@andrewaagamer
Ah. I hadn’t understood that subtlety. It’s a bit like assuming that, as an attacker, I’m going to win - so, retreat isn’t an option. Thanks a lot for your help.
Victory Cities: What I feared…
-
I think if you grab two capitols the game is pretty much decided at that point regardless of what “Victory Cities” one holds.
-
Should Tripoli find itself on a victory city list for the Italians?
-
No, allies would conquer for sure in a obsesive KGF strategy, something Larry seems want avoid. Alexandria or Cape Town would be better than Ottawa, I think. Even Chongquing would be better than Ottawa.
-
Victory cities will play a larger role in the game. It’s true that, in effect, you must capture one, two or three enemy capitals to satisfy the victory conditions. However, just doing that by itself isn’t enough to win. The new Victory City requirements will cause the action to be spread out more on the map. Specifically, more Victory Cities in the Pacific Theatre will mean more action there, as Japan must make an effort in that Theatre in order to help contribute to Axis victory, and the US can’t ignore it and just let Japan have all of those VCs.
-
the US can’t ignore it and just let Japan have all of those VCs.
Why not?
If Japan captures every single Pacific victory city, so what? It doesn’t matter until the end. If America went purely KGF like they do most of the time in revised, the Allies can crush Germany/Italy, then, with an exceptional income, walk over Japan, just like in revised. It just appears that ignoring victory cities entirely, until victory is obvious (capitals have fallen), is the best method for victory. This makes victory cities seem, to me, more of an unnecessary complication than something that has an “effect on gameplay” like Harry wanted. The only time I see victory cities making a difference is if the Allies for whatever reason decided to capture every Axis victory city except for capitals… which doesn’t seem like a feasible strategy.
-
Maybe do we lack some information? VC are different from Revised?
If they work the same way it is difficult to spread the game all over the map. If it is needed to conquer 1, 2 o 3 capital to win the game than the capital are still the premium objectives. Having or not the needed VC is secondary. After the fall of a capital it is more easy to take the VC controlled by that nation. Generally the opposite is not true. Even if Axis control the Victory cities of USSR conquering Moscow is still hard, IMHO.
Simply putting more VC here and there do not increase their importance… but Krieghund said:
Victory cities will play a larger role in the game.
I try to imagine … what if the “capitol features was spread over” to all the original VCs controlled by a nation? VC will be really important. Or maybe other ways to increase VC interest?
-
@Rakeman:
the US can’t ignore it and just let Japan have all of those VCs.
Why not?
If Japan captures every single Pacific victory city, so what? It doesn’t matter until the end. If America went purely KGF like they do most of the time in revised, the Allies can crush Germany/Italy, then, with an exceptional income, walk over Japan, just like in revised. It just appears that ignoring victory cities entirely, until victory is obvious (capitals have fallen), is the best method for victory. This makes victory cities seem, to me, more of an unnecessary complication than something that has an “effect on gameplay” like Harry wanted. The only time I see victory cities making a difference is if the Allies for whatever reason decided to capture every Axis victory city except for capitals… which doesn’t seem like a feasible strategy.
1- You dont need a capital to get to 13 VC. If you ignore Japan, that’s several “free” VC Japan gets.
2- Japan will get bonus income (and the allies lose it) which makes Japan even stronger.
3- Since Japan cannot just march to moscow easily, it has nothing better to do than conquer LA. Which it CAN do if you give it its starting (1942) 30 IPC, plus IPC for territories it takes, PLUS 15 bonus IPC for its goals. Japan will soon become a 65-70 IPC monster.
I dont think the allies can just “ignore” Japan. That was the whole point of the pacific VC and the bonus system. You will be forced to spend $ in the pacific, or you will lose.
-
Squirecam’s comments means there will be real balance change in the game. An Indian IC with 10 IPCs build/turn by UK and US builds in the Pacific of 20 IPCs /turn will be a MINIMUM to contain Japan. Maybe this is the explanation for the cheaper bomber cost and higher damage limit for SBR compared to LHTR: UK and US can never just focus all their builds vs. Germany & Italy, so if SBR should be a part of the game it had to be boosted. That US starts now with 2 bombers seems to reinforce this picture, as well as the return of heavy, heavy bombers (two dice attack+SBR). Building ships for invading is now a bit more difficult since more escort ships are necessary when transports are sitting ducks, this also counts against the Allies.
-
I think the bomber is too powefull now. We have a stronger SBR, that crappy paratrooper tech, a lone bomber can kill infinite undefended trannies and the bomber can still support naval combat. And now costs 12 ipcs, go figure :?
-
I dont think the allies can just “ignore” Japan. That was the whole point of the pacific VC and the bonus system. You will be forced to spend $ in the pacific, or you will lose.
That seems to be much more the effect of National Objectives and the new Chinese rules/territories than any need for Pacific VCs.
If Japan is able to take and hold W. US, I still don’t think VCs really matter. Assuming Japan has every Eastern VC including India and all Pacific VCs…In that situation, the Axis would win by VCs (13-win) if Germany/Italy can take and hold either Leningrad or Stalingrad, or if Japan can take Ottawa or Washington. If Germany/Italy are still in a position to take Len/Stalingrad with Japan established in W US, the Allies are done. US would soon fall to Japan anyway in this situation because of the huge disparity in income, and the fact that UK can’t help US that much because they already seem to be having trouble containing Germany/Italy. If Japan takes Washington for the win, you’ve once again won with a capital. If Japan is able to take and hold Ottawa to win, then once again it seems they have a large enough force to soon overwhelm the US in Washington. This whole scenario was brought about in the first place by National Objectives, though, not VCs.
-
I dont think the allies can just “ignore” Japan. That was the whole point of the pacific VC and the bonus system. You will be forced to spend $ in the pacific, or you will lose.
That seems to be much more the effect of National Objectives and the new Chinese rules/territories than any need for Pacific VCs.
If Japan is able to take and hold W. US, I still don’t think VCs really matter. Assuming Japan has every Eastern VC including India and all Pacific VCs…In that situation, the Axis would win by VCs (13-win) if Germany/Italy can take and hold either Leningrad or Stalingrad, or if Japan can take Ottawa or Washington. If Germany/Italy are still in a position to take Len/Stalingrad with Japan established in W US, the Allies are done. US would soon fall to Japan anyway in this situation because of the huge disparity in income, and the fact that UK can’t help US that much because they already seem to be having trouble containing Germany/Italy. If Japan takes Washington for the win, you’ve once again won with a capital. If Japan is able to take and hold Ottawa to win, then once again it seems they have a large enough force to soon overwhelm the US in Washington. This whole scenario was brought about in the first place by National Objectives, though, not VCs.
Well, the “China rules” were there to prevent the “JTDTM” scenario. Make it more like the real war.
But taking that away from Japan means there MUST be some way to force the allies into the pacific theatre. Or we would be going backwards from AAR, not forwards.
VC are means to end games prior to a total war scenario. If Germany/Italy are strong enough to withstand a 3v2, (at least long enough to take lenningrad/stalingrad before the might of the allies crushes them), then we dont “need” the bonuses to fix anything because leaving Japan alone would cause a loss.
Here, we dont know whether G/I can do this, but we do know Japan gets alot of bonus help if left alone. This bonus + the axis military starting advantage may be enough.
We will have to wait and see. But clearly, the system was designed to force some pacific participation. The consequences for failing to do so should be a 13 VC loss.
In a 15 VC or higher (which requires Moscow/London) I would suspect you can still KGF w/o much risk. You are not easily going to get London in that scenario.
-
I suspect that some additional Victory Cities may be required (via a house rule like we did with Sydney, Honolulu and Stalingrad for Revised.) Ottawa and San Francisco may work on occassion, with a concerted naval effort by the Axis, and some mistakes or poor luck for the Allies, but I don’t think anyone here expects Washington to ever be in play. Probably the only way players are going to take Victory Cities seriously, is if they can consistantly win by focusing on them, as opposed to just taking a capital. The Axis in particular, need a way to achieve victory that doesn’t involve Moscow; otherwise the game will always be focused on triple teaming Russia. We need some more VCs on parts of the map which are likely to change hands regularly.
I would propose 3 additional Victory Cities.
-Benghazi (Libya)
-Singapore (French Indo-China)
-Cairo-Suez (Egypt) or Cape Town (South Africa)That would give us 21 to work with, and a few in Africa, which seems appropriate.
-
I suspect that some additional Victory Cities may be required (via a house rule like we did with Sydney, Honolulu and Stalingrad for Revised.) Ottawa and San Francisco may work on occassion, with a concerted naval effort by the Axis, and some mistakes or poor luck for the Allies, but I don’t think anyone here expects Washington to ever be in play. Probably the only way players are going to take Victory Cities seriously, is if they can consistantly win by focusing on them, as opposed to just taking a capital. The Axis in particular, need a way to achieve victory that doesn’t involve taking Moscow; otherwise the game will always be focused on triple teaming Russia. We need some more VCs on parts of the map which are likely to change hands regularly.
I would propose 3 additional Victory Cities.
-Benghazi (Libya)
-Singapore (French Indo-China)
-Cairo-Suez (Egypt) or Cape Town (South Africa)That would give us 21 to work with, and a few in Africa, which seems appropriate.
Sounds plausible with Singapore, but I don’t know about the other proposed two…
Good catch about needing more VC’s, though. -
Benghazi is the spot for Italy. Tripoli and Tobruk have a tendancy to steal the spotlight, but for logistics and the campaigns in north africa, I think Benghazi makes the most sense by far (for another VC in any case.) Another possibility for the Duce, might be Athens.
Egypt is already critical for either side on account of the Canal, so I think it would make sense, and certainly concentrate more attention on North Africa. South Africa is a bit of a stretch, but it would give the Italians a real target to shoot for. Seems to me that if we have Italy as a playable faction we might as well give them something to do right? Go Graziani hehe.
Ottawa and Washington I don’t really understand. I know as political capitals they fit the bill, but in terms of the history and as realistic war objectives, they were never really threatened. I think you can make a strong case for San Francisco and London as possibilities, but I’d rather the Victory Cities were scattered in more accessible regions of the map. I would prefer a heavier concentration of VCs in the Pacific for example, at least one more. Iwo might work too if Singapore doesn’t grab you, or Rangoon. Or possibly Victoria (in Western Canada) if the idea is to force the Japs to go after North America. It stills seems kind of odd that there are no Victory Cities in Africa though, since that was a major theater of opperations for much of the war.
Also, I really don’t see the benefit of having this overlap between Capitals and Victory Cities.
Why not just leave the capitals as their own seperate thing?
Instead of Moscow as both a capital and a VC, why not say that its just a capital, and save the VC for someplace more interesting, like Vladivostok or Murmansk? Instead of Berlin, how about Bucharest? Its not like there’s any long standing convention that states that all capitals have to be victory cities as well. Classic didn’t even have VCs (which is probably why most Revised players continue to just ignore them as irrelevant.) I’m sure the rules and game board have been printed already, but that doesn’t mean we can’t still establish our own standards after the fact. :) -
@Rakeman:
the US can’t ignore it and just let Japan have all of those VCs.
Why not?
If Japan captures every single Pacific victory city, so what? It doesn’t matter until the end. If America went purely KGF like they do most of the time in revised, the Allies can crush Germany/Italy, then, with an exceptional income, walk over Japan, just like in revised. It just appears that ignoring victory cities entirely, until victory is obvious (capitals have fallen), is the best method for victory. This makes victory cities seem, to me, more of an unnecessary complication than something that has an “effect on gameplay” like Harry wanted. The only time I see victory cities making a difference is if the Allies for whatever reason decided to capture every Axis victory city except for capitals… which doesn’t seem like a feasible strategy.
1- You dont need a capital to get to 13 VC. If you ignore Japan, that’s several “free” VC Japan gets.
2- Japan will get bonus income (and the allies lose it) which makes Japan even stronger.
3- Since Japan cannot just march to moscow easily, it has nothing better to do than conquer LA. Which it CAN do if you give it its starting (1942) 30 IPC, plus IPC for territories it takes, PLUS 15 bonus IPC for its goals. Japan will soon become a 65-70 IPC monster.
I dont think the allies can just “ignore” Japan. That was the whole point of the pacific VC and the bonus system. You will be forced to spend $ in the pacific, or you will lose.
I disagree.
1. Same in revised. If you ignore Japan, they take India (VC). But that didn’t matter.
2. Same in revised. If you ignore Japan, they could realistically get an income of about 45 IPC. But nobody cared.
3. If it’s anything like revised, which we don’t know, the IPC from territories it takes wont be very much. For example, in revised, you get 4 IPC for China. It seems like about this amount in AA50, but that 4+ IPC is spread among a good 5 or 6 territories, not 2 territories.
I understand the point, that’s why I’m debating it: I don’t think VCs made ANY progress in achieving a pacific theater, and I don’t think bonuses will matter enough to change the ignore-Japan strategy. If the VCs mattered, that alone would solve it, but clearly capitals are what matters since you need them anyway for a 15 VC win (standard win amount).
The only ways bonuses will change the pacific is if:
1. Bonuses for Japan are large enough to counter the increased soviet mass and china, therefore bonuses cancel out the JTDTM nerfs and allow Japan to capture moscow.
2. Bonuses for Japan are large enough for Japan to launch a successful invasion against North America.
3. Japan is able to do enough economic damage to the Allies through capturing territory so that Germany and Italy alone can take on the allied onslaught.
All of these seem unlikely, but I suppose we will see. I know the first thing I’m going to do is launch an all out KG&IF against Germany and Italy, ignoring Japan entirely, and see how it works. Japan will be powerful by the time Germany and Italy fall, but it wont matter since, well, the Allies will have Germany and Italy.
I think the problem is that adding Soviet territories, China, etc., attempt to fix the problem, but not the core mechanic, the root of the problem. Capitals are what matters in this game and Japan is in no position to threaten any, which led to the Allies ignoring Japan since they weren’t a threat, and Japan rushing to Moscow since it was the only capital within range. They fixed the whole “Moscow is the only capital within Japan’s range” part, but not the core of the issue, which was that Japan was never a real threat to anything besides Moscow using a lame gimmick strategy.
In Revised, they attempted to fix this by adding IPC value to Japan in the Pacific, but they did it wrong- if they added ALLIED IPC value to the Pacific, then maybe Japan would have been powerful enough to, if left unattended, cripple the Allies to a point where Germany could take them on.
So yes, in my opinion, the problem is that Japan isn’t a threat to anything significant, and until that is changed, JTDTM and KGF will still remain the most viable strategies.
Disclaimer: This is all based on speculation about past and future A&A games
-
The main issue I have with the bonuses is that they are difficult to explain and keep track of.
Axis and Allies is already so complicated and tricky to introduce to new players, I worry about the learning curve. Having nation specific rules for China built into the game may also be little confusing for newcomers. I think it would be much more straight forward if the rules were consistant for each player. I feel like we should be simplifying the general rules, rather than adding more specific and nuanced ones. For example, a simple cash bonus based on the number of VCs controlled, would be much easier to explain to the noob, than “if you control territory x y and z as Germany then you get 5 ipcs.”
Victory Cities are a good idea, but in order for them to work properly, we might have to ditch the current Capital dynamic altogether. Right now, the ability to steal the other guy’s money and leave him with no chance to purchase that round, is the only way to gain the decisive edge. Consequently, everyone I know who plays Revised does so with the clear emphasis on Moscow and Berlin (either offense or defense) because those are the easiest capitals to go after. Its far more likely for example, for teamates to just start sending aircraft and units towards the weak link capital to prop it up, rather than using those same units to make ultimately futile attacks in a more esoteric direction. 9 times out of 10 the Axis go after Moscow, while the Allies schuck troops towards Russia via Africa or the northern route, while trying to clamp down on Berlin. The basic pattern is remarkable consistant going back to classic, and it keeps happening each time, because of this cash grabing thing.
I think the only way we can make a real change, is to give the Axis another option for victory beyond Moscow. VCs could maybe do the trick, if we elimanted the ‘take the Capital and you get all the cash!’ rule and just replaced it with bonuses/penalties based on how many VCs you control. Unless you do something about the capital capturing/money dynamic though, I think people will still just go for the easiest target and ignore the non-essential stuff. Also, if winning by Victory Cities is like winning on a technicality (instead of the overwhelming in-your-face Victory that comes from seizing an enemy Capital) then people will probably just continue until the capital falls anyway. So there’s that too
-
With China so weakened (2 inf after Japan 1, no chance of aircraft or tanks) and so cheap for Japan (12 ipcs if have all Chinese territories), Japan can go monster 65-70 IPCs against USA if USA try ignore Japan. Good luck saving USA’s mainland with 36-40 IPCS against 65-70.
Obi Wan playing USA: I’ll do my duty. I’ll go absolute KGF and utterly ignore Japan
Annakin playing Japan: You’ll try it, old master, you’ll try it
Yoda playing UK: KGF the dark side path is …
:lol: :mrgreen:
-
/Rakeman
You raise some valid points, that I’m sure the designers of this game were aware of. The question is if they fixed the problem.
The 13 VC play will be the standard one, and short of Moscow you then need all those Pacific VCs plus Leningrad & Stalingrad. I do think those two are much easier to take than Moscow, they are both accessible by sea invasions and at least for Stalingrad this is a real drawback since the Italians can invade with ample shore bombardment.
The question is time. I don’t think a Japanese invasion of California is what we should be discussing, and if so the game is a bit strange. The question is:
*) Given a KG/IF strategy by the US and the UK, will they be able to grab and hold France or Italy before the fall of those 13 VCs?
I’m pretty sure all those Pacific VCs will fall, so it would be a matter of the Germans being able to take Karelia and Caucasus and hold on to France and Italy. If the game is well tested and balanced, good German & Italians players will be able to do this against a KG/IF strategy, and so some Pacific offensive action by the UK and US will be forced to happen to at least contain the Japs. That’s the crux.
-
/Rakeman
The question is time. I don’t think a Japanese invasion of California is what we should be discussing, and if so the game is a bit strange.Invasion of California will be only possible if USA makes a classical ignore Japan strat (KGF). With 65-70 ipcs, it should be easy for Japan set a foothold in Alaska, then fighting for Canada (and for that odd Ottawa VC :-D ), then conquering Los Angeles. With Germany at about 35 ipcs and Italy about 10-15 ipcs, they should be able to stop UK and soviets enough for USA fall.
-
/Functioneta
But there’s no NEED to attack America. Take Hawaii, India and Australia and then aid Germany to take Leningrad and Stalingrad and then you WIN. After taking the Pacific VCs, Japan’s first target should be Caucasus, and not Siberia or Alaska or South Africa or some other remote part of the world. The VC system ensures you will be rewarded for reasonable play.
Suggested Topics
