This came up in another thread, and as I didn’t want that thread stuffed down here, I decided to restart the conversation here for anyone who cares :wink:
@Rakeman:
Haha, yes. See, that’s the biggest problem with the Axis and Allies series, in my opinion- the need for the Axis to take Moscow. It is logical that this is the best course of action…
1. Taking an enemy capital is basically a win, if you hold all of yours
2. Russia is the ONLY capital that the Axis have access too (unless you plan on amphibiously assaulting the US or UK, which is extremely difficult).
3. BOTH Axis powers have access to it
4. Japan has literally no other worthwhile target, seeing how in 1942, the Pacific is already hers.
I maintain that the best change would be to give Japan a worthwhile, historical target(s), and to make Russia not WORTH attacking for Japan. Victory cities are in the right direction but the problem still remains… if you just rush Moscow, you can pick up the spare VCs later with little to no resistance. Perhaps there should simply be a penalty of some sort for losing a victory city… then the Pacific would be worth fighting for, rather than fighting for something that is irrelevant until game end.
We’re probably a little off topic; but I like Rakeman’s idea of having a penalty for losing a victory city. Probably an IPC penalty of some sorts… 5 IPC’s maybe?
Now I’ll continue the discussion:
The problem with a one-time IPC penalty is that, once you lose the VC, you are probably better off not recapturing it. After all, you will lose 5 IPC every time it gets recaptured. This will make the problem remain, IMO. If losing Leningrad means Russia loses 5 IPC, they should probably keep it lost. If it gets traded back and forth between Russia and Germany, Russia would lose 5 IPC every round, potentially. The goal here would be to create fighting around the VCs, rather than have the owners abandon them :wink:
I think a 2 or 3 IPC penalty per turn in which, during the collect income phase, you collect 2-3 IPC less for every home VC that is no longer yours, would work better. If you do not recapture the victory city, you will feel some slight strain, which will build up over time unless you actually go and reclaim it. Plus, trading a territory back and forth wouldn’t matter as much… if Russia and Germany swapped control of Leningrad every turn, Russia would never see the penalty, as they are making an effort to hold it.
On the other hand, you could just give a reward to the power that does capture a victory city. If you went this route, National Objectives could be replaced with victory cities being worth bonus for the conqueror. After all, that’s basically what a National Objective is… bonuses for capturing key territories.
Double IPC value of Non Capital Victory Cities to maximum 10 IPC value. This give Axis extra 14 IPC and Allies extra 9 IPC. Would get rid of bid and make Victory Cities more important. Make it so both player not want to trade Victory Cities but want to keep and hold.
Get rid of game play that not make historical sense like Russia abandoning Leningrad, United Kingdom abandoning India, and Germany abandoning Western Europe. Would encourage United States to go to Pacific Ocean in most games.
New Victory City values:
Karelia S.S.R.: 4
Caucuses: 8
Western Europe: 10
Southern Europe: 10
Kwangtung: 6
Philippine Islands: 6
Idea might need other territory values reduce to keep Russia and Germany from too strong with extra income. Maybe reduce IPC of Norway, Novosibirsk, Kazakh S.S.R. and Balkans by 1 IPC each.
@Rakeman:
We’re probably a little off topic; but I like Rakeman’s idea of having a penalty for losing a victory city. Probably an IPC penalty of some sorts… 5 IPC’s maybe?
The problem with a one-time IPC penalty is that, once you lose the VC, you are probably better off not recapturing it. After all, you will lose 5 IPC every time it gets recaptured. This will make the problem remain, IMO. If losing Leningrad means Russia loses 5 IPC, they should probably keep it lost. If it gets traded back and forth between Russia and Germany, Russia would lose 5 IPC every round, potentially. The goal here would be to create fighting around the VCs, rather than have the owners abandon them :wink:
I think a 2 or 3 IPC penalty per turn in which, during the collect income phase, you collect 2-3 IPC less for every home VC that is no longer yours, would work better. If you do not recapture the victory city, you will feel some slight strain, which will build up over time unless you actually go and reclaim it. Plus, trading a territory back and forth wouldn’t matter as much… if Russia and Germany swapped control of Leningrad every turn, Russia would never see the penalty, as they are making an effort to hold it.
On the other hand, you could just give a reward to the power that does capture a victory city. If you went this route, National Objectives could be replaced with victory cities being worth bonus for the conqueror. After all, that’s basically what a National Objective is… bonuses for capturing key territories.
I didn’t read anything from the other thread, only into this here, but from what was quoted from captainjack, it would appear that he is speaking about an ongoing loss of 5ipcs that you are talking about with 2-3ipcs. So for him, Russia losing Lenningrad would be the loss of it’s normal value plus -5 to the total, and for you it would be the loss of normal value plus -2 or -3 to the total.
It appears as more or less the inverse of NO’s, with one side losing extra rather than gaining, so seeing if it actually makes recapture more difficult would be a good question. Have you tried this to any extent yet? Results?
Certainly the fear of the extra work to recapture would be a boost to defending them, but will they be able to retake them if needed, with further reduced troop capacities. With the current NO’s the bonus should in theory help you to keep them, but a penalty would seem to put you further down in retaking them and put less troops on the board.
@Rakeman:
I maintain that the best change would be to give Japan a worthwhile, historical target(s), and to make Russia not WORTH attacking for Japan. Victory cities are in the right direction but the problem still remains… if you just rush Moscow, you can pick up the spare VCs later with little to no resistance. Perhaps there should simply be a penalty of some sort for losing a victory city… then the Pacific would be worth fighting for, rather than fighting for something that is irrelevant until game end.
do you have any ideas as to what historical targets to add to the pacific for Japan to attack and the allies to defend? Philippines and India generally fall in my experience before Moscow does so the Allies are already down from those and from the penalties. Australia’s about all that’s left out there for them to attack short of Los Angeles, maybe more incentive for Australia too?
What if you changed the rules about losing your capital as part of this? Victory was based on VC’s only. If your capital is captured, you do not lose your IPCs and could still create units at any factory you own. The Soviets could feasibly continue to fight from Karelia or Stalingrad even after Moscow would fall and Germany would not rob Moscow’s purse.
I would only do this types of thing like they had in AAE.
Adding resource centers and if the enemy takes it he rolls out or you assign X as additional IPC lost to simulate strategic resources no longer available.
other way is you assign Victory points to each city ( based on historical model) and create a national morale chart where your units cost more if you are lower than a specific threshold.
Example: Germany has say 40 total starting VP and if during the game they lose spaces and hit below 20, all units cost +1 each till they get back to 20 or greater.
