Victory Cities: What I feared…

@Rakeman:

Germany
Berlin
Paris
Warsaw

USSR
Moscow
Leningrad
Stalingrad

Japan
Tokyo
Shanghai

UK
London
Ottawa
Calcutta
Hong Kong
Sydney

Italy
Rome

USA
Washington
San Francisco
Manila
Honolulu

Victory in either scenario: control of 15 VC

I think this is quite a problem.  Why?

There are 18 victory cities.  3 of them are more or less uncapturable by the Axis (Washington, San Francisco, and Ottawa).  This means that in order for the Axis to win and not invade North America, they must hold every allied VC outside North America… including the UK!

So, if the only way to win as the Axis is to capture Moscow and Britain, why not just ignore victory cities entirely?  If London or Moscow fall, the rest of the victory cities aren’t going to last very long.

The problem with this is, I was under the impression Victory Cities were implemented to make the game end faster or without a capital victory necessary.  Well, Victory Cities have absolutely no effect on play until London and Moscow both fall, at which point who cares if you have 4 or 14 victory cities, you have London and/or Moscow!

So, why not just play, “Capture 2 enemy capitals to win”?  I guess because that would make the Allies have too easy a time by taking Rome and Berlin.

I am glad National Objectives makes fighting for something other than a capital happen, but I feel victory cities were a missed opportunity.

Funny thing is that in Revised, OOB possible victories defined were 8 VCs, 10 VCs and total (12).  There was no mention of what has become the standard <lhtr>win: 9 VCs.

9 VC’s still has the ‘problem’ of taking out Moscow as the only real way to win LHTR.  Sure, sealion does occur sometimes and London’s fall can lead to an Axis win, but that is more the exception than the rule.</lhtr>

AA50 1941 Scenario Victory City list:
Cities under the country that controls them in '41. Axis starting in bold. Axis plausible in Bold Italics

Germany
Berlin
Paris
Warsaw

USSR
Moscow
Leningrad
Stalingrad

Japan
Tokyo
Shanghai

UK
London
Ottawa
Calcutta
Hong Kong
Sydney

Italy
Rome

USA
Washington
San Francisco
Manila
Honolulu

Victory in either scenario: control of 15 VC

so take two more and you won the game. Moscow and Stalingrad plus one more. But i think we are missing a few, because it would require Ottawa to get 15 and thats a long game.

Im sure one is in Africa, perhaps suez or Persia ( mosul)

Relax.

You can play to 13, 15 or 18 VC.

@squirecam:

Relax.

You can play to 13, 15 or 18 VC.

This is true.

Didn’t Larry say victory cities were going to play a bigger role in AA50?  Seems pretty misleading since they actually play a lesser role in each of those victory conditions vs. Revised OOB ones (13 requires controlling more territory than 8, 15 more than 10, 18 = 12).  Unless there’s something else special about victory cities, they still seem rather pointless, even at 13 for a win.  13 now seems to be about comparable to 9 in Revised, for Axis at least.  I think adding Ottawa as a VC was a pretty big mistake, Cairo seems like a better spot, something that is actually going to be fought over.

I generally try not to gripe about problems in AA50 when it’s not even out yet, but I just don’t see how VCs are any more significant than they were in Revised.  If the game were balanced for an Axis win at 11-12 VCs with the Allies having an advantage as far as a domination game would be concerned, but having something like a 13 VC win (only because they start '41 with 12), then I think VCs would actually bring to the game what they should.

@timerover51:

Looking at if from the standpoint of someone that will likely only play Allies, I probably would hold out for 15 to win the game, at least for the 1941 Scenario.  We do not know enough about the 1942 scenario to make any sort of decision there.

Don’t you want to conquer the world for the Axis (edit out the rest)

@03321:

Didn’t Larry say victory cities were going to play a bigger role in AA50?  Seems pretty misleading since they actually play a lesser role in each of those victory conditions vs. Revised OOB ones (13 requires controlling more territory than 8, 15 more than 10, 18 = 12).  Unless there’s something else special about victory cities, they still seem rather pointless, even at 13 for a win.  13 now seems to be about comparable to 9 in Revised, for Axis at least.  I think adding Ottawa as a VC was a pretty big mistake, Cairo seems like a better spot, something that is actually going to be fought over.

I generally try not to gripe about problems in AA50 when it’s not even out yet, but I just don’t see how VCs are any more significant than they were in Revised.  If the game were balanced for an Axis win at 11-12 VCs with the Allies having an advantage as far as a domination game would be concerned, but having something like a 13 VC win (only because they start '41 with 12), then I think VCs would actually bring to the game what they should.

In general, I agree.

AAR is perfectly balanced at 9 VC if you move the VC from LA to Hawaii. This forces USA to focus some effort in the Pacific.

I wish Ottawa was likewise eliminated as a VC, in favor of South Africa. Makes Africa really worth fighting for, although it is still important.

However, at 13 you dont need Ottawa or London, and I think 13 VC will end up the “standard”, just like 9 was for revised.

I always felt VC were a cheap victory anyway, just like I feel that M84 in classic is a cheap victory. (There’s a reason we call it MAGIC 84, because you can be losing and magically win.)

Anyway, I am really only posting because I dont think VCs are there to make the game faster so much as to make the players go in directions not normally traveled.

On the plus side, if invasion USA is required, at least I am one of the, if not the only, player on these boards who has practiced Kill America First with Japan. :P

@squirecam:

However, at 13 you dont need Ottawa or London, and I think 13 VC will end up the “standard”, just like 9 was for revised.

Sure, but that still pretty much means Axis has to take Moscow.  Unless you think Japan can dominate US in the Pacific so much that they’re able to hold Hawaii, never mind everything else.  If US holds Hawaii, Axis has to take Moscow.  And that’s at the lowest VC condition possible, it just seems pointless.  And I’m afraid 12 VC victory would screw up the balance, especially since Allies could win '41 after J1 failing to take Philippines :P.  Ottawa being in Egypt or SAF instead seems like it might actually make a 13 VC game interesting from the VC perspective.

@03321:

@squirecam:

However, at 13 you dont need Ottawa or London, and I think 13 VC will end up the “standard”, just like 9 was for revised.

Sure, but that still pretty much means Axis has to take Moscow.  Unless you think Japan can dominate US in the Pacific so much that they’re able to hold Hawaii, never mind everything else.  If US holds Hawaii, Axis has to take Moscow.  And that’s at the lowest VC condition possible, it just seems pointless.  And I’m afraid 12 VC victory would screw up the balance, especially since Allies could win '41 after J1 failing to take Philippines :P.  Ottawa being in Egypt or SAF instead seems like it might actually make a 13 VC game interesting from the VC perspective.

When revised came out, I’m sure alot of players tried the 8 VC game…and found it to be a bit lacking.  Who knows with AA50… the 12 VC game might be doable.  You could also tweak a 12 VC game to be 12 VC for Axis, 13 (or whatever) for the Allies.  Point is, we can tweak the VC victory conditions as needed.  The VC system is flexible enough for that tweaking.

Plus, again, we are all speculating.  I wouldn’t worry about it so much at this time.

@axis_roll:

Plus, again, we are all speculating.  I wouldn’t worry about it so much at this time.

You are correct, and in about 5 weeks we know for sure.

About the topic, now I dont care too much about this VC-stuff, I wish it was more simple, just grab two capitals and win.

I think if you grab two capitols the game is pretty much decided at that point regardless of what “Victory Cities” one holds.

Should Tripoli find itself on a victory city list for the Italians?

No, allies would conquer for sure in a obsesive KGF strategy, something Larry seems want avoid. Alexandria or Cape Town would be better than Ottawa, I think. Even Chongquing would be better than Ottawa.

Victory cities will play a larger role in the game.  It’s true that, in effect, you must capture one, two or three enemy capitals to satisfy the victory conditions.  However, just doing that by itself isn’t enough to win.  The new Victory City requirements will cause the action to be spread out more on the map.  Specifically, more Victory Cities in the Pacific Theatre will mean more action there, as Japan must make an effort in that Theatre in order to help contribute to Axis victory, and the US can’t ignore it and just let Japan have all of those VCs.

Maybe do we lack some information? VC are different from Revised?

If they work the same way it is difficult to spread the game all over the map. If it is needed to conquer 1, 2 o 3 capital to win the game than the capital are still the premium objectives. Having or not the needed VC is secondary. After the fall of a capital it is more easy to take the VC controlled by that nation. Generally the opposite is not true. Even if Axis control the Victory cities of USSR conquering Moscow is still hard, IMHO.

Simply putting more VC here and there do not increase their importance… but Krieghund said:

@Krieghund:

Victory cities will play a larger role in the game.

I try to imagine … what if the “capitol features was spread over” to all the original VCs controlled by a nation? VC will be really important. Or maybe other ways to increase VC interest?