I agree, India and Australia both falling should be required along with Hawaii or San Francisco.
A crazy idea:
What would happen if Japan Victory Conditions (JVC?) were only to hold:
all Australian territories and
All Pacific Islands group, including Hawaiians in addition of
their originals territories?
Is it too easy to counter?
Will this become much like historical WWII where IJN was fighting hard to conquer all strategic Pacific Islands until the defeat of Midway and Solomons?
Do you think it is possible to formulate a different Victory Conditions for Japan to not get this continuous incentive of going on Center territories?
@Baron:
I agree, India and Australia both falling should be required along with Hawaii or San Francisco.
A crazy idea:
What would happen if Japan Victory Conditions (JVC?) were only to hold:
all Australian territories and
All Pacific Islands group, including Hawaiians in addition of
their originals territories?Is it too easy to counter?
Will this become much like historical WWII where IJN was fighting hard to conquer all strategic Pacific Islands until the defeat of Midway and Solomons?
Do you think it is possible to formulate a different Victory Conditions for Japan to not get this continuous incentive of going on Center territories?
I forgot to say that 6 Victory Cities are still needed.
Amongst San Francisco, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Calcutta, 2 must be captured.
Ceylon is not a part of Pacific Islands but Sumatra and Java are and both must be captured by Japan.
Aleutian Islands must be taken too. But Alaska is not needed.
This Pacific Ocean Hegemonic Empire Victory Conditions, is it too hard for Japan?
This imply 30 additional territories to hold against other Powers.
I’m not sure, if you’ve ever tried just taking all of Australia in a game, you’ve probably seen how monstrous UK Pacific and America can get. The difficulty with this Hegemonic Empire thing, from a Victory conditions standpoint, is that Japan doesn’t make much money as they go along. To pull it off you’d have to take Hawaii early on, but then you’d be all cash strapped.
Some sort of additional NO to support this kind of Victory condition would probably be needed.
I do like the general thrust though, of trying to get Japan to take islands. The income spread doesn’t seem to encourage this much right now. All the air bases and such are nice, but without a money incentive, Japan never concentrates on them.
The actual NOs are:
When Japan Is at War with the Western Allies (United States and/or United Kingdom/ANZAC):
5 IPCs if Japan controls the following territories:
Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, and Solomon Islands.
Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.5 IPCs per territory if Japan controls
India (Calcutta), New South Wales (Sydney), Hawaiian Islands (Honolulu) and/or Western United States (San Francisco).
Theme: Major Allied power centers.5 IPCs if Japan controls all of the following territories:
Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes.
Theme: Strategic resource centers.
Do you think that simply double IPCs bonus (10 IPCs) for each of the 4 VCs and for the 4 islands (Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes) above can make it?
And for the 5 islands of the outer defense perimeter, gives 20 IPCs (quadruple) bonus instead of only 5 IPCs?
Is this enough incentive?
Here is UK’s and Anzac NO’s:
United Kingdom: The British Empire
At the time the war broke out, the United Kingdom had stretched its empire around the world. But the empire was stretched thin and was trying to retain its control on its old centers of power.
When the United Kingdom Is at War with Japan:5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls both Kwangtung and Malaya.
Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.ANZAC: Australian-New Zealand Army Corps
The ANZAC pre-war plans to defend Southeast Asia from a potential Japanese attack were primarily centered on Malaya (Singapore).
They were also focused on defending the strategic islands north of Australia.
When ANZAC Is at War with Japan:5 IPCs if an Allied power controls Malaya and ANZAC controls all of its original territories.
Theme: Malaya considered strategic cornerstone to Far East British Empire.5 IPCs if the Allies (not including the Dutch) control Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands.
Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.
To provide some way of balancing the above, maybe give 10 IPCs bonus (double) instead?
Actually that’s not a bad approach simply doubling the value of all their current NOs might be enough to jumpstart the action or at least give Japan an incentive to do something with Australia and the Islands.
Outer island perimeter is for sure the roughest. But just by increasing the value of Hawaii or Syndey to +10 instead of +5, might go a long way in making them better targets. India would be of course pretty scary, but if Japan had a way to win somewhere else, and more money from the NOs, maybe they’d try for it sometimes.
Actually that’s not a bad approach simply doubling the value of all their current NOs might be enough to jumpstart the action or at least give Japan an incentive to do something with Australia and the Islands.
Outer island perimeter is for sure the roughest. But just by increasing the value of Hawaii or Syndey to +10 instead of +5, might go a long way in making them better targets. India would be of course pretty scary, but if Japan had a way to win somewhere else, and more money from the NOs, maybe they’d try for it sometimes.
Maybe Victory conditions for Japan can be:
6 VCs,
Achieving Strategic outer defense perimeter and Strategic resource centers.
And forbidding UK’s and ANZAC to get their NOs:
Controls both Kwangtung and Malaya.
Controls of any of Anzac territory (which is already done with capture of Solomons in Outer defense perimeter).
In this case, it is even not necessary to consider higher NO’s bonus (which was surely a must for the Pacific Ocean Hegemonic Empire Vic conditions).
Simply a bit more difficult challenge than only 6 VCs for this Rising Sun Empire in a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Vic conditions.
@Cmdr:
What if the Axis should be required to own at least one major allied capitol on either map (as part of the 8 in Europe or 6 in the Pacific) to win? For Japan that would be San Francisco to be easier to get than Washington DC.
So for Europe that is 1 of: Moscow, London or Washington D.C. and a total of 8 Victory Cities
For Pacific that is 1 of: Moscow, San Francisco and a total of 6 Victory CitiesI think it is kind of nuts that the Axis can win without an allied capitol.
What if all of this Major Allied Capitols worth 2 VCs instead of 1 ?
Can even say that Washington D.C. is special and worth 3 or 4 VCs, in itself.
Assuming that Axis needs a total of 14 VCs: 10 VCs Europe / 4 VCs Pacific or 9 Europe and 5 Pacific, or 8 VCs Europe and 6 VCs in Pacific, etc.?
So, Japan can have 5 VCs and need “only” to get San Francisco to win the game, if Axis Europe already get 7 VCs.
@Cmdr:
Maybe 7 VC but Moscow would count for both the Europe and Pacific maps maybe?
Does that mean that Japan would have to take Moscow? OR, Germany takes Moscow and Japan has 6 VCs on the Pacific board?
Black Elk had a good idea of Allies win at 14 VCs and Axis win at 12 VCs across the whole board. Perhaps you could also add the following:
Allied win = Allies control 14 victory cities at the end of a round and one must be a major Axis capital (Berlin or Tokyo)
Axis Win = Axis control 12 victory cities at the end of a round and one must be a major Allied capital (Washington or London)While I know Moscow is technically a major Allied capital, it can’t count because first it is a major German objective anyway and second it requires no boats to be purchased. All the other capitals require the other side to purchase boats to get there, thus they are harder.
The difference with my method is that you can say that Rome worth only 1 VC while Tokyo or Berlin worth 2 VCs each.
The number fixed, such as 14 VCs for Allies, doesn’t specify that a Capitol is mandatory to win, but can be replace by more ordinary VCs.
Probably needs to be at 15 VCs. IDK.
Black Elk said, maybe a start:
Axis victory at 12 or 13 VCs, something along those lines.
Allied victory at 15 VCs etc.
Thinking out loud…
Maybe it is possible to give different values to some Capitols according to how hard they are to capture:
**Washington: 3 Pts
London: 2 Pts
Moscow: 2 Pts
San Francisco: 3 Pts
Calcutta: 2 Pts
Sydney: 1 Pt
Berlin: 3 Pts
Japan: 3 Pts
Rome: 1 Pt**
And 10 other VCs at 1 pt each.
Sums: 30 VCs points but 19 VCs on the map.
Europe Allies start with 12 VC points (7 Capitols pts +5 VCs )
Washington: 3 Pts
London: 2 Pts
Moscow: 2 Pts
Ottawa, Cairo, Paris, Leningrad, Stalingrad
Europe Axis start with= 5 VC pts (Berlin 3 + Rome 1+ Warsaw 1)
Pacific Allies start with = 10 VC pts (San Francisco 3, Calcutta 2, Sydney 1 + 4 VCs)
Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manilla, Honolulu
Pacific Axis start with Japan = 3 VC pts
Allies start with VC 22 pts while Axis 8 VC pts.
Let’s say Allies need 22 VC pts to win?
Axis need 18 VC pts to win.
Don’t know if this can works but…
It allows flexibility and it is not possible to win if Axis at 17 pts with
Europe have Berlin 3 + Rome 1+ Warsaw 1, Cairo, Paris, Leningrad, Stalingrad = 9 pts
Pacific have Japan 3, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manilla, Honolulu, Sydney = 8 pts
But, instead of Sydney, San Francisco was captured, then it would have rise to 10 pts + 9 Europe pts: 19 pts an Axis win!
Or, if it was Calcutta for 2 pts instead of Sydney at 1 pt, then Axis would have reach 18 VC points.
Or, instead of Cairo, Axis conquered Moscow or London, 2 pts, then Europe would have reach 10 pts + 8 from PAC, 18 pts a win!
And it is still all 13 Victory Cities win.
At 22 points for Allies, this means, on paper, their is no need to capture a Capitol but it is certain that one side would have reach some VCs. Thus, in fact, a Capitol is probably needed unless being able to push back Axis on both fronts to their initial borderlines, which it is clear they can no more win because of the Allies overwhelming economical resources.
From another perspective,
if Europe goes wrong, and still keeps only his 5 initial points (Berlin, Rome, Warsaw), Japan can still save the day if it captures all 8 Pacific VCs: 13 points. 18 points means an Axis Victory.
While, in fact, it is only 3 VCs+ 8 VCs = 11 Victory Cities win!
On the reverse, if Japan is prisonner on his island (3 pts), Axis Europe can not win even it conquered 2 Allies Capital London and Moscow: 4 pts
(Berlin 3 + Rome 1+ Warsaw 1, Cairo, Paris, Leningrad, Stalingrad) = 9 pts, because it give only 3+4+9 = 16 pts.
But if any 2 PAC VCs are still in the Axis hands, then 18 is reach out for a win.
One issue I saw with the above.
It doesn’t create an incentive to go against Sydney.
San Francisco or Calcutta is always a better choice to help the Axis wins.
It is the exact opposite of my previous posts about providing some special Japanese Victory conditions which includes taking Australia.
This can be solved somehow by giving 1 VC point to Calcutta and 2 VC points to Sydney.
So this method have an impact on Axis goal in Pacific, it allows to choose where you put the incentive.
