Victory Cities: What I feared…

Well, in Revised, the standard victory condition in tournament play became 9 VC out of 12, which is 75%. With the actual 18 VC, 75% would mean 13,5 CV.

It may depend on what you play for. With the standard 15 VC you could ignore the Pacific as allies. But can you really afford to ignore the Pacific, if you play to 13? This “minor victory” basically means 7 VC for Japan in Asia-Pacific, Germany-Italy must hold it starting 4 VC in Central Europe and the axis powers must conquer both Stalingrad and Leningrad. So the axis could win without taking a single capital. Nevertheless, this is quite an impressive goal to hold all continental european VCs besides Moscow if all three allies go for Germany and Italy.

Imho it is more likely that Japan will conquer Caucasus if you ignore them in the Pacific, so the question is wheater the western allies are quicker taking Italy (or even Germany) out of the game than the Japs taking Moscow.

Ignoring Pacfic in a 13 VC game may be the wrong strategy as besically Germany-Italy only have to defend their 4 VC in Central Europe and let Japan do all the rest. And if they take all Pacific and all Asia, they accumulate to about 70 IPC in total (with 15 IPC bonus) and this really is a lot!

All this strat talk on a game that is not released…, but it’s fun anyway. I look forward to play AA50 (in TripleA)  :mrgreen:

As for the KGF in revised, the single most important reason why exp. players use KGF is because there is not enough $ in pacific. US will be wasting 3-4 turns building stuff that is wasted. And this again leads Japan to the task of capturing Moscow, while Germany holds…defending WE+SE etc. Between exp. players regardless of ADS or LL, the winning team is usually the one who captures a capital first. And the capitals are always Berlin or Moscow. This is revised in a nutshell. There are many different tactics that can be used within the basic mechanics of the game, but the few important factors are well known and will not change.

I’m not gonna bet on what strats will be most used in AA50, but if there’s more $ in mainland Asia than in the Asian pacific, then it’s gonna be the same exercise again, with some minor changes and some new units.

About China I tried to ask Larry about why China couldn’t be allowed to have the possibility of getting an IC build on www.harrisgamedesign.com and I just got an answer from Krieghund about China not being an industrial power etc.

I guess it all comes down to play-balance, which will be clear pretty quickly once the game comes out. Hopefully they have play-tested the game and China is needed to be this weak to not out-balance the game in Allied favour. For example, USA has 10 IPCs of bonuses now that can be held and two bombers at-start so a Pacific campaign can now jump-start quicker. Also, as I’ve written in '41 strats, Russia might be able to shield India with infantry until UK production starts up and then Japan will be busy fending off UK attacks and China might survive.

The simplest change would be to give the Chinese one inf/turn PER AREA rather than per two areas. If the game is unbalanced and you have a Chinese collapse in every game, I will propose this to my playing group, but we still haven’t got the game so its too early for that.

Hi guys!   :-D

I’m excited about the new game.  I actually think that they got the Victory City distribution right this time.  The whole point of Victory Cities, is to allow the game to be won, without needing the fall of a capital.

We’re all familiar with the typical KGF/Ignore Japan/JTDTM playout from Classic and Revised.  Basically, produce your units, and push them towards Berlin or Moscow (the two easiest capitals to take down) as efficiently as possible, or what I like to call, “Moving the Meat” style Axis and Allies  :roll:  This takes very little strategic thought and is boring as H-E-double hockey sticks to play.  Those of you that are familiar with AAR: Enhanced, know how much more fun the game is when the Allies are fighting in the Pacific and you have multiple theaters to think about and spread your tight resources among.  To get this “Global War playout”,  victory shouldn’t depend on capital capture.  If victory depends on capital capture, then the most efficient way to victory is to simply just push all your units towards the easiest enemy capital (ie. Berlin and Moscow).

Now in Revised, they did introduce Victory Cities to try and correct this.  The problem is, is that their distribution (at 9VC win condition) still necessitated the fall of a capital to win, ie. Moscow.  So what’s Axis going to do?… Go straight for Moscow.  In turn, the Allies, with no reason for being in the Pacific, would go straight for Berlin.  Well, so much for that version  :roll:

In Anniversary Edition though, I think they got it right.

Axis starts with 6 VC
Japan has 5 non-capital VCs in close proximity
Ger/Ita have 2 non-capital VCs in range

With a 13 VC win condition, Axis can win the game without taking a capital.  This is critical, because in previous games, they had to take a capital.  Thus, the groundwork is laid to keep Japan in the Pacific and out of Moscow.  What remains to be determined though, is if it’s viable for the Allies to fight Japan in the Pacific.  If it is, then we will get the Global War we desire.  If it is not, then we will still get KGF.

On that note, the one disappointment I have is that the Industrial Complex price remains at 15IPC (unlike 12 IPC in Enhanced).  If you’re really wanting to encourage more of an Allied Pacific campaign, you have to allow the Allies to do one of 2 things, either:

1. Let the US go full tilt 1 on 1 with Japan while UK+Rus work against Ger/Ita
or
2. Get a UK IC in India or Australia with some partial US assistance (ie. US+UK split their resources in both theatres)

If the ICs are overly expensive, especially for a cash-strapped UK, you’re going to see less of situation 2 and more of a Classic KGF/Ignore Japan/JTDTM style of game  :roll:

Now, the only other thing to keep in mind though is bonus income for UK.  It might be enough to encourage UK to build an IC, even at the inflated price of 15 IPC.  We’ll have to see when the game comes out.

Bottom Line: The Victory City distribution with a 13 VC win condition lays the groundwork for the Axis to fight a Global War (ie. will keep Japan from going to Moscow).  What will ultimately determine if the Global War playout happens, is whether a UK IC in the Pacific, or a full tilt US naval campaign against Japan, are strategically viable for the Allies.  Again, we’ll need to see the opening set-up to know.

Hey Joe  :-D

Good to see you again man.

Your VC optimism is contagious I’ll admit, but I still wish they had gone further and placed more VCs in contested areas of the board. Hopefully the 13 win will be more popular here than the 8 win was when Revised first came out. I’m still rather skeptical, but I’ll be stoked if we can somehow convince a majority of players to focus on the VC game over the Capital game.

I have no doubt though that an AA50 Enhanced will be available in short order, if any imbalances remain. Totally agree about the factory costs. I’m also still waiting on Sub raids to receive some love from the official rules. I’d happily give up the ability to submerge (with all the confusion that causes) for the ability to make economic attacks against factories. :)

Hey Black_Elk,

Good to see you too  :-)

I do agree.  I think the Ottawa VC in would have been nice to see in South Africa.  It would have given Italy a more defined target to shoot for (ie. a specific VC, rather than just Africa income).  It would also give a bit more variety in terms of what VCs the Axis shoot for.  As of right now they basically have to go for the M13 I’ll call them (in honor of the old M84 from Classic).

The Magic 13 (M13):
Berlin, Warsaw, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Shanghai
Calcutta, Hong Kong, Sydney, Manila, Honolulu
Stalingrad, Leningrad

As the game stands, if Allies ignore Japan, I can see Axis capable of pretty much grabbing up all of the M13 with the exception of Leningrad and Stalingrad.  At that point, Japan can start applying pressure to Stalingrad via India or to Moscow itself via Siberia/China (I wouldn’t call this JTDTM though as this would be more midgame rather than early game).  If Allies are conducting typical KGF, then Karelia is probably loaded with Allies.  At some point, Japan pressure will force them to move to Moscow, and if Germany is pushing INF like they should be vs a KGF, then Leningrad should fall.

Overall then, ignoring Japan looks like a very grim situation for the Allies.  They are essentially forced to defend one of the Pacific VCs, either India, Sydney, or Honolulu.  This is why I think they chose Ottawa as a VC.  If the Allies are well behaved and defend one of these Pacific VCs as they should, then the last VC Axis has to get, should be difficult.  South Africa would be too easy in my opinion.  Too far from Allied reinforcements, and too close to a nearly maxed out Japan.

Axis still has options though.  Either go for all 3 Russian VCs, or just go for Leningrad/Stalingrad and run a fork maneuver into Western Canada with Japan (ie. pressure San Fran and Ottawa simultaneously, as it would be hard for the US ignoring a nearly maxed out Japan to defend both).

As I said above though, the key to whether Allies will stay in the Pacific depends on their ability to defend one of those VCs.  If they decide none of these are defendable (because of a bad opening set-up and poor game rules), then expect to see all or nothing KGF +/- HB/Rocket strategies to try and take down German/Italian VCs before the Axis get their M13.

At that point, yes, perhaps we’ll see AA50 Enhanced  :-D

Ottowa for the Canadians man!
We We’re int he war before many countries so do not say Ottowa should not be a country.

Even if i was not canadian i would still think ciaro or alexandria or a city else were would be a waste because then ex. italy mass men not navy
just to close and gb wotn be able to do as much dmg.
u see the problems

Antarctica should be a VC. So Adolf can have a secret U-boat base and eat snow cones with his guilt.