How will AA42 promote a Pacific Theater?

Why are we having this discussion ?

Larry decided the victory condition a long time ago

AA42 will probably have the same victory conditions as Revised, but we’re discussing what we think it should be…

well in this thread everything is speculation. I too think nothing will be changed except IPC costs and some SBR and sub/transport rules more like AA50

@Imperious:

I like the idea of separate victory conditions. But doesn’t 12 VC fit into the picture you’re describing quite well and with less change to the game?

Well i look at it like this:

Both axis were after specific territories in order to accomplish goals. Resource rich territories and for various political ends. They were not after cities themselves even though some battles took place in some cities. Id rather see some large outline on the map that traces out what either the Germans or Japanese must capture to win like those old war maps that show the maximum extent of Axis occupation in Europe ans Pacific. That would be even more clear of what you need to do to win ( AKA conquer all territories inside red line). I like the cities to just show where historically important localities were just so people can learn, but to say the Axis started a war over “cities” including localities required and located in weird places like Canada.

Bottom line is each axis player has to capture said CORE territories, plus income basis of X to win. Each axis player would have a different requirement.

Its easier to do this because after all you already add up income each turn.

I think people hate this because it totally repudiates 1 VS 1 player, which was my intention. For me AA must have two teams of players and AA must have the aspect where both axis players are trying to win only not together, but at times will trade favors ( e.g. if i go out of my way and destroy the UK fleet off Persia, you must attack and take back India. Also the Soviets need to be able to win individually as opposed to ‘team allied victory’ IN the war the Soviets won with US coming in second and UK distant third, Japan forth and Germany last.

What I wonder is, if you can just set the map up in a way to where there is no need for VC’s so you can have more streamlined open ended play with less “special rules”.  For Example: set the map up so in most games if Japan has taken over Hawaii, Aus, India, etc and germany is still in decent shape (whatever that means), it would pretty much be game over in all but name only (the axis would have a tactical/ economic advantage that could only be lost through very bad luck or incredible stupidy/oversights).

While I still don’t like the Idea of VC’s at the moment, I do like the potential they present for balanced multi theater warfare (something I have always wanted in AA) and a more interesting multi player system.  I just think they should look into ways that should have one set of rules before going into a VC mentality.

One of the main reasons why I think Japan should have the very real option of threatening the WUSA if left with poor defense by the US is to force multi theater play.  The WUSA should be a far easier and more realistic option for Japan to attack than Russia because the way the board would be set up.

I agree about separate victory condition, fore each nations in the factions. A sort of NOs but they should not give money, they should give victory!

Maybe the 1 vs 1 game do not benefits of such approach but it is really a good addition to f2f A&A with more than 2 players.

@Imperious:

I think people hate this because it totally repudiates 1 VS 1 player, which was my intention.

Then it will not be A&A, b/c A&A can be played by 2-5-6 players.

And there are many who prefers 1vs1 rather than multi.

A sort of NOs but they should not give money, they should give victory!

yea i dont like NO’s I would rather have strategic resource centers that if occupied reduce the enemy IPC by X.

So each player could have some area(s) that if occupied by the enemy would cost additional income like what they did in AAE with the oil fields.

Japan would have theirs on Borneo and Indies
Germany in Romania
Soviets in Caucasus ( need a new territory because Caucasus is too large)
UK would be India and Iran/persia and some sea zones
USA would be some sea zones, possible hawaii or whatnot.

Miss a few days and a thread adds a dozen posts - wow.

I like the idea of a non- aggression pact.  Maybe with a time limit?  Expire in 4 turns or something.  Simple, and makes Japan look elsewhere.

Cheers

@jim010:

Miss a few days and a thread adds a dozen posts - wow.

I like the idea of a non- aggression pact.  Maybe with a time limit?  Expire in 4 turns or something.  Simple, and makes Japan look elsewhere.

Cheers

Once again, I think a special rule could be easily bypassed just by a simple redesigning of the map.  Just have Japan have to get through a few literaly worthless Russian territories (0 ipc) and the start hitting up cheap 1 ipc territories that won’t effect Russia’s production that much; add to that a beefed up china, a UK factory, and a US naval presence and I think you will see a Japanese threat to Russia greatly mitigated. No gimmicky rules needed and you still have an openended “sandbox” style of play.

Besides Russia and Japan did fight each other in the beggining and the end of the war.

What if Hirohito changed his mind?

In some AAR games, Germany can actually capture UK on G2, if the UK player is not focused on ftrs landing in WE G1, or a G1 transport buy, and/or UK landing everything in Africa UK1 and not guarding the capital. This happens probably less than 1 in 50 games, but nonetheless, if the odds are good, the axis player will do this.

Should this option also be removed by the same inappropriate logic, a “Germany-cannot-capture-any-other-capital-than-Moscow” or “Germany-cannot-capture-London” rules?

Japan can also take Alaska, this is easy in almost every game, same goes for Australia and India, both in AA50 and Revised. This could not happen in WW2, not if the game starts in 41 or later.

The idea of IL, is not to give scripted strategy or force player to do “historical” things. The idea is bound to geography (or maybe geo-policy).

Why Japan attacked USA at Pearl Harbour? For having free hands in conquering Philippines, Indonesia, Borneo, etc. And why? Because there Japan could found: oil, rubber, metal ores, etc. They are not after cities. And they are also not after capitals. They look for economic resources and strategically relevant territories.
So the war effort should be aimed to conquer key territories on the map that gives economic benefits, while at same time negating them to the oppoents.
With a wise allocation of economical objectives that bring victory for the side that conquer them while cripple the oppoennts economy, player have to devise strategy to achieve goals that go in the direction of promoting operation all over the map.

Another thing, that I have tried to do as an home rules, is victory based on collecting victory points. Each turn a natio ncollects victory points based on the control of key strategic and economic territories on the map. Increasing of such points is the measure of the strategic and economic advantage a nation is achieving while at same time having less point collected “simulate” the moral factor of a nation that may give up in a fight if continually defeated for the control of strategic key points or economical resources or national territories.

So the victory conditions should be individual for each nations and composed of several factors: economical (IPCs), strategical (control of key territories), moral (bringing war in the enemy territories while preserving own territories). Each end of round victory points are given to each nation for the obvjectives achieved. Victory is gained reaching X victory points, with the additional constraints of having an advantage of Y victory points on the other side. (having less then Y victory points allows the war to continue, the advantage is still not decisive).

I know, I have gone too much off topic but what I would like to have is a of assessing the winner, simple (counting victory point at the end of the round is not too much complicated) but also bound to the geography and policy of the wolrd.

@Romulus:

Why Japan attacked USA at Pearl Harbour? For having free hands in conquering Philippines, Indonesia, Borneo, etc. And why? Because there Japan could found: oil, rubber, metal ores, etc.

Maybe the time is right for Axis & Allies: Supremacy edition!

Once again, I think a special rule could be easily bypassed just by a simple redesigning of the map.  Just have Japan have to get through a few literaly worthless Russian territories (0 ipc) and the start hitting up cheap 1 ipc territories that won’t effect Russia’s production that much; add to that a beefed up china, a UK factory, and a US naval presence and I think you will see a Japanese threat to Russia greatly mitigated. No gimmicky rules needed and you still have an openended “sandbox” style of play.

I 100% agree with putting more spaces in the back of Russia and making them worthless.  Crossing 15 000km of swamp, mountans and boreal forest really should be of little gain and quite difficult (Not to mention doing it in winter with the cold, in the spring with the flooding and mud, in the summer with the mosquitoes - and a supply train several thousand kilometres long).  I also agree the same should be done to China as well as beefing them up.  But I doubt that has happened to the game.  House rules involving separate victory conditions like I’ve read so far - but on a time limit so the allies don’t have time to concentrate on only Germany - seem to be the way to go that I like so far.  Within the constraints of the map we will be provided.

Adding more ships the Pacific I don’t think will work.  I would still take my US fleet and move it to the Atlantic to help cover transports rather than build a new fleet to protect against German attacks.

Great ideas on here - I’m finding this useful.

Cheers

The point here is what constitutes a victory for each axis power based generally on what they had planed to do and also based on realistic capabilities of these times also treating it somewhat lightly.

Japan had never any intention or capability to take Moscow for its own victory. The game should focus on what in general terms on what was realistic given that it is based on WW2. Otherwise you might as well add the D$D map and bust out miniatures because thats candyland to bind Japanese victory on helping Germany take Moscow.

The japanese emperor can cry all day long about “we must take Moscow” but that statement is akin to Hirohito saying we must land on the moon. Japans army could never perform anything more than taking at most one territory away from the Soviets, the other 4,000 miles of land is intense forest and rugged terrain. If japan wasted to move along the railway it would be like the spartan 300 blocking the path, except the Soviets would actually be like the Persians defending against 300 attacking Japanese.

The game treats German options better as you don’t see Germany taking Australia or something.

The current OOB rules do script the game historically because the VC have enough of them that are close enough for each axis player to grab without going all over the map and also most games end (rightfully so) when Germany takes Moscow and is still strong in Europe. So nothing is inconsistent with the actual results in games or what actually happened in the war. The key is to corral a bit of the objectives to make the allies to pay attention to both axis players or allow one to win the game.

Back in the Nova game days it was unheard of to play 2 players. Back then had alot of diplomacy but still the game should treat the goals of each player differently.

@Imperious:

The point here is what constitutes a victory for each axis power based generally on what they had planed to do and also based on realistic capabilities of these times also treating it somewhat lightly.

Japan had never any intention or capability to take Moscow for its own victory. The game should focus on what in general terms on what was realistic given that it is based on WW2. Otherwise you might as well add the D$D map and bust out miniatures because thats candyland to bind Japanese victory on helping Germany take Moscow.

But don’t you think just a map redesign could effectivly solve that, rather than different rules for different players?  The way I am kind of imagining it now is the Allies focusing on Germany but they HAVE to send some income to the pacific or else they are in a world of hurt. This can all be done with a manipulation of IPC’s and placing a UK IC or two on the map.  My guess would be more IPC vale on Australia, India, Phil, Hawaii, Hong Kong, Singapore/Indonesia.

It has to be set up to where if the Allies don’t put up a balancing act effectivly (probably like 70/30 in favour of Europe) they get smashed regardless of if they kill a power first.  Example:  If the allies were to throw EVERYTHING at Germany maybe that would be the cost of an India/Australia factory, China, a lot of IPC’s (perhaps effectivly crippling the UK), and maybe even the USA/Canada would be in dire straights if Japan was completly ignored.  Germany may be dead but ignoring Japan still would cost them the game.

But don’t you think just a map redesign could effectivly solve that, rather than different rules for different players?

I agree, but I doubt we’ll get that.

@jim010:

But don’t you think just a map redesign could effectivly solve that, rather than different rules for different players?

I agree, but I doubt we’ll get that.

Perhaps not, but I still think it is fun to think about how it could theoreticaly happen

A simple rule to let Japan take some TTs which was unlikely, but not impossible in WW2, is to have a “Japanese cannot move outside restricted TTs”.
Like China in AA50, although the AA50 China rules are not good…

If any rules are implemented so that A&A is no longer possible for 2 players, it would ruin A&A totally.

Most A&A players who play online, here at aa,org, or TripleA, or any other A&A club usually play 1vs1.

What’s the point in forcing someone to lose b/c of other players mistakes?

It’s not competitive, it’s unfair, and the (team)players that makes the most stupid moves are most prone to blame others for their own mistakes.

What’s the point in forcing someone to lose b/c of other players mistakes?

This is exactly why i propose that the game has different victory conditions so that either player can win on his own and not have his destiny tied down by another player. The solution is not to just “do everything yourself” and stop playing multi player. Its rather to get back Multi player as the most ( BY far) preferred version because now you just do what you want but at the same time your on a loose team, except you have your own goals.

In this game it would be possible for Japan to win and Germany lose, or the Soviets win and the western allies lose. It may be possible for the Soviets and Japanese to both win. All of these outcomes are denied in the current game and were also possible outcomes.

The game has turned away from its original intent which was multi player, and the solution is individual victory conditions because they don’t depend on your ally. AA will do much better if it becomes more of a multi player game. How fun is it to play Risk with 2 players? not much.