The purpose of the 6 VC rule is to make the USA worry about the Pacific
I’m shocked that no one has mentioned getting rid of the 6 victory city rule in the Pacific for an Axis win and continually talk about changing the set up. Talk about keeping it simple stupid. The 6 Victory City rule gives a massive advantage to the Axis as it forces an inefficient use of the USA’s resources, forcing it to maximize its resources against Japan.
It may not be enough, but it is definitely a start.
the victory city rule is a key part in making global the best axis and allies game. allies can no longer abandon one side and win the game.
the game is now slightly in favour of the axis, about 6-18ipc bids to the allies. removing the victory cities would not only remove the fun of the allies fighting across the globe, but would result in bids being even larger than they currently are… but for the axis.
I can’t yet prove that is false as I have only played 5 games on global. I played 4 games with just Europe 2nd edition and 4 with pacific. I have played countless other games with edition
I have played countless other games of different variants and editions. The new rules, set up, and NO’s I think are enough to prevent the allies from ignoring Japan. They can’t ignore them. A japan that takes Anzac, China, India, the middle east and half of Russia would still be a major power to contend with, even if Germany falls. So the 6 victory city is not needed.
I can’t say definitively that without the 6 victory city condition, it would be completely balanced, but my impression so far is that luck, strategy, concentration (especially since they are very long games), and overall tactics matter so much in this game, it by far is a greater determining factor in who wins then any initial unbalance. That is my impression anyway.
I can’t stand the 6 victory city condition because the Allies can very easily be in a condition of winning yet lose due to the condition forcing the US to spend inefficiently in the Pacific. They can’t ignore the Japs but they shouldn’t be their key focus. It is unhistorical, unrealistic, and not strategically sound except for that 6 victory city rule.
Maybe it should be an 8 victory city rule.
I have played countless other games of different variants and editions. The new rules, set up, and NO’s I think are enough to prevent the allies from ignoring Japan. They can’t ignore them. A japan that takes Anzac, China, India, the middle east and half of Russia would still be a major power to contend with, even if Germany falls. So the 6 victory city is not needed.
To contend with for doing what? Without the 6 VC rule, how would the Axis win? An 8 VC rule? USA has 3 major factories, and can drop 20 units a turn easily if the Japanese even get close to Los Angeles.
I have played countless other games of different variants and editions. The new rules, set up, and NO’s I think are enough to prevent the allies from ignoring Japan. They can’t ignore them. A japan that takes Anzac, China, India, the middle east and half of Russia would still be a major power to contend with, even if Germany falls. So the 6 victory city is not needed.
To contend with for doing what? Without the 6 VC rule, how would the Axis win? An 8 VC rule? USA has 3 major factories, and can drop 20 units a turn easily if the Japanese even get close to Los Angeles.
I also believe that Japan has little chance if Germany falls and there is no 6 victory city rule. I think the Allies indeed could ignore Japan.
I don’t like the 6 victory city condition, myself. Maybe if it was 7. I don’t like that Axis can win the whole ding-dong game no matter how badly Europe goes if Japan can take basically 2 outer cities (Hong Kong and Phillipines are a given) and neither of them is a major world capital.
It’s kind of like the cheesy economic condition win of the original game, only worse. To get the economic win in the original game you normally would have to be doing very well with Germany AND Japan.
The 6 VC win condition smells of a lazy attempt to balance the game and make the USA commit to both theaters. It could have been so much better…
7 out of 8 feels high (and limiting strategically) to me … maybe if there were 9 VC to choose from, then 7 out of 9 would be good.
Maybe Panama could count as a Pacific VC (though not on the Pacific map). This would mean any Pacific victory would require at least 1 American territory (which I would say is good).
Hmmmm,
as long as the USA is allowed it’s ‘gamey’ ignore-Japan-on-the-Pacific-completely-to-crush-Germany-and-Italy,
I feel 6 VC’s for Japan on the pacific are recquired. Otherwise, who would want to play Axis, knowing you will loose the game no matter what you try.
As it is now, the VC’s are ‘hard’ enough for Japan because any standard Japanese play has to be thrown out the window if the USA is spotted to focus on Europe near-100%.
I say ‘hard’ because to counter this strong USA-strategy, Japan has to fall back into sub-optimal play, easily countered by the allies and, if so, not so easily repaired by Japan (tho it does interrupt the flow of troops into europe for a turn or two).
First of all, Japan trying to take Los Angeles would be foolish unrealistic and not a world war 2 game, but something entirely different.
Secondly, the answer to the US ignoring Japan, is not force the US to almost ignore what is, was, and should be the greatest threat which is Germany. This is still a world war 2 game, not risk with a map of the world.
Thirdly, the game as it is today, in my opinion, if Japan was totally ignored, could end up easily taking Anzac. So if you raised the VC limit to 7, then taking Hawaii and Anzac would produce a victory.
But the answer, the true, historic, realistic, keeping it simple answer to the lack of action in the Pacific problem is now obvious. You can’t ignore Japan, you just can’t, but the majority of resources still must be spent of Germany to keep it balances. So how do you encourage meaningful action in the Pacific without altering the balance of the game in an unrealistic, and unhistorical fashion.
BY DRAMTICALLY LOWERING THE RESOURCES IT TAKES TO BUILD A NAVY SO REAL BATTLES CAN BE FOUGHT WITHOUT SACRIFICING SO MUCH IN OTHER MORE IMPORTANT FRONTS.
Navy’s are way to expensive. Make them comparable in cost to land units.
Transports $3
Subs $4
Destroyers $5
Cruisers $6
Battleships $9
Air Craft Carriers $6
Planes $8 and let them pick there targets at sea. Each side would then have planes and you would get realistic air to air battles.
This is keeping it simple to the core. Germany would be able to fight a real Atlantic battle and would offset the cheaper transports for the US.
Japan and the US could go at it without sacrificing their other theatres. Japan could really threaten Anzac and the US could build a real Navy without sacrificing so much in the European theatre.
This is the answer with the new setup.
BY DRAMTICALLY LOWERING THE RESOURCES IT TAKES TO BUILD A NAVY SO REAL BATTLES CAN BE FOUGHT WITHOUT SACRIFICING SO MUCH IN OTHER MORE IMPORTANT FRONTS.
Navy’s are way to expensive. Make them comparable in cost to land units.
Transports $3
Subs $4
Destroyers $5
Cruisers $6
Battleships $9
Air Craft Carriers $6
Planes $8 and let them pick there targets at sea. Each side would then have planes and you would get realistic air to air battles.This is keeping it simple to the core. Germany would be able to fight a real Atlantic battle and would offset the cheaper transports for the US.
Japan and the US could go at it without sacrificing their other theatres. Japan could really threaten Anzac and the US could build a real Navy without sacrificing so much in the European theatre.This is the answer with the new setup.
I have a feeling that not a lot with change in terms of how well one country can do vs another.
A change in pricing structure like that (without any other changes) is crazy. Might make for a fun house rule game.
Aircraft carriers that cost only 1.5 times more than a submarine instead of 2.67?
Planes that only cost 2 IPCs more than a tank?
I don’t see how this ensures a Pacific war. It ensures that you will have a lot more Allied landings on Western Europe and Germany won’t be able to survive, is what it would do.
Germany relies a lot on the high cost of raising navies and amphibiously assaulting Western Europe, Italy, and Scandinavia. A radical pricing structure like this would wreck the game.
First, remember we are dealing with the fact that the Axis have the unrealistic advantage
Two, the most radical change that I am know proposing, I have not tested, but believe subs also being so much cheaper would allow Germany to put up a fight. Another words you would have a real battle of the Atlantic.
Third, the less draconian change, if you look at my previous posts have been tested. We have played that way with Revised, World at War, and Global version 1 and version2. With that let me make this statement. Whatever net advantage it gives the Allies, with the new set up, and grand scope of the global, strategy, tactics, concentration (not making mistakes), and multitasking matter so much in this game, it dwarfs any net advantage this would cause. That is my experience. Again, I have only play tested with the more moderate price cut.
First, remember we are dealing with the fact that the Axis have the unrealistic advantage
Whoa. The Axis may have a slight advantage, if any at all. It’s not unrealistic - the game is supposed to be close to 50/50 chance for either side, and it is actually quite close to even. Inexperienced players have a lot of trouble winning with Allies, but the experienced players have no trouble at all.
In league play this year, I am 18-3 with the Allies, and all 3 losses came against the #1 rated player for the year. And I got diced horribly in the main Russian/German battle of the game in 1, or I would have won - my opponent would agree.
More than 50 players in the league, and 531 games played. I have a lot of data. :-)
This is more in response to the original post than your radical naval pricing structure, eddie
I’m not even sure there is much of an “axis advantage”, unless one of the players does not have a lot of experience.
After playing 20+ games on the forum and off, most as the allies, I say that the Axis advantage is not slight… its huge. I’d say at least, AT LEAST, worth a 15 bid for the allies, if not more.
This is the original post.
The premise of this post is the idea that the Axis have such an advantage, you need to play with a bid for the Allies. In games I have been challenged too, everyone talks as though it is obvious the Allies have to get a bid. I have said before that regardless of what side has a net advantage, I believe that overall strategy, skill, and tactic matter so much more it dwarfs whatever net advantage either side begins with. The global game is so big, it truly is like chess, where no matter what strategy you employ, you can’t see everything, you can get caught off guard, and taking the right calculated risks time and time again is what wins the game.
But for the sake of this post, I grant that the Axis have the advantage, but I point out it is because of the 6 VC rule Japan which is where the unrealistic advantage comes from. Japan just has to take Hawaii, and the whole game is won forcing the US to fight an inefficient war.
This rule was to force action in the Pacific. The reason it had to be forced was because Navy;s were so expensive, the cost in resources did not justify what could be gained, as suppose to using those resources in Asia, for Japan and Europe for the US. So why not dramatically lower their cost. Then you don’t need the foolish 6 VC rule for Japan.
So in previous posts on different topics, I have posted the price structure for navy’s I have played for years in all versions, including the game World at War. It is as follows
Transports $4 (they are defensless)
Sub $5
Destroyers $7 (not efficient to buy, but absolutely necessary for defense against subs so are still bought)
Cruisers $8
Carriers $8
Battleships $13
And while we are at it
Fighters $8
Tac bombers $10 (this of course was a new development with the newer versions)
I have recently pushed for an even more dramatic cost reduction but I admit I have not tested this.
Here, 1 carrier, 2 planes, and 1 destroyer costs $31 you can buy 6 subs for that price. Subs that are attacking have the equivalent initial fire power as the defensive force, but have one more casualty and would not doubt win the battle. But with the subs defending, because you would need to keep the destroyer in the battle, it is somewhat of an even battle, so how can you complain that aircraft carriers need to be more expensive relative to subs. They are way to expensive now.
In terms of land warfare, the reason they started out Germany with so many more planes is that no one bought enough of them. Air forces have never been bought in sufficient numbers because they were always to expensive. It fighters at $8 would cause you to stop buying tanks, then you would lose badly.
So that is my take and I hope more people support a dramatically lower Naval costs in any 3rd edition that comes.
First, remember we are dealing with the fact that the Axis have the unrealistic advantage
Whoa. The Axis may have a slight advantage, if any at all. It’s not unrealistic - the game is supposed to be close to 50/50 chance for either side, and it is actually quite close to even. Inexperienced players have a lot of trouble winning with Allies, but the experienced players have no trouble at all.
In league play this year, I am 18-3 with the Allies, and all 3 losses came against the #1 rated player for the year. And I got diced horribly in the main Russian/German battle of the game in 1, or I would have won - my opponent would agree.
More than 50 players in the league, and 531 games played. I have a lot of data. :-)
This is more in response to the original post than your radical naval pricing structure, eddie
I’m not even sure there is much of an “axis advantage”, unless one of the players does not have a lot of experience.
Maybe not everyone knows how to play the axis well then.
Maybe not everyone knows how to play the axis well then.
Please enlighten us :-)
I for one, am looking for an axis strategy that has a better chance of winning than anything I ever tried before because once our group gained in experience I only seen the Axis win if the allies made a mistake.
Playing as the allied side is harder than playing as the axis side. If they can hold key points past round 7 or so (Moscow, Egypt, India, Hawaii) the allies may have the advantage from then on, but in the meantime they have to do a balancing act and time everything just right or else the axis may get out of hand on one side or the other. The axis doesn’t have to worry about that balance; they can just push as hard as they can on both sides. So an axis player can handle it as if playing two separate games at the same time, Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940, but the allies can only play 1 game, Global 1940, and its a lot easier to fight a pair of one-front wars than it is to fight a single war on two-fronts. I find USA is especially easy to screw up.
I’m not talking here about people who do weird things with the axis in order to unbalance one side of the world while giving up on the other side (e.g. Japan concedes the Pacific and sends all its planes to Europe; Germany concedes Russia and builds a big fleet to send over to the Pacific, etc.) Those kind of strategies usually only work maybe once against a particular opponent then they get old kind of fast. They can be fun though.
I agree with variance 100%
Variance makes good posts about grand strategy
