TOTAL Total Victory

Funny how this looks familiar. VC points.

Ps. I would submit that there is already a relative scale of forces represented in the OOB starting unit distribution, such that 1 inf in one territory (or one region of the map) doesn’t necessarily equate to 1 inf in another territory (somewhere else on the map) in terms of how many actual men that sculpt is supposed to represent.

The game is intentionally vague about this stuff, and if you try to force a one-size-fits-all analogy onto every sculpt on the board, such that 1 sculpt = X number of actual historical forces, the game immediately breaks down with a number of wild inconsistencies all over the place.

This is not just the case for infantry, but for all unit types. A fighter sculpt in Russia or Germany might represent thousands of more individual aircraft than one in China would. Likewise a starting ship in one part of the world might represent a force that is much larger than a starting ship in some other part of the world. Even Ipcs on the map are like this, where the value of one territory tile vs another, can only be really be understood/accepted as anything even remotely accurate if you evaluate it in relative terms on a more localized scale.

For the purposes of a historical gameplay narrative, 1 infantry unit on the map represents whatever it needs to, for the game to make sense. And we are basically already suspending disbelief, when we accept the OOB set up. This rule would just build on that by adding the 1 inf per VC thing into the equation, leaving the player free to imagine that the unit scales in whatever way makes the most sense for a given VC.

Flashman, can you be a little more specific about what you mean by “a nation is defeated?” Does that mean all of the nation’s pieces are immediately removed from the map when it loses its last production center? If not, are there any practical consequences to being “defeated” other than not being able to produce new units? And by “nation,” do you have in mind something like “France,” or more like “the Allies?”

If you treat production centers as victory cities, then how many victory cities do you think each side should have to control in order to win? Would you have any victory cities that are not also production centers?

Finally, would you agree that banning the creation of new factories takes some of the variety and surprise out of the game? Off the top of my head, it seems like Japan is more or less required to try to conquer India (since Japan can no longer build a factory in Manchuria or Kazakh), and the USA is more or less required to try to conquer Italy or Tokyo (since the USA can no longer build a factory in France, NW Europe, or Norway). I would also be sad to lose the option of having the UK build a factory in South Africa, having the USA build a factory in Sinkiang, having the UK (or Germans!) build a factory in Egypt, having Japan build a factory in Alaska, and having the USA build a factory in Borneo or the Philippines. No one of these options is really part of ‘orthodox’ play, but collectively they spice the game up quite a bit, and often players will adjust their moves to make sure that these builds don’t become optimal. For example, the US might leave a significant garrison, including a tank and a fighter, in Western USA / Western Canada to guard against a Japanese Alaskan factory, but if Japan can’t build in Alaska, then the USA can make do with a much smaller, cheaper, more passive defense of the homeland.

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.”

@Young:

Thanks for the reply KNP, while I was reading your post I got the idea that the combined 18 IPCs for strict neutrals can be taken for strategic purposes, and for collecting income, however, IPCs from strict neutral territories will not be added to your sides total when calculating for an economic victory. Thanks for the brain food.

Interesting idea YG. Only problem I would see was having to keep track of 2 incomes, one without the strict neutral income and one with.

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”.

Haven’t done the research on this, but I’m just throwing it out there.

What if the Axis powers together needed a total of 12 VC, instead of 8 in Europe, or 6 in Pacific? Also, Allies only need to capture 2 Capitals to win.

Thoughts?

ok good.