Revised Victory Conditions

@Franklin_Cain The problem with a 6+5 rule is that the Axis are almost always at or near 11 cities after 6 rounds. Germany with a simple crush Russia assault should have Novgorod (Leningrad), France, Germany, Poland + Italy has Rome = 5 with Volgograd as the relatively easy 6th VC. Japan has Japan, Kiangsu, Kwangtung, Philippines, and with some effort India = 5.

If the Axis don’t have to get those extra cities (8 Europe or 6 Pacific), then they don’t have to extend themselves to get the “last” VC. India is a stretch for Japan, but not terrible if that is all they need. They can afford to lose a few aircraft if they never have to go get Australia or Hawaii. Similarly, the Germans can easily take Volgograd and leave Moscow alone. The Russians don’t have the flexibility to defend both against the Germans so one of them will fall.

Bumping up the number to 7+5 is still putting a lot of pressure on the Allies. The Germans should be able to takedown Moscow by maintaining a good focus in the East. The Allies might be able to defend Egypt and have a sizeable force in the Middle East, but they may not (probably won’t) initially be in a position to takeback Volgograd immediately after the fall of Moscow. So again the Axis “win” without really having to exert themselves. The magic number of 8 was developed after lots of game testing and is a surprisingly good rule.

That all said, changing the VC count is another way (besides the bid) to level the playing field between players of dissimilar abilities. If you wanted to let the newer player take the Axis and lower the VC count, then you could have a competitive game.

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

They’re here.  We’re also experimenting with allowing the Central Powers to turn down the armistice, but that’s not entirely official yet.

@arwaker:

You chose a bad example, as the in “small” battle, the defender doesnt have an artillery. Get two battles, same unit mix, different size (1inf 1art vs 1inf 1art … 2inf 2art vs 2inf 2art) and see, how both battles are affected same.

Yes but mathematically, a battle with less units will vary in victory percentages then a battle with more units. 1 inf and 1 art vs 1 inf and 1 art will likely be so different as a normal amphibious assault, whereas a 10 inf and 10 art vs 10 inf and 10 art will be dramatically different, because you are channging the dice values for 20 units, where as in the small bale, you are only changing the dice value for 2 units.

Rule set made by me:

Any power during their turn may form an alliance with another power. It can include non aggression, ceasefire, surrender, etc. To break a non aggression or a ceasfire cost 15ipcs. You may un surrender if your ally gives 1 turn of income 2 you. The capitol though, must be free of enemy units to unsurrender yourself.

Glad to see the C_J playing the new game.

Anniversary Extension

I think this sounds like a surgery.

@Trusty-Sapper
Wow, you’ve responded to my reply from a year ago, on a very old thread. I checked my PM’s and I was able to send Bass my most recent version of AARe.

I do agree with you Trusty, that “National Advantages plus bid makes every game a strategic puzzle”
Don’t forget the targeted tech rolls too. No chance to develop super subs when my scientist were working on long range!

I was a bit upset when it was only a short 5 years after Revised was released (and we fine-tuned Enhanced) that AA50 (Anniversary came out). Everyone ran for the new release and Revised was left to rot.