Playing to 13 VC

i do not see a scenario where 13 victory citys is a different playout from take moscow/berlin.

for a vc # change to make a difference you would have to lower it to 11vc

@allweneedislove:

i do not see a scenario where 13 victory citys is a different playout from take moscow/berlin.

for a vc # change to make a difference you would have to lower it to 11vc

India/australia/hawaii/karelia/caucaus.

No Moscow required.

@squirecam:

@allweneedislove:

i do not see a scenario where 13 victory citys is a different playout from take moscow/berlin.

for a vc # change to make a difference you would have to lower it to 11vc

India/australia/hawaii/karelia/caucaus.

No Moscow required.

if axis own and can hold after a usa turn the following; germany, italy, france, poland, karelia, caucaus, india, australia, hawaii, japan, kwangtung, and kiangsu the game is cleary one sided and should have been conceded anyways. the vc reduction has done nothing to change the playout of the game. except maybe shortened the game by a round or two if you are playing an opponent that refuses to surrender when it is clear they have lost.

there is only one way a victory city reduction makes the game play out differently to the current capital capture.

if the number is low enough that one side can reach the designated vc number and hold it after the usa’s turn, and if the game continued that side would lose the war.

13vcs do not change the playout of the game.

VCs are irrelevant in AA50, it doesn’t matter if it is 13, 15 or 18 VCs. Decent players concede when they think they can’t win. I have never achieved 13 VCs in AA50, and neither have my opponents.

VCs are only for new players who don’t know how to play, and/or end the game, but it doesn’t take many matches to learn the basic understandings of the game.

@General:

Ok, so I guess what i’m asking is…

Is there a way to stop the usual playout of Japan moving to take russia, and Germany/italy can stand and win on their own without Japan’s help.

Does a non aggression rule for Japan/Russia imbalance the game?

There’s plenty of ideas that vary from modifiying the rules for the Chinese, to adding an IC for UK in India/Australia to tweaking NOs (making up some like an NO for the non-aggression rule) or just a pure bid for the allies.

The most commonly used is a bid.  If you give UK 2 inf in Egypt on UK1, the whole Africa dynamics will change as it is then easy to pin Italy’s Med fleet in the med for a kill shot by UK in round 3.  Does this change the playout that you described above?  It can… if the usa player now realizes that less axis africa = more UK power = USA can really go after Japan, and it’s a winnable situation.

Which mod is best?

Check the house rules section for discussions.  http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=41.0
Try a few out.

Have you exhausted the permutations of the optional rules?
By that I mean have you tried adding the optional escort rules or the closed dardenelles?
How about no National Objectives (that really changes the game)?

Tech is always a crap shoot in it’s OOB form.

I do believe that as the game approaches it’s second year of ‘life’, more and more players will realize that the play-out / strategies will predominantly be the allied KGF - Axis Turtle and Jap Tank dash to Moscow.  First one to take Berlin / Moscow wins!

A bid balances the game.  what does that mean?  I think it means that BOTH sides have about an even chance to win the game.

…but it only stands to strengthen the allied KGF plan, and that accelerates the races to capitals, it will not open up the pacific as a truely viable theatre of war, IMHO.

Kick the tires in the house rules section.  For your goal, specific mods geared directly against Japan have the best chance:  (china mods, UK IC, no new Island IC’s, etc)

Modified to correct a mis-worded sentence

@General:

Ok, so I guess what i’m asking is…

Is there a way to stop the usual playout of Japan moving to take russia, and Germany/italy can stand and win on their own without Japan’s help.

yes play to 11vc. this forces the allies to play in the pacific.

like axis roll said a bid helps balance the game but enforces the build up for a capital race of berlin/moscow.

@Subotai:

VCs are irrelevant in AA50, it doesn’t matter if it is 13, 15 or 18 VCs. Decent players concede when they think they can’t win. I have never achieved 13 VCs in AA50, and neither have my opponents.

VCs are only for new players who don’t know how to play, and/or end the game, but it doesn’t take many matches to learn the basic understandings of the game.

if playing to 13, 15, 18 vc then vcs are irrelevant because you are essentially playing a game untill domination.
if playing to 11vc then vcs are relevant

@General:

Ok, so I guess what i’m asking is…

Does a non aggression rule for Japan/Russia imbalance the game?

it will unbalance the game. it will also reduce variation in strategy. it will not encourage usa to fight japan. after japan crushes china in a couple of rounds and has secured all the islands in the pacific, they can only build up for an invasion of usa.

meanwhile the usa will keep up the kill germany first strategy and only place a mass amount of ground units in west usa when japan forces it to.

japan then can only spend all its resources to try the impossible task of taking over the usa which is very cost ineffective compared to usa’s defense.

@allweneedislove:

if playing to 11vc then vcs are relevant

But that is a house rule…

@allweneedislove:

@General:

Ok, so I guess what i’m asking is…

Does a non aggression rule for Japan/Russia imbalance the game?

it will unbalance the game. it will also reduce variation in strategy. it will not encourage usa to fight japan. after japan crushes china in a couple of rounds and has secured all the islands in the pacific, they can only build up for an invasion of usa.

meanwhile the usa will keep up the kill germany first strategy and only place a mass amount of ground units in west usa when japan forces it to.

japan then can only spend all its resources to try the impossible task of taking over the usa which is very cost ineffective compared to usa’s defense.

I disagree. It is not as simple as that.

If you have a non-aggression treaty, you also do not allow soviet and allied troops to share the same space. No more triple teaming. No more march to moscow to jointly defend, then march to poland.

The threat to germany is not as strong when you cant all share the same space. No troops in russian territories. Not unless Moscow falls. This offsets the loss of JTDTM.

Playing to 13 VCs gives the Axis the choice of whether to try to take down an Allied capital or to pursue a less central strategy that involves taking only peripheral VCs.  The latter strategy spreads the action out around the board more.

@Krieghund:

Playing to 13 VCs gives the Axis the choice of whether to try to take down an Allied capital or to pursue a less central strategy that involves taking only peripheral VCs.  The latter strategy spreads the action out around the board more.

If axis got 12 VCs, they most likely have much higher production, and 13 or more VCs does not make any difference about global domination compared to 15 or 18 VCs. That being said, I don’t disagree with the OOB number of VCs.

It means the game is more likely to play out differently because your opponent does not have to capture a capital to win, but that depends on your opponent and whether they’re just going to try for the capitals anyway.

I always play 13. 15 would require a capital or everything but. 11 sounds interesting though.

11 VCs prevents KGF fanmania and also forces Japan take Hong Kong and Manila J1. I like both things

Anyway I’d change the victory conditions:

• Axis wins if Japan has 6 VCs or if Germany+Italia have 6 VCs
• Allies win if USSR has 5 VCs or if USA+UK+China have 11 VCs
• If both cases are true, then the game is a draw

(all of them at end of USA’s turn)

@Krieghund:

Playing to 13 VCs gives the Axis the choice of whether to try to take down an Allied capital or to pursue a less central strategy that involves taking only peripheral VCs.  The latter strategy spreads the action out around the board more.

krieghund, can you imagine a scenario where a player can hold 13vcs after usa turn and not eventually get 18vcs?

if you can get 13vcs you have dominated the game. there is no reason to play to 15vcs or more. 13vcs is a domination game.
vc amounts do not make for different game playouts.

notice how there are no threads discussing the different strategies of a 13 vc game vs 18vc game, like there is for 1941 vs 1942 scenario or without NOs vs with NOs.

if there was an option for axis to win with 11vcs then the game would have more variability.