Victory Cities: What I feared…

@Lynxes:

But there’s no NEED to attack America.

Totally agree, specially with a 65-70 ipcs monster. You can utterly toast soviets with that. But now, there is a chance for Axis for going against California if USA simply ignores Japan. In Revised, it was no possible, because Japan was about 45-50 ipcs usually, USA can defend against that, and by then Berlin is usually about to fall.

The point is: yes, is not NEEDED attack America, but now is POSSIBLE attack America. New strategies are refreshing for playing Axis, they will have at least 2, against only one in revised  :-)

I just can’t imagine any serious Axis/Jap players attacking the United States over Russia.

Even now in the Revised game, nobody completely ignores Japan, its just a matter of how and where the Western Allies choose to face them. Most people prefer to confront the Japs via Africa or Russia, because its safer than committing to the pacific, and because realistically, there’s no way to win as the Allies that doesn’t involve taking Berlin. Similarly, there’s also no way to win as the Axis that doesn’t involve taking Moscow, so everyone just sends their troops to the middle of the board, since that’s where the real contest is invariably decided anyway.

People who refer to a KJF strategy in Revised as though it was a game winner are just deluding themselves. Only an idiot loses Tokyo to the Americans. The KJF properly executed is just stalling tactic to neuter Japan for a round or two, before completely redirecting the focus to Germany… Just like attacking North America with Japan is a stalling tactic to distract them away from Europe/Russia for a round, before completely redirecting the focus on Moscow. They’re holding maneuvers, not game winning strategies.

To reiterate, unless winning by Victory Cities seems decisive, players will just ignore them in favor of capturing a Capital. If winning by 13 VCs or 15 VCs, or whatever it ends up being, seems like a cheap win, or an inconclusive win, then people aren’t going to go for it. They’ll just fall back on the older dynamic, where you don’t win until you’ve taken a Capital.

Clearly if anything is going to change the basic gameplay dynamics in AA50, its going to be the cash Bonuses. That’s why I think the bonuses should be tied directly to individual Victory Cities in 1:1 sort of way, otherwise the VCs are just redundant.

/Rakeman & Black Elk

So do you think winning with control of Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, Rome, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong-Kong, Manila, Calcutta, Honolulu and Sydney is a cheap win? Do you think that taking Moscow should still be a must? If so you would really not need VCs at all and choose to play with a minor victory condition of control of one enemy capital. But this would again streamline the game towards a Japanese anti-Soviet strategy. I don’t see what you’re getting at.

@Rakeman:

@Black_Elk:

Clearly if anything is going to change the basic gameplay dynamics in AA50, its going to be the cash Bonuses. That’s why I think the bonuses should be tied directly to individual Victory Cities in 1:1 sort of way, otherwise the VCs are just redundant.

Exactly my thoughts.

Huh?

Then bonuses are just a different form of victory cities.

I think the bonus are intended to be completely different than victory cities, not clones of them.  Proposing that bonuses are tied to the hip of VC’s REALLY makes them redundant.

Most of my thoughts on Victory Cities are based on my experience with Revised. Over the past three years I’ve helped to run a few gaming clubs, TripleA is probably the most popular. I’ve played literally hundreds of games over there, and observed many more, and I can say definitively, that players are not paying attention to VCs in their Revised games.

It was determined early on (I’d say within the first 6-9 months) that the VC arrangment was unbalanced, and that games ended too quickly, without a decisive win. People didn’t add extra VCs, like Cousin Joe and I suggested, and they didn’t bother to rework the number needed for Victory. It hardly mattered to most people whether it was a 9 VC thing or an 11 VC, or whatever, if it didn’t work, then they just ignored them altogether. The attitude people took towards VCs was that they were a gameplay balancing mechanism that failed to come off properly, because they created ‘artificial’ victory conditions - victory conditions that didn’t seem to relate much to the other gameplay mechanics.

I think the idea of bonuses is good, but the way they are determined right now is rather complicated. You need to have out your manual and the listed territories to figure out what’s going on. The groups of territories needed for the bonuses are not clearly indicated on the map (like in Risk say, where each continent is color coded.) I expect that people will quickly memorize these distinctions, but for the new player it adds a bunch of unecessary stats tracking. The reason I say VCs are reduntant under such a set up, is because I can almost gaurantee that people are going to ignore the VCs in favor of what’s really important - the bonuses.

In AA50 France will be significant, not because of the Paris VC, but because of the Bonus money you get from controlling the territory. If VCs were linked directly to the cash bonuses, then players would regard them as significant in there own right, instead of just as an afterthought. If the money came from the VCs, instead of from these territory blocs, I think people would start to embrace the VC concept, because VCs would have a real impact on the gameplay. I’m not really sure how to explain it better, which is probably why I sound a bit repetative. :)

So do you think winning with control of Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, Rome, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong-Kong, Manila, Calcutta, Honolulu and Sydney is a cheap win?

I think that unless control of those territories is backed up with some kind of overwhelming cash advantage, or by a real gameplay mechanic (instead of just being a nominal victory) then, yes, I don’t think people will be satisfied with it.

Trust me, the last thing I want to see is a return to the Moscow centric game. Personally I wish Larry had done away with the white sea route to Karelia and closed the Panama canal altogether, but that was never going to happen. What I really want is for the Capital dynamic to be altered in favor of one based on Victory cities, but that won’t work unless the VCs have some intrinsic value of their own (that goes beyond just the nominal one that they have right now).

Having bonuses tied to the hip of VCs wouldn’t make VCs reduntant, it would make them meaningful.

I think that unless control of those territories is backed up with some kind overwhelming cash advantage, or by a real gameplay mechanic (instead of just being a nominal victory) then, yes, I don’t think people will be satisfied with it.

Trust me, the last thing I want to see is a return to the Moscow centric game. Personally I wish Larry had done away with of the sea route to Karelia and closed the Panama canal altogether, but that was never going to happen. What I want is for the Capital dynamic to be altered in favor of a dynamic based on Victory cities, but that’s never going to work unless the VCs have some intrinsic value of their own (that goes beyond just the nominal one that they have right now).

I think the National objectives fill that role quite well. In that 13 VC situation, Germany has a basic IPC value of 43, but 10 IPCs of bonuses, Japan has basic value of 37 but 15 IPCs of bonuses. So instead of 80 IPCs, quite strong, they have 105, which is enough to win the game in the long run I would think.

As for historical realism, I think Stalin would be ready to sue for peace in that situation, as he would know that the Japanese would then be able to attack at full strength. So it’s historically correct AND shortens the game, good deal for me.

Yes, but none of that has to do with the VCs. It has to do with the cash bonuses.
You see what I’m saying…

Its the money that’s going to make the difference here, which is why I wish the bonuses were related directly to the VCs. Then players would actually take Victory Cities seriously, because they would have a noticeable impact on the gameplay.

Sorry for the constant editing. I have a tendency to post and then spellcheck, instead of the other way around :)

@Black_Elk:

People didn’t add extra VCs, like Cousin Joe and I suggested

A pause to reflect on the greatness of vision that the creator of Enhanced had….
Here’s to Cousin_Joe!

@Black_Elk:

and they didn’t bother to rework the number needed for Victory. It hardly mattered to most people whether it was a 9 VC thing or an 11 VC, or whatever, if it didn’t work, then they just ignored them altogether.

Hmm, wasn’t LHTR implemented?  9 VC’s makes Revised a playable game.

@Black_Elk:

The attitude people took towards VCs was that they were a gameplay balancing mechanism that failed to come off properly, because they created ‘artificial’ victory conditions - victory conditions that didn’t seem to relate much to the other gameplay mechanics.

So why should your view be based on mis-informed players ?

@Black_Elk:

The reason I say VCs are reduntant under such a set up, is because I can almost gaurantee that people are going to ignore the VCs in favor of what’s really important - the bonuses.

Sorry if people do not realize that the bonus’s are ANOTHER tool to achieve a win.  VC’s determine the game winner, not the bonuses.  Granted, taking advantage of the bonuses will certainly make achieving the necessary number of VCs to win a lot easier, but I imagine you can win without focusing entirely on the bonuses.  It’s akin to winning only the key battles (not EVERY battle), yet still winning the war.

@Black_Elk:

In AA50 France will be significant, not because of the Paris VC, but because of the Bonus money you get from controlling the territory. If VCs were linked directly to the cash bonuses, then players would regard them as significant in there own right, instead of just as an afterthought. If the money came from the VCs, instead of from these territory blocs, I think people would start to embrace the VC concept, because VCs would have a real impact on the gameplay. I’m not really sure how to explain it better, which is probably why I sound a bit repetative. :)

I think you are missing a new game element that is being added that is a new strategic component of the game.  VC’s still win you the game.

Since it’s football season, I’ll use that analogy.  Yards gained equates to the bonuses, VCs are TDs.  If I have more yards gained (let’s say my team has 500 yards offense) but the other team scores 7 TD’s to my 6, I still lose.  Gaining yards is a crucial component (usually, but not always) to scoring TD’s, but it is not the end all be all.  My Defense can intercept a pass for a TD… so in that sense, I have achieved a game winning goal without the yardage.

@Black_Elk:

Having bonuses tied to the hip of VCs wouldn’t make VCs reduntant, it would make them meaningful. Right now I’m not sure that they are, despite the best intentions of the designers.

I think I’ve explained the differences above.

Agree with AR here.

People need to lay off the Vc system. Sure, bonuses get you IPC, but VC are the actual method to wining the game.

Besides, many of the bonuses require you take a territory with a VC. So VC are obviously going to matter quite heavily in this game…

Ok lets explore the issue from the other direction. That is, if you guys are cool with me playing devil’s advocate a bit longer :)

Why does taking a capital usually mean victory?
We know that this is not always the case, because 2 capitals can (and often do) fall in the same round. For the most part though, the game ends when a capital is captured…

But Why?

It’s not because of some explicit statement in the rules, that you win when you take Moscow or Berlin, rather it’s because of what actually happens when you take a capital:  namely, you get all the other guy’s money and neuter his ability to place more units on the board.

People concede defeat when a capital falls, not because of some unspoken rule, but because it becomes clear that recovery after such a defeat is no longer possible. If, somehow, a real recovery is possible, then players will continue to play until it’s clearly decided one way or the other.

With Capitals it’s easy, because you can see how taking a capital effects the basic gameplay mechanics (e.g. you get a lot of money, and the other guy is left holding the bag.) A win by VCs doesn’t have a component like that. That’s why I say it’s a ‘nominal’ victory, because it doesn’t work unless both players agree to abide by it.

I think a Revised player would probably get laughed out of the room right now, if he tried to claim Major Victory based on the number of VCs he controls, because frankly, no body cares about Victory Cities in Revised. LHTR may be a different story, but it was by all accounts late on scene, and I’m still not sure most people pay attention to VCs even in the tourney rules. I also don’t think its an issue of mis-informed players. Player habits develop organically, and the habit of ignoring VCs was one of the first that I noticed. Granted this was before LHTR, but I don’t feel that the tournament rules addressed the core problems with VCs. I guess you could say that a VC victory might sometimes accelerate the overall process, but honestly I don’t know many people who are looking for quick games like that. Especially when you’re talking about a face to face match on the actual game board. I mean hell, it already takes like half an hour just to set the pieces up. Does anyone really want it to end that quickly? :)

As I said in a previous post I think that for increasing VC importance some of the features involved in the loss of a Capital should happen, in a minor way to the loss of VC. In some way they should work as National Malus: losing them you lose IPC, or may build less units or other penalities. This may allow VC to be relevant. Otherwise they are only map features.

Why historically a VC should be relevant for a nation?
For being economically important (For example Romania oil) or for being a political simbol. VC are not cared by the Generals because there was a square colored in red in the center of the city.

If the average A&A player have to make a choice between conquering a city that give IPCs and hinder the enemy abilities to reinforce (Capital) OR to conquer a city that is only a simbol on the map I think that the soundly strategic choice is: going for the Capital and after you may go for the VCs.

@Black_Elk:

Ok lets explore the issue from the other direction. That is, if you guys are cool with me playing devil’s advocate a bit longer :)

Why does taking a capital usually mean victory?
We know that this is not always the case, because 2 capitals can (and often do) fall in the same round. For the most part though, the game ends when a capital is captured…

But Why?

It’s not because of some explicit statement in the rules, that you win when you take Moscow or Berlin, rather it’s because of what actually happens when you take a capital:  namely, you get all the other guy’s money and neuter his ability to place more units on the board.

People concede defeat when a capital falls, not because of some unspoken rule, but because it becomes clear that recovery after such a defeat is no longer possible. If, somehow, a real recovery is possible, then players will continue to play until it’s clearly decided one way or the other.

With Capitals it’s easy, because you can see how taking a capital effects the basic gameplay mechanics (e.g. you get a lot of money, and the other guy is left holding the bag.) A win by VCs doesn’t have a component like that. That’s why I say it’s a ‘nominal’ victory, because it doesn’t work unless both players agree to abide by it.

I think a Revised player would probably get laughed out of the room right now, if he tried to claim Major Victory based on the number of VCs he controls, because frankly, no body cares about Victory Cities in Revised. LHTR may be a different story, but it was by all accounts late on scene, and I’m still not sure most people pay attention to VCs even in the tourney rules. I also don’t think its an issue of mis-informed players. Player habits develop organically, and the habit of ignoring VCs was one of the first that I noticed. Granted this was before LHTR, but I don’t feel that the tournament rules addressed the core problems with VCs. I guess you could say that a VC victory might sometimes accelerate the overall process, but honestly I don’t know many people who are looking for quick games like that. Especially when you’re talking about a face to face match on the actual game board. I mean hell, it already takes like half an hour just to set the pieces up. Does anyone really want it to end that quickly? :)

In reality, most games are decided before a capital falls. Sure, sometimes there are two taken near enough in time, but in many cases Moscow “will fall” in a turn or two. So why always play it out if you know the outcome.

Many games are “decided” by 8 rounds. You know who is winning, and logically who would win. It has nothing to do with the loss of the capital. One side has a military and/or economic advantage that the other side will ultimately lose too.

Well players may decide to call the game early, and I see that happen all the time, but its still a decision made with reference to one of the Capitals.

The Allies might decide to give up the ghost, because Moscow is hopeless, and they can see that its only a matter of time before the Panzers prevail, but they’re still calculating their chances of victory/recovery in terms of the Capital dynamic. Personally I think its bad form to concede prematurely, especially with standard dice, but I don’t hold everyone else to that. For me the endgame is often the most interesting, and anything can happen with a lucky roll, so even if I’m getting ruthlessly spanked I still try to play it out until the outcome is clear. Others might prefer quicker games and that’s cool, but even the people who quit in the first round are still probably thinking about the Capitals when they do so.

When one side gives up early, its almost always because of some logistics issue pertaining to a capital. For example, say the Axis player realizes that he won’t have a shot on Moscow for at least 5 rounds, and he knows that by then it will be totally impregnable. Even though there is no immediate danger of losing Berlin, the Axis may throw in the towel anyway, because even though they haven’t necessarily lost, they also can’t really win.

I think that’s a perfectly understandable decision for the Axis player to make, but it has everything to do with Capital’s falling. We call the game, because one side can’t take their target capital, or because their own capital is indefensible long term.

What I would like to see is a situation more like what Romulus is suggesting, with bonuses or penalties for individual VCs. Turning VCs into mini-capitals, of a sort. They are already indicated on the map, and it would be much easier to explain to the newbie, than many of these National Objectives. Something basic and easy to understand, like a bonus of +3 or +5 ipcs taken from the enemy’s cash reserves, if you take a VC from him. The specifics are of course debatable, but its the principle of giving the VCs some real in game consequences and associations. Otherwise, I really don’t think players will use them to determine Victory. Instead I think they’ll just fall back on the more familiar method of determining Victory based something more tangeable, like how much money you have in the war chest, or the number of units you have bearing down on an enemy capital.

VC’s ARE already targets.  Here’s a hypothetical:

I have taken the Nth (13th… 9th… whatever the victory condition is set at) victory city from you and unless you take it back, I win the game.  Talk about important territories now!

All VC’s value increase exponentially:  If you don’t take one back, you LOSE!

Perhaps one VC is not important in and of itself, but collectively the VCs ARE really worth something… I think it’s called a victory.

Perhaps because you have not played a Revised game in which you CAN win without taking a capital (Like the Enhanced rules).  Let me tell you, I have played over 100 of these games, and Syndey or Hawaii or France can be VERY important, WITHOUT any additional increases in their value or other bonuses.  In Enhanced, you CAN win without taking Moscow… and that’s <part of=“”>the beauty of it.</part>

I hope VC’s are optional rules in AA50. As a TripleA AAR player it’s always total domination, game ends well before rnd 10 usually.
VC’s can be ok if some ppl want shorter games, but if victory shall be decided by technicality like chess, then AA50 will be really boring. Need house rules if that happens.
In chess it’s ok to lose a game if you lose your king, even if you have several stronger units then the oppononent, because chess IS a technicality game, not a strategy game like AA.
WW2 was all about total domination. Also, common sense wouldn’t hurt anybody.

AA50 manual could include something like: “AA50 victory conditions, total world domination or VC’s. With total domination use common sense, no need to kill the last single hostile infantry before conceding…”  :wink:

Perhaps because you have not played a Revised game in which you CAN win without taking a capital (Like the Enhanced rules).  Let me tell you, I have played over 100 of these games, and Syndey or Hawaii or France can be VERY important, WITHOUT any additional increases in their value or other bonuses.  In Enhanced, you CAN win without taking Moscow…. and that’s <part of=“”>the beauty of it.</part>

I fully support Joe’s Enhanced Ruleset. I even made those cardboard cut outs in Photoshop for Sydney, Honolulu and Stalingrad, way back when Revised first came out. I also can’t tell you how many times I argued the case about including even some elements of the Enhanced ruleset for TripleA. It was sidelined in favor of LHTR though, and since I do maps and not java, that’s as far as I was able to push the issue. Believe me though, I will be a very happy man if we ever get Subs doing proper economic damage and all the new NAs included. Some of them can actually be handled in the current engine, with the assistance of the edit mode, but its sometimes hard to persuade new players to try a House Rules variant that requires heavy editing.

Like I said before though, I think the concept of VCs is great and I understand how they are meant to function. I also think bonuses are a brilliant idea. I just wish the two were integrated in a more 1:1 fashion. Also, and I don’t mean any offense to Enhanced, or the other House Rulesets floating around, but the longer it takes to explain a new rule, the harder it is to persuade people to adopt it. In general I favor a re-balancing and simplification of the existing rules over the addition of new ones. A highly nuanced house ruleset might be fun for experts, but I worry about the accessibility for new players. I always try remain optimistic, but I think others share similar concerns too, which I why I think its something worth discussing. :)

I’ll let some other people weigh in though, since I’ve been talking a lot. I should really be doing laundry right now anyway hehe

@Subotai:

because chess IS a technicality game, not a strategy game like AA.

Now I’ve heard the total opposite: Chess is the utlimate strategy game…because it’s ALL strategy.  There is no luck involved (except maybe who gets to go first)

@Subotai:

WW2 was all about total domination. Also, common sense wouldn’t hurt anybody.

We’re playing a game, not fighting a real war.  It’s nice to be able to win the game WITHOUT having to take a capital.  If you have the same target every time (i.e. Moscow), it becomes the same game over and over… can you say boring?!

Been there done that since 1985!!

IF you want to require a capital to fall to win, play with a higher number of VC’s to win (that necessitates taking a capital to get to that number)

It’s nice to be able to win the game WITHOUT having to take a capital.  If you have the same target every time (i.e. Moscow), it becomes the same game over and over… can you say boring?!

I agree.

I was only 4 in 1985, but from the time that I started playing A&A a few years later, I’ve been agonizing over the same things you have. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if we sat down and hashed it out face to face, we would agree on all the major points.

I think the only difference is in how we are approaching the underlying issues (i.e. Moscow centric, repetative gameplay, with scripted attack patterns that depart from the history… Jap tank drives etc.) Its my view that most of what we want to achieve, could be accomplished with adjustments to the Map/Game board, and by ditching the Capital/Cash dynamic in favor a one that is more heavily focused on VCs. I don’t think we really need things like National Advantages, National Objectives, or specific rules that only apply to a narrow set of situations. They’re cool to have as options, and for experts like us, but the more I see them getting built into the core game, the more I feel like the learning curve is getting away from us.

I was introduced to A&A in the late 80s early 90s, when I was still pretty young, but the only reason I know how to play it was because I had older friends who taught me. I can remember puzzling over the rules for a long time. Concepts that seem simple to me now, like ‘fodder’ or ‘dead zones’, were all a total mystery when I first started playing this game. A&A is not like Risk, or Monopoly. You don’t just pick it up in one night. Of all the board games you can buy at Target, I think it is probably the most difficult to explain to newcomers. I’ve tried a number of times, even with game savvy friends, and its virtually impossible to do in one sitting. It’s like you need at least 2 people who already know what they’re doing, who can then just show the third guy by example. I understand that’s somewhat typical for all games, but in this case especially, introductions tend to be slow on the uptake.

I don’t know. Maybe you guys have had a different experience than I have, so I won’t keep beating a dead horse. I still believe that we could achieve a dynamic two front War without sacrificing the ease of use though.