be careful about every using this calculation on your opponents chances.  Some people don’t take lightly being told they have lost the game (even when it is obvious they have)

Right.  :-)
So in other words, no, you can’t objectively calculate the point of no return.  It’s different for everybody anyway.

@Gamerman01:

@axis_roll:

@djensen:

Can you calculate objectively when you have no hope of winning a game?

Be careful about every using this calculation on your opponents chances.�  Some people don’t take lightly being told they have lost the game (even when it is obvious they have)

Right.   :-)
So in other words, no, you can’t objectively calculate the point of no return.  It’s different for everybody anyway.

Since it’s different for everyone, it helps to know what are the most usual factors that a player considers before considering. If you figure them out then you may be able to speed up a game by using them.

If you think your opponent can’t win and you don’t want to keep playing, just ask for a resignation.  If he doesn’t resign, then keep pounding him.  By “speed up the game”, do you mean ending it sooner rather than later, after it gets to be pointless?

@Gamerman01:

If you think your opponent can’t win and you don’t want to keep playing, just ask for a resignation.  If he doesn’t resign, then keep pounding him.  By “speed up the game”, do you mean ending it sooner rather than later, after it gets to be pointless?

I may comment that things don’t seem that good for his side but unless I take Moscow or Berlin I never ask for his resignation. Most likely he’s not seeing what I am seeing so he might not like my unsolicited advice.
What I do however is try to figure out the breaking point for him, essentially pounding him until he resigns to speed the game.