Global Victory Conditions

@FranceNeedsMorePower

There’ve been many country-specific national advantages proposed over the years (many historically based). A great place to start is The Captain’s House Rules Expansion (I don’t find his implementation of many of the rules completely accurate, but he has some really good ideas):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SRDOsOwlO4Aa13cULwkWrorrXEmCmiN-/view

Specifically, there are some great Soviet ones in those rules.

FBC9643C-5703-4B6B-8E07-557FA9698BAA.jpeg

@Leatherneckinlv:

After play testing some…I came to the conclusion France needs to BB and a Destroyer…1 BB makes no difference…thoughts so far

I am curious, how does Italy or Germany react to that battleship?

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.

@knp7765:

I think the other nations would welcome such a development. “Oh, you have a bunch of paratroops and transport planes? Good! Now I’m going to invade you with my stack of tanks and mechs.”

Yes, this would echo the principle of unequal force ratios stated in the proverbial Law of the Sword, which says “The guy with the gun usually wins.” Â

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.

5. Atomic Bomb  rolleyes Really? The atomic bomb was only used once the US had practically won the war. It might have been drawn out, but they would have won. This is already represented by VCs. Once you capture enough VCs, you win. This would happen before and atomic bomb was developed.
In regards to game play, it seems lame. The cost seems to be too much merely to prevent one turn of production. I honestly think the whole idea should be scrapped.

The war would have gone on till 1946. The two bombs dropped changed that. japan figured it could get a negotiated peace if it soiled the beaches of Japan with American blood. The bombs changed that completely. It was also dropped to get political advantage over the Soviets who wanted spoils in Asia and to deny them the same. The bomb was the most important invention of the war and it above all other techs must be represented. Obviously, it would be had to obtain and require alot of research to have. The idea is also to have one tech that changes the game and makes it end. Some games require such an outcome because players sometimes never surrender and Atomic weaponry will finish the stalemate.

And that is exactly what it did.

In some games you can play and not obtain an outcome, while with this technology you are assured that the game will finish up soon. In most games that last of normal duration it wont be developed and thats the charm of it.