Question about Victory Conditions

I halfway agree with shad.
If you make the conditions to low, it means that it is no change. if you make them to large, it means that US can overfocus.

So, 5 VC in europe = Berlin, Warsaw, paris, rome and leningrad/Cairo/london
4 in PAC = Tokyo, shanghai, manilla and Hong Kong.

I am pretty sure you can take manilla back before cairo and Moscow falls if us goes 100% pacific.

However, I like the idea of saying something like: “Take at least 11 cities”. Just to prevent Japan from trying on cairo, or Germany from trying for India.

How about we abandon vc and go for a straight capture two capitals? One of those capitalsites for the allies has to  each Tokyo and one for the axis has to be Moscow. Calcutta would not count.

Yes.  Even better, just play until the other fella cries “Uncle”.  No VCs.  I’ve played with some people this way on AAA and it changes everything, for the better, in my opinion.  Allies can even be competitive with a much smaller bid.

I personally don’t like VCs.  They make no sense.  I’m trying to imagine the phone call from Stalin to Churchill:  “Say, I know we have Berlin and Rome completely surrounded and it’s just a matter of time before they fall, but did you hear?  Japan just snuck a couple dudes onto Hawaii and Roosevelt forgot to leave a transport in the vicinity to reclaim it within one round.  I guess we should all just throw in the towel, then, and ask Adolph and Benito how they’d like to divvy up our navies and colonies.”  Yeah, right.

Play like men:  No VCs!   :wink:

Here are my thoughts on what could make victory conditions a bit better…

As said earlier, Axis must win one of two ways,

Either take 8 VCs on the Europe map and control at least 4 (more than half) on the pacific board, or…

Take 6 VCs on the pacific map and control at least 5 (more than half) on the europe board.

The Allies must win one of two ways,

Either take Berlin and Rome on the Europe map and limit the pacific Axis to no more than 3 (half of what they need) VCs, or…

Take Tokyo on the pacific map and limit the Europe Axis to no more than 4 (half of what they need) VCs.

So basically what this means is that to win you must completely rule one side and have the slight advantage on the other… Hope this helps!

@ShadowHAwk:

The current rules basicaly ensure that US and UK-pac stay honest in the pacific and the US and russia stay honest against germany and italy.

Yes, but the Axis can usually win with OOB rules because they only need one side to win. So the Allies could control the entire pacific board but the Axis can take Russia (with Japanese help) and then barely take Cairo and win the game. Also, since Britain is split into two economies, if the Axis begin to win one side, they can’t shift all their resources to counter it like the US (with their ability to spend their money on whichever side they please). That is why I think my modified conditions (see my previous comment) make the game more fair.

@Screaming:

The current OOB victory conditions seem a bit slanted towards the Axis. The Axis need to either win 8 VC on the Europe board or 6 VC on the Pacific board, which seem to sway the Axis player(s) to abandon one side of the board. I’m relatively new at A&A, but that observation seems to match what I read on this forum.

Question - What if the Axis had to win one of the two following ways:

Control 8 VC on the Europe board AND 4 VC on the Pacific side (one more than half of the needed VC)
OR
Control 6 VC on the Pacific board AND 5 VC on the Europe side (again, one more than half of the needed VC)

Controlling an Axis capital would also be required as in the OOB version. This should force the Axis to focus on the whole board, as the Allies always need to do.

We will be game testing this version soon, but I wanted to get some feedback if there was any. Thanks!

I think what you’ve proposed is far too easy to achieve. Japan gets four VCs in the Pacific by sneezing, and likewise for Germany with five. In my opinion 13 VCs globally is a much better Axis victory condition – that creates a very real multi-front war in which the Allies and Axis are constantly maneuvering, looking for an edge, and waiting for the other side to make a mistake. 13 VCs globally would be 8 in Europe and five in the Pacific, or 7 in Europe and 6 in the Pacific.

Marsh

@Marshmallow:

I think what you’ve proposed is far too easy to achieve. Japan gets four VCs in the Pacific by sneezing, and likewise for Germany with five. In my opinion 13 VCs globally is a much better Axis victory condition – that creates a very real multi-front war in which the Allies and Axis are constantly maneuvering, looking for an edge, and waiting for the other side to make a mistake. 13 VCs globally would be 8 in Europe and five in the Pacific, or 7 in Europe and 6 in the Pacific.

Marsh

What Screaming Eagle means is that Axis must win (8 VCs Europe or 6 VCs pacific) one side and control more than half (5+ in Europe or 4+ in pacific) on the other side to win the game.

@Stonewall:

@Marshmallow:

I think what you’ve proposed is far too easy to achieve. Japan gets four VCs in the Pacific by sneezing, and likewise for Germany with five. In my opinion 13 VCs globally is a much better Axis victory condition – that creates a very real multi-front war in which the Allies and Axis are constantly maneuvering, looking for an edge, and waiting for the other side to make a mistake. 13 VCs globally would be 8 in Europe and five in the Pacific, or 7 in Europe and 6 in the Pacific.

Marsh

What Screaming Eagle means is that Axis must win (8 VCs Europe or 6 VCs pacific) one side and control more than half (5+ in Europe or 4+ in pacific) on the other side to win the game.

I agree with the 13 VC’s Idea. I personally use 12 VC’s as I find that the Axis has to work VERY hard to get 13, so I see 12 as a comfortable achievement.

ShadowHAwk:

That is why I think my victory conditions are better.  :-) (Btw, I refer to these conditions as the “1 and a 1/2” conditions).