• As far as I can tell, Minor Victory is not very popular.  I can’t understand this.  For those interested, I relay my experiences with Minor Victory and my comments:

    Obviously India is under immediate threat.  Karelia falls right away, and the Allies can’t pick up a city for at least a few turns.  With a decent chance of turn one Japanese Long Range Air Craft, the Allies must scramble to hold Calcutta.

    I have found that the Allies actually can hold India - at least for the short term.  The name of the game is to make some headway in Europe so that if and when India falls the Allies control Paris and/or Leningrad.  From there the game plays out fairly normally.  The game can last a long time too, and the side that captures eight cities first is almost always in a strong, dominant position.

    Minor Victory essentially force the Allies to play inefficiently.  Fortressing India is not the best play in a Major or Total Victory.  My comments on this:

    • Minor Victory is better balanced.  With the Allies playing a sub par strategy, the Axis have a better chance.  This reduces or eliminates the bid required

    • I’m no historian, but I think realistically England would not let her colonies go without a fight.  I the actual war Japan never made it into India.  Minor victory seems more historically accurate to me. 
      True, it’s not realistic for the Allies to give up just because India falls early, but in practice it doesn’t and they don’t!  Sometimes the threat is more important than the execution.

    • This is the only version of any global A&A game where a devoted KGF strategy is not sound. Isn’t that what everyone wants?

    For all of you who don’t like Minor Victory, how many of have actually played it out enough for sufficient testing?  No, two or three games doesn’t count!  I recommend revisiting this. If you haven’t tried it, do!


  • @zooooma:

    Obviously India is under immediate threat.  Karelia falls right away, and the Allies can’t pick up a city for at least a few turns.  With a decent chance of turn one Japanese Long Range Air Craft, the Allies must scramble to hold Calcutta.

    Wouldn’t this be a good thing? Soviet tanks will liberate from Caucuses and the UK still gets to build while Japan may have lost planes and didn’t have the planes to deal with China, India, PHII, and cleaning up the British ships on J1.

    I think there might be a way for the Allies to win an 8VC game without going Fortress India. As long as both Karelia and India aren’t in Axis hands at the end of a round, the Allies are still in the game. This would simply mean that the UK cannot spend too much time making Algerian landings and may bypass it all together, instead landing Norway and trading Karelia from the get-go so it isn’t in German hands at the end of a round.

    Hang on, I already see the flaw in my logic and the concept would be applicable to KJF style MV games. Germany can stack Karelia even if Russia deadzones it on the same round that Japan takes India. Germany only needs to hold it against the UK because America is probably not in the North Atlantic yet. The end of the round check for victory is before the USSR’s turn which would be to knock the Germans out of Karelia. That’s a big reason not to play Minor Victory IMO, making completely short term plays. Yes Germany holds Karelia against the Western Allies, nevermind that it faces certain death on the next Russian turn. In a 9-12 VC game it would be a game losing move not the game winner it would be in a 8 VC game.

  • '16 '15 '10

    It’s extremely tough for Allies, I think that’s why its unpopular.  It might be doable with a bid to India, but that would make for a short game too as Axis would need to win fast or be at a disadvantage.

    The problem with 8 vc is that when you play India factory in a 9vc game, you don’t necessarily have to hold India all the time, because theoretically you will have Russian tanks in Cauc that can liberate it.  But the way GTO has it, if a power holds 8 vcs at the end of the USA turn, then they win.  This makes it extra hard for Allies.  I’m not sure if this is the correct interpretation or whether one actually has to hold 8 vcs for an entire turn…  If the rule is the latter then 8 vcs is playable.

    Either way it’s a good short game and good KJF practice, but it seems tough for Allies to avoid losing in the first 3 turns.


  • @Fleetwood:

    Germany only needs to hold it against the UK because America is probably not in the North Atlantic yet. The end of the round check for victory is before the USSR’s turn which would be to knock the Germans out of Karelia. That’s a big reason not to play Minor Victory IMO, making completely short term plays.

    Economic victory in MB occasionally encouraged short term plays, and often forced the Allies to defend against such plays, causing them to lose ground in “the big picture”.  There were times I’d lost as the Allies (to economic victory) when I felt I might well have won had I been allowed to continue.  I don’t think this tainted the game.

    What I’ve found (in Minor Victory) is that the short term plays rarely ever actually win the game.  What they do is forces the Allies to defend against these short term plans (by holding India), which cramps their style, providing game balance and annihilating any KGF approach.

    Also, I recall the Russians couldn’t force Germany out of karelia for at least a couple turns.

    @Zhukov44:

    It’s extremely tough for Allies, I think that’s why its unpopular.  It might be doable with a bid to India…
    it seems tough for Allies to avoid losing in the first 3 turns.

    I’ve never lost as the Allies in the first three turns.  Whenever I’ve seen the Allies lose so quickly it’s because they have not fortified India to the fullest of their abilities.  They get greedy!  That said, it’s still hard for the Allies (but very nearly balanced , I think).

    Have either of you guys played this out (with a good opponent) a half dozen times or more? (I take it you haven’t Dan, or you’d have noticed that “flaw in your logic” after losing or winning your first or second game on round one).   I think you’d find you can India can hold for a long time - more than three turns to be certain.   But with reduced Allied presence in Europe, you have to hold India and Stalingrad  for long enough to capture France or liberate Leningrad.  I think this is closely balanced, dynamic, and fun.  But to each their own.  :)


  • Agreed, maybe allies need 1 inf at India just to ensure it doesn’t fall, but probably you can play without any bid, and for sure without axis bid. It can be done, but needs also a Sinkiang IC and a very good timing with soviet tanks and allies fleet in both oceans

    More fun than any KGF and best suited for a 3-4 hours FTF game  :wink:

  • '16 '15 '10

    @zooooma:

    I’ve never lost as the Allies in the first three turns.  Whenever I’ve seen the Allies lose so quickly it’s because they have not fortified India to the fullest of their abilities.  They get greedy!  That said, it’s still hard for the Allies (but very nearly balanced , I think).

    Have either of you guys played this out (with a good opponent) a half dozen times or more? (I take it you haven’t Dan, or you’d have noticed that “flaw in your logic” after losing or winning your first or second game on round one).   I think you’d find you can India can hold for a long time - more than three turns to be certain.   But with reduced Allied presence in Europe, you have to hold India and Stalingrad  for long enough to capture France or liberate Leningrad.  I think this is closely balanced, dynamic, and fun.  But to each their own.  :)

    I agree it’s a fun game and a nice change of pace.  The problem is game imbalance makes it tough to find people who will agree to play Allies in online play.  A 1 inf bid to Persia or to the Soviets would be nice for balance here.

    Sure, I’ve won 8vc games as Allies against lesser oppos.  But only one of my Allied wins was against an expert opponent, and that was due to luck.  I’ve lost a bunch of times (most of these in rounds 1-3, with Axis getting winning in India, sometimes against the odds).  I never lost an 8vc as Axis (though to be fair, hardly any good players were willing to play Allies when I hosted an 8vc game).  But it’s been a while.

    It’s certainly not impossible with good dice, but Allies don’t have great odds against an Axis who knows how to coordinate Japan and Germany to put maximum pressure on Russia.  How long before USA can take Manila or UK/USA can take a European capital?  If the Japs hit Pearl, probably a few turns.  So you have to hold India for about 3 turns.  Meanwhile, the Japs can put everything they have into a J3 attack on India (in a 9vc I wouldn’t bother with this, but in 8 vc it will win me the game).  The only way to stop the Japs is a massive Soviet intervention…but this leaves the Red army weak in front of Moscow, and the Germans probably have a big stack on Leningrad.  Then the Germans go into tank rush mode… Around this time, Axis can forget the vc strategy and head for Moscow.  At that point, if United Kingdom isn’t in position to bail out Russia then Allies are doomed.


  • @Zhukov44:

    The problem is game imbalance makes it tough to find people who will agree to play Allies in online play.  A 1 inf bid to Persia or to the Soviets would be nice for balance here.

    One infantry bid?  Wouldn’t that make this the most closely balanced A&A game ever?

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 85
  • 43
  • 6
  • 8
  • 13
  • 21
  • 24
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

27

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts