I think the main problem with Axis and Allies and most WWII games is that there is no end point.
The game is totally focused on can the Allies stall, then stop and turn the Axis to the point that the Allies are on the offensive and the Axis powers are totally defensive.
Thus the end point of the game is when the Allies finally turn the Axis into a defensive posture and then they concede.
I think that is a waste. Force the Allies to conquer the Axis powers and seal the deal so to speak.
Under the current rules the Allies once they get the Axis on the defense and pushing them back there is no time limit on the conquest on the Axis. They can drag it out for over 30 turns, conquering the entire globe and slow playing their killing blows.
The Axis are under the “gun” to finish the war off IF they do not achieve success in Russia/middle East or on the Pacific map by X amount of turns. Well the  Axis are toast and cannot win the game if they do not achieve these goals in under X turns.
Make the Allies feel the same pressure of being under the gun. Once they turn the war to their favor, lets say on turn 12, if the game only last 25 turns the Allies then only have 13 turns to win the game. If the Allies do not achieve victory by the end of the 25th turn the game is called a draw.
This give the Axis players a reason to keep playing, instead of just calling the game off and sulking into a dark corner, drinking beer and lamenting about dice. Also the Allied players have some hope they will have some fun on the offensive. Lets face it, if you are a Allied player all you get to experience is defensive play and once your master plan bears some fruit of success the Axis concede and go on a 2 day binge drinking fest.
Make the game a 25 turn game. If no one achieves victory by the OOB rules it is called a draw.
What do you guys think?
A time limit sounds good; there are often unstated time limits because everyone has to go home, this pushes the game and leads to a certain type of play.
Only problem with your idea I think is that the Allies only find their stride at the point that you are talking about, and as long as UK and ANZAC are still alive their advantages should grow as time goes on (unless the Axis are holding all the middle board and all the $ at that juncture).
The tournament has an 8 hour (7-8 turn) time limit. It leads to a completely different kind of game, but also requires new victory conditions (whoever has the most VCs, or the most money held).
Isn’t an economic victory condition more concise ie if Axis hold X$ at the end of time/round Y, they win, otherwise Allies? The tournament was immensely fun because it boils the game down to a culminating black/white outcome–either you get the ball over the goal line or you don’t…
Great concept.
But it would be too easy for both parties to stall and drag things out 25 turns. Trust me, I would. And there are plenty of games that go into the 30+ turn range on the forum that are absolute epics. Why take away awesome part of the game away?
If you are looking to shorten durations or have a clear ending, look at YG’s house rules. He uses a series of “points” that can be earned once certain tasks are accomplished. That way there are “goals” when the game ends. It makes it much easier at the end of any round to determine if there is a winner or a tie.
Great concept.
But it would be too easy for both parties to stall and drag things out 25 turns. Trust me, I would. And there are plenty of games that go into the 30+ turn range on the forum that are absolute epics. Why take away awesome part of the game away?
Well, let me put some context into this idea.
#1 This is for your average table top game that run’s with your friends over a long session of games, 4-6 turns a game night. In my group we usually average around 4 turns a game session before we have to quit. So, the theory is the game will end after around 5-6 game sessions, based of course how that specific game is going.
#2 Hey, I love Axis players who refuse to give up and fight to the bitter end. Then again how many of them do you know? Willing to play another 3-4 weeks of real life game time to finish a game that WILL end in their demise? (This is really the “root” of why on Table Top matches the Axis just concede once they are put on a pure defensive posture, they want to save time)
I think having a finite end to the game creates tension for both sides. This is good, this is a game and not a simulation of real life. Tension in games is what makes games fun.
Now to the idea that Axis play to stall out the game until the 25th turn. Well, that is a tactic they could perform. Then again it dramatically changes up all the tactics of A&A that we talk about on the forums. The Axis are not going all out for a win on either map in the first 12 turns. Which is the default setting for the Axis. Now, they are being more guarded, coming up with new tactics to stall any Allied ‘gains’ across the board. For some groups this might be a good idea to introduce a fresh look at the game. The Axis at the end of turn 10 think their chances are real slim to win might change up their tactics and go more defensive and see if the Allies notice this and start to march towards taking out the Axis.
Using a variant VP system besides the OOB rules is one way to go. This idea is designed to be used with the OOB rules for how either side wins the game.
This idea is not good for a lot of Table Top groups, that is fine. I do think though that for some groups having a 25 turn max on the game will provide some drama in the closing turns of the game as the Allies are going all out to finish off the Axis instead of sitting around building Strat bombers and slow playing the end game.
Well out games never last longer than 12 turns. By turn 12 it is normally defined who will win. If the axis did not win until turn 12, then the axis will win in the long run.
So I would say that the Axis need to win in 12 turns or they loose. The win options for the allies are difficult to achieve in short time and drag the game until it is finally decided. Especially Japan can build infantry turn by turn and if they land all aircraft on their island then it is difficult to conquer it. And it is also no fun.
One thing to keep in mind about the conditions needed to win an A&A game – whatever those conditions happen to be, whether OOB or house-ruled – is that decent players will tend to alter their strategies to reflect the winning conditions. The side which has the advantage will try to achieve a win, while the side which is at a disadvantage will try to frustrate the other side by trying to produce a draw. If the winning conditions have a time limit or a game-turn limit built into them, the disadvantaged side will try to drag things out in order to reach that limit and produce a draw. If the winning conditions provide for an unlimited-time game in which victory is determined by achieving certain economic objectives, or capturing a certain number of VCs, the disadvantaged side will focus on preventing the opponent from achieving those economic benchmarks in order to produce a draw. And so forth. If the players are skilled, and if the side that’s losing decides that its priority is to prevent its defeat rather than achieving victory, the side that’s losing can probably look at the victory conditions and figure out how to turn those particular victory conditions to its advantage in order to achieve a draw.
@CWO:
One thing to keep in mind about the conditions needed to win an A&A game – whatever those conditions happen to be, whether OOB or house-ruled – is that decent players will tend to alter their strategies to reflect the winning conditions. The side which has the advantage will try to achieve a win, while the side which is at a disadvantage will try to frustrate the other side by trying to produce a draw. If the winning conditions have a time limit or a game-turn limit built into them, the disadvantaged side will try to drag things out in order to reach that limit and produce a draw. If the winning conditions provide for an unlimited-time game in which victory is determined by achieving certain economic objectives, or capturing a certain number of VCs, the disadvantaged side will focus on preventing the opponent from achieving those economic benchmarks in order to produce a draw. And so forth. If the players are skilled, and if the side that’s losing decides that its priority is to prevent its defeat rather than achieving victory, the side that’s losing can probably look at the victory conditions and figure out how to turn those particular victory conditions to its advantage in order to achieve a draw.
True.
What we like to do is just pester Japan with Russia, China, Com China and UK if Japan doesn’t go after India first 3 turns and force Japan to spend more money on land and just have the US and Anzac fleet make the ��� navy run around in circles and hope Russia holds off Getmany and then get back some Asian VC s or then US pushes in. I’m saying it’s a delay tactic. It would puss off the Japan player because there never is a big sea battle or land.
Not to hack this thread but in my 40 game I’m testing now whether to go with so many victory city’s or victory city points for the axis to achieve by end of turn 10. Don’t happen allies win and game over.
Granted not for the long players. If the action gets going late in games may extend victory Turn longer.
I find it funny.
Painstate posting this question on the premise that axis players “drag” the game out once they start losing.
Then posts that he loves Axis players that refuse to give up. Then asks “how many do you know who do that”
As for setting a 25 turn limit, based on the length your group plays, that seems ridiculously long. Try 12 turn as suggested or have a tactical/statistical review of some kind.
I don’t know what the challenge your group is facing is -but we almost always complete in one session. Usually we schedule a weekend. And get two full games in. One on each day, with the backup day for the game if it runs long.
Maybe get an egg timer for each side to increase focus!
