Why Nine victory cities

@slip-capone

We played a couple, then moved onto a week-long game of Global. I like “Revised” quite a bit, but my usual opponent is none-too-happy with the ability of transports to shoot back.
; )

I disagree with your analysis–from what it sounds like, UK1 was played quite well.  Ignoring Japan for a few rounds is not a problem.  As far as I can tell, the main factors contributing to Allied loss were
—not contesting Africa (big one!)
—losing the British fleet (carelessness + your luck)
—Panicking on the USA west coast–your landing in Canada could have been handled easily

Sounds like there was solid Russian play all the way through, and mostly sound Allied play, but with the aforementioned oversights.  If he had shut you out of Africa and not had to rebuild the USA fleet, I’ll bet Germany would have been about ready to collapse by the time Moscow fell.  Generally the Allies can win if Berlin falls even a round or two after Moscow.  I don’t think the idea of letting Japan go for a while and going full bore against Germany is wrong as a big picture approach, it just sounds like a couple of the details were botched.

@johnny:

Is it a good strategy to try and get small pieces to build up an economy or to try and take out victory cities first?

Is it a turn limit game and/or short time limit game?
If so, economy is not as significant, especially as the game gets toward the end.
In a time limit game, economy is focused entirely on “do I have enough IPC to build what I need to take the VCs?”

If it is a death match with all the time in the world, the economy becomes more important.
In the death match, if I can stalemate the VC situation while getting a leg up on the economy, I will win.  In this kind of game the 19 IPC that UK has scattered through Africa, Asia and the Pacific gets valuable.  The Allies are not well positioned to get units into these areas and even if they try to build a factory in the southern hemisphere it is either on the front lines or severely limited by unit count.  India and Sinkiang are classic gambits.  Australia, Union of South Africa or Brazil are less obvious choices with pros and cons…

Each side has an equal number of VC’s.  If you add an Allied one, you add an Axis one, otherwise the extra VC is an Allied advantage.

Good luck with the tourney man!

@aaFiendish:

I pretty much always play “total victory”. That is because I play with competent people who are willing to acknowledge when they have been beaten, and willing to convince me when I have been. There is no shame in surrendering and saving yourself hours of your life. This keeps us from drinking beer until 9 am the next morning. Well, at least from drinking beer and playing axis and allies.

LOL!  Fiendish, you are my kind of player… but in a face-to-face mode rather than online (that way we can drink the beer…)

Posted by: ShadowHAwk

I still think that 8VC with the current board and setup is doable for the allies if the rules are slightly bend.

8 VC but you have to keep all 8 for 1 full turn ( lose 1 during the turn even if you take it back resets the score )

i said this at the beginning of the thread, maybe you will get more love  :cry:

we play this way , especially if the allies have an experience advantage.  we also don’t use a bid in this format

And just putting this thread to bed…

In the game that Trihero and I are playing now… at the end of T1, the Axis had a “Minor Victory”, holding both Calcutta and Lenningrad.

But one look at the thread (or better yet a look at my game board), shows just how screwed Germany is right now.

Minor victory equals jack squat.