Simple Victory Condition

My concern was not related to turn 1 or 2 but to later German turn:
9 additional Art for a Russian counterattack may cause a problem for Germany advancing to Belarus or Western Ukraine or one turn later to Bryansk, because Italy cannot take this area first (RU takes it back before the German turn) and therefore G cannot land their air on top of it’s army.
12 additional Inf may delay a G 6 attack on Russia (Simon33 was faster while I typed this post).

My concern was based on a game otherwise played without bid or only with a small bid (for example: balanced mod;  our group with other houesrules).
If you play OOB-rules with a bid around 30 IPC, then Gargantua’s idea is very fine (I already understood that he only wants to make one simple adjustment), the inherent bid goes to Russia and does not destroy the game in the MED (as usual IMO).
I will have to try it to see more effects.

Midnight Express,

Thanks for posting the stats. I have not play tested this idea as of yet. I got a new A&A player whom is mostly a “general gamer” I played spring '42 with him, and while he enjoyed the session winning as the Axis powers, I’m not sure he’s “all-in” as an A&A player or even (likes Risk!) a war-gamer.

I poised the question of whether or not he would purchase a game like A&A provided he would have ample opportunity to play it. His response, " This game would most likely sit on my shelf collecting dust." I was planning to offer him a copy of 1942SE un-opened FREE OF CHARGE as I have more than one, if he were inclined to make it a regular habit to play. Un-success…. no regular players.

If anyone decides to play this HR and post a report please do. I think this is a great idea with potential. I simply cannot get any form of regular group to dedicate any amount time beyond a very occasional game of A&A to participate.

Anyways thanks for the input folks.

Edit: I know several gamers that regularly play games of all stripes. The guy I mention in this post is a regular gamer with a large collection of games and a very nice person. However of the several gamers I know, every one of them enjoyed playing Axis & Allies but would not be interested in regular, scheduled gaming sessions of A&A.

The interseting thing with the Supreme Excellence card is what it brings in for strategy, not so much about the numbers. If you attack and concentrate a force into one zone or territory, just to deplete an enemy on a stack of strategically interesting units, you might end up in trouble. What would happen if the defending player plays the Entrenchment or Signals Intelligence card! As you see, it will bring a second level thought to the strategy that we have never seen before. Make it more of a strategy game, and less luck, which is the opposite to what most people think at first sight. If you try these rules you will discover new insights about this second level thought in many other situations of the game play. Enjoy!

Mr. Andersson

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

These VCs could actually be very good for fixing some one problem of the game. “Capture the capitals” is always a terrible victory condition, and because of the slow warfare in this game, the CPs basically have to get an economic advantage to stand a chance (which is virtually impossible). I don’t agree with the non-capitals having production capacity, but I could be convinced if it led to better balance. However, I would change it to 12 VCs after round 4, with one of them having to be an enemy capital, and shared or revolted Russian VCs counting as half a point for both sides. (Perhaps only for the CPs if Russia intentionally revolting itself becomes a problem) Contested VCs are still nothing for either side.

Also, perhaps when the combined allies/axis is greater than X over the combined allies/axis, they generate one VP?

This would solve the turtle issue forcing whichever side to come out and fight or face defeat.

Example: is axis have 25+ more IPC combined than allies, +1 VP per turn as long as they have this advantage.

Secondly, the axis and allies start with a different number of VC, so you might have to assign different values for every city, rather than blanket the map with fixed values for each city.

The ability to gain objectives matters alot toward balancing…which is one of the main reasons why i don’t like NO’s because they are not equal in terms of capturing/protecting…partly why the OOB setup was imbalanced IMO.

Just completed 3 rounds playing this rule and I like it - alot! Germany took France Rd1 so had two tech rolls starting RD2. US purchased a RF RD1 so also had 2 tech rolls RD2. Out of 22 rolls we only had three hits and 2 of the 3 ended up Radar hits (could possibly be helpful for Germ, not so much for the US) and of course I’m playing the allies! This is why I don’t believe you need to add any more costs, maintanence or otherwise, to this rule. It hasn’t had a major effect (yet!) on our game and it’s really cool to roll a tech dice for each country (especially Anzac!) each turn.

I would only do this types of thing like they had in AAE.

Adding resource centers and if the enemy takes it he rolls out or you assign X as additional IPC lost to simulate strategic resources no longer available.

other way is you assign Victory points to each city ( based on historical model) and create a national morale chart where your units cost more if you are lower than a specific threshold.

Example: Germany has say 40 total starting VP and if during the game they lose spaces and hit below 20, all units cost +1 each till they get back to 20 or greater.