Capitol Victory condition.

@general-6-stars

I’m commenting!

I’m not sure that the fact I’ve never heard of the city until now either mean I’m ignorant or it isn’t important enough to be considered one.

Singapore is a great idea for a city, and if that’s combined with Rangoon, that would make things complicated for the British. Are you going to give them any more units or IPCs at the start?

What are your monsoon rules, exactly? Thank you!

@Franklin_Cain The problem with a 6+5 rule is that the Axis are almost always at or near 11 cities after 6 rounds. Germany with a simple crush Russia assault should have Novgorod (Leningrad), France, Germany, Poland + Italy has Rome = 5 with Volgograd as the relatively easy 6th VC. Japan has Japan, Kiangsu, Kwangtung, Philippines, and with some effort India = 5.

If the Axis don’t have to get those extra cities (8 Europe or 6 Pacific), then they don’t have to extend themselves to get the “last” VC. India is a stretch for Japan, but not terrible if that is all they need. They can afford to lose a few aircraft if they never have to go get Australia or Hawaii. Similarly, the Germans can easily take Volgograd and leave Moscow alone. The Russians don’t have the flexibility to defend both against the Germans so one of them will fall.

Bumping up the number to 7+5 is still putting a lot of pressure on the Allies. The Germans should be able to takedown Moscow by maintaining a good focus in the East. The Allies might be able to defend Egypt and have a sizeable force in the Middle East, but they may not (probably won’t) initially be in a position to takeback Volgograd immediately after the fall of Moscow. So again the Axis “win” without really having to exert themselves. The magic number of 8 was developed after lots of game testing and is a surprisingly good rule.

That all said, changing the VC count is another way (besides the bid) to level the playing field between players of dissimilar abilities. If you wanted to let the newer player take the Axis and lower the VC count, then you could have a competitive game.

The determining factor is what round the other side surrenders on. (We play until one side surrenders.) Since we play 3 nations vs. 3, when one side loses 2/3 capitals, they HAVE to surrender. But usually they voluntarily surrender before that.

@barney:

Looks like you’ve got it tuned in pretty good to me YG. Those all look good and equally obtainable for each side. Good work!

Thanks Barney… I agree, a couple are easy for both sides but they get really hard after that. Using it tomorrow in a game where it’s the only house rule.

One quick thought, in the old games it was usually USA that ended the game round, and the flow throughout the round showed more alternating by side (Allies then Axis, back to Allies and so on.) In G40 the game round concludes with Anzac, or I guess France, but there is this fairly long gap between Japan’s move and the end of the Game round, especially since Italy is such a non-entity in most games, and the American/British piggy back that happens before they even get to move. All that said, I wonder if “at the end of the game round” is even worthwhile anymore. It might be more fun, and more expedient for game resolution to just say if side such and such controls x, y, z “at any point.”

Yes Young Grasshopper; that is exactly what I was trying to say.  I like the idea of a score at the end of the day.  Arwaker’s plan has some interesting potential as well.  I would imagine it is hard to get some groups together and this type of “scoring” would at least give these groups a chance to know who won the “war”.

Good looking out barney!

Glad to see the C_J playing the new game.