Victory Levels

@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.

To add some diversity and other strategies to winning.

21 points to win  (Axis pts/Allied pts)  Axis starts with 9  Allied starts with 15

2/4 Germany - Berlin
2/2 Southern Italy - Rome
1/1 Norway
1/1 Northern Italy
1/2 Poland - Warsaw
2/2 Eastern US - Washington
3/2 United Kingdom - London
2/2 Russia - Moscow
2/1 France - Paris
2/1 Egypt - Cairo

1/1 Novgorod - Leningrad
2/1 Ontario - Ottawa
1/1 Volgograd - Stalingrad
1/1 Union of South Africa
1/2 Suez Canal
2/1 Gibraltar
1/1 Greece
2/1 Iraq & Persia
2/1 Libya & Malta
1/0 Axis units in S. America
1/0 No Russians W of Kar/Ukr
0/1 No Axis units in Africa
1/0 Strict Neutrals in place
1/0 No US in France & Germany

To add some diversity and other strategies to winning.

18 points to win  (Axis pts/Allied pts)  Axis starts with 8  Allied starts with 11

2/4 Japan - Tokyo
1/1 Kiangsu - Shanghai
1/1 Iwo Jima
1/2 Okinawa
1/1 Caroline Islands
2/1 Korea & Manchuria
2/2 India - Calcutta
2/2 Philippines - Manila
3/2 Western US - San Francisco
1/1 Kwangtung - Hong Kong
2/2 New South Wales - Sydney
2/1 Hawaiian Islands - Honolulu
1/0 Aluetain Islands
1/1 Solomon Islands
1/1 Dutch NG & New Guinea
1/1 Marshall & Gilbert Islands
1/1 Java
1/0 No Chinese units
1/0 No UK controlled ports
0/1 No JA units outside Jpn, Ch, & Kor

I have found that some people are frustrated with the split UK income, and also of course, the Allies’ victory conditions, you never really see them occur in real life. So I propose the following changes.

SINGLE UNITED KINGDOM: The United Kingdom will now be a single income power, starting with 45 IPCs, they will still have two capitals, one in Calcutta, the other being London. In a scenario in which a capital is captured, the United Kingdom’s income is rewarded to the Axis power that has taken the capital, however as long as they have the other capital, the United Kingdom may still produce income. The national objectives for the UK will be the same ones from the separate economies design, they are just simply awarded to the now singular UK entity.

SETUP CHANGES IN RESPONSE: Remove the Major Factories in India and United Kingdom, replace them with Minor Factories. This is to prevent the UK from over-stacking London and making Sea Lion a pipe dream, and to also to prevent the balance of power in Southeast Asia from getting out of control.

NEW VICTORY CONDITIONS FOR THE ALLIES:
Europe Victory: The Allies control 1 original European Axis Victory City; 2 of Calcutta, Sydney, and Hong Kong still under Allies Control. This must be done for a full round of play following the objectives being achieved.
Pacific Victory: Japan controls no originally Pacific Allies Victory Cities; 2 of Moscow, London, and Cairo still under Allies Control. This must be done for a full round of play following the objectives being achieved.

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.)

@variance:

Its nice how its simple and it gives a victory condition for both the allies as well as the axis. It’s not “the allies win if the axis don’t”; the allies can’t “win” by just stacking Cairo and Hawaii forever. I could see the axis going for Berlin, Warsaw, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Nanking, Hong Kong, Manila, and then Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, with UK struggling to defend either Cairo or Calcutta (but not both) and allies race to get Paris or Rome in time. That should actually work pretty well I would think!

That’s exactly what I was thinking Vance…

My Axis strategy would be to hold Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, Rome, Leningrad, Moscow, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manila, and any pair of Cairo, Calcutta and/or Stalingrad for the win.

My Allied strategy would involve holding all their “untouchable” cities like Ottawa, Washington, London, San Francisco, Honolulu, and Sydney. I would then give them individual responsibilities for the UK to hold Calcutta and Cairo… for the US to take Paris and get back Manila, and for Russia to hold Moscow and Stalingrad for the win.

I like these victory conditions because it’s the same objective for both sides, and lets face it, if either side holds 12 cities after the 5th round… it’s pretty much over anyways.

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.

Ok let me clarify my thoughts on that… They wouldn’t necessarily have to pursue a historic goal, but rather go for completing a certain amount of techs (3 for example)…

GG