• :-o
      Umm Ya, The allies deserve to win if the Axis has all those troops and can’t properly defend their Victory cities. Just suck it up to a learning game and reset the board. It’s a GAME!
      Geeze!!!
      Either have a house rule; “Germany gets one round to redeam itself” or, play to 10 VC. Then it should be pretty well decided.
    and they call me Crazy.  :roll:


  • Jen, that’s why they call it the Hail Mary pass. It’s the fourth quarter with seconds to nothing left on the clock and you’ve got one shot to seal the deal for the win. If you get it, the game’s yours, end of story. The other team, barring a penalty, isn’t going to whine that they should get another shot to see if they can respond. That would defeat the entire point of the game. They had 59:59 minutes worth of game time to score more points and hold the other team. They didn’t (or couldn’t) do it.

    Ergo, translation, if Germany couldn’t hold her three main territories during the course of the game through frugal management, and the US manages to score a last second strike on a couple of VCs and manages to win with 1 inf left, then so be it. That’s the ball game folks.


  • So the Allies are somehow dumb enough to devote all those forces to pushing Japan out of Asia instead of moving in towards Moscow to reinforce when Germany is heavy on Moscow.

    Also, the Axis are dumb enough to lose the north Atlantic, the Mediterranean, totally lose control of the Pacific, Asia, and islands - for quite some time too, I might add, since the Allies taking Kwangtung is a lengthy proposition.  And yet the Axis think they deserve to win?

    Honestly, BOTH sides should lose.  I’ve never seen such a pathetically mismanaged game on both sides, though.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    KJF strat.  Only reason America attacked was to save the game because Russia was going down hard.

    Anyway, I’m calling for a house rule, basically an official change to LHTR to provide that you must hold the VCs for a full round, not just luck out with America and steal the game.


  • Jen, this game has to be finished the turn before!

    Allies have 9 VC at the end of USA turn.
    But they have grabbed SE with a last ditch attack in SE.
    So at the beginning of the USA turn allied has only 8 VC (and Axis 4).
    But Moscow was conquered in the German Turn giving to Axis 4 VC.
    Then Axis have only 3 VC at the beginning of German turn and Allies have 9VC.

    There is only a possible consequence to that: Allies already had 9 VC at the end of the preceding turn and the game should have finished at the end of the turn before.

    Axis have already had the additional turn that you speak about and lose.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    End of Germany:  Axis have 6 VC (Germany, Karelia, W. Europe, S. Europe, Japan, Philippines)
    End of America:  Allies have 9 VC (W. Europe, Karelia, Russia, S. Europe, Kwangtung, E. USA, W. USA, England, India)

    But if you make the allies hold those VC until the next enemy’s turn is complete, the axis will have:

    Moscow, Karelia, W. Europe, S. Europe, Germany, England, Philippines and Japan; 7 VC and two of them are enemy capitols, the traditional way to win the game.

    This is a major problem.  America should not have that much influence over the game, they are one country.  They should be equal to the other 4 countries and not a wild card that can trump the axis through ridiculous luck.


  • @Cmdr:

    This is a major problem.  America should not have that much influence over the game, they are one country.  They should be equal to the other 4 countries and not a wild card that can trump the axis through ridiculous luck.

    you raise valid point.  however I do not think it is a major problem because it works for both sides.

    I’ve seen desperate Caucasus grabs by Japan and even Germany when the opportunity is there (READ no UK or US to take back before the end of the game turn).

    I would be curious to see the results of several games of play testing to see if this helps one side or another.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    But it does not work for both sides because no matter what happens, America always gets a turn to liberate or take the 9th VC and thus has undue power over the game for a nation that’s usually relegated to a support role.


  • In this other example (that is different from the preceding) I see that Allied have Kwantung and not Philippines, a little bit strange. Moreover it is a completely speculative scenario.
    But we may consider this still possible.
    So what happens after the end of the German turn?
    Allied are able to conquer three VC: W. Europe, S. Europe and Karelia.
    They where all controlled by Germany that loses all three of them in a single turn.
    A real genious.
    For me this is already enough to say stop to this slaughtering!
    But we may go further and consider the strategy of the German player.
    The fact that having 9 VC means game over is known to all the players.
    So German player should know that if he loses three VC he loses.
    He may not plan to conquer England and Moscow in the same turn leaving open the VC he controls.
    But the German player do not care and instead of thinking to defend himself he managed to lose three VC in a single turn. Now, he may also have 500 IPC of units available to obliterate the allied troops but if he place them in the wrong place he deserve to lose!

    Indeed I think that reaching 9 VC is the result of a global advance of one side.
    It is possible that one side is at 8 VC and is already winning and to try to finish the game attempt one attack, and USA may do this more easily tha German does, but is only a matter of time.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    In most games you’re probably right, who ever has 9 VC is probably winning.

    But in some games it is totally and completely broken because the allies can, in effect, cheat their way to a victory.

    How do you fix it so that it’s never a cheat and the persons with 9 VC at the end are winning all the time?  By requiring that you have 9 VC after the enemy gets a chance to reclaim some.

    I don’t think what I’m asking for is too ridiculous.  All I’m saying is that maybe the allies (or the axis for that matter) should have to HOLD 9 VCs for a very brief amount of time (1 turn by the enemy).


  • I have not said that it is ridicolous.
    I am only wondering if it possible other than the theoretical scenario depicted.

    I see them as very much improbable. So what we could obtain?
    Changing the rule for a very particular and highly improbable case we will create problem to the general case that now we have not.
    It is like the Amdahl’s law: in a system the perfomance improvement for a partial enhancement is proportional to the real use of the portion of system that has been enhanced. Consequence: the way to improve the system is to work for the general not for the improbable specific case.


  • Couldn’t the Axis plan better and not give Kwangtung to the Americans? I’m too lazy to go through all the unit listings, but if you say the Japanese has 500 IPCs of tanks on the mainland, how did they let the Americans get Kwang for a turn? I think this is just another consideration you have to make, even if it comes up not that often. If we did as you say, then there’s no point to victory cities at all, which is actually what you might want since you’re looking at it as more of whose army/positioning/economy is better rather than who has the VCs.

    The best way isn’t to try to do something that would only apply to one side (the allies). Either suck it up and just remember that as part of your planning, or try to abolish the VC system entirely (or require 10 VCs, omg that would take forever!!)


  • Exact.
    My point is victory condition is lnown from the beginning. Axis have to try to win accordingly, and not planning ignoring VC allowing Allies to sneak in.

    There is another point to clarif. Usually Allies use a steamroller strategy, leveling down each Axis opposition. Are really improbable the occasions in which they have to steal a VC to achieve victory.


  • I agree with Jen that the ability to have the US sneak in and grab a territory with no response afforded to the Axis

    Defend better? It’s not like you can’t see where the Americans will attack. I find it difficult to believe that the Americans can be operating strongly in both theaters to the point where the Axis can’t defend a VC, yet the Axis are winning.


  • @Craig:

    The Victory Territory (VT) system that I use in the tournament that I run has a stipulation that is similar to what Jen is talking about.

    Adjudication System-
    The determination of who wins a tournament game will be based upon the control of Victory Territories (VTs).  The Victory City method of determining a winner will NOT be used.  Each side controls 12 Victory Territories at the beginning of the game.  The Victory Territories are listed below.

    AXIS POWERS

    GERMANY
    Germany
    Western Europe
    Southern Europe
    Eastern Europe
    Ukraine SSR
    Norway

    JAPAN
    Japan
    Manchuria
    French Indochina
    Philippine Islands
    East Indies
    Borneo

    ALLIED POWERS

    USSR
    Russia
    Caucasus
    Archangel
    Novosibirsk

    UK
    United Kingdom
    India
    Anglo-Egypt
    Australia

    USA
    Eastern US
    Western US
    Hawaiian Islands
    Sinkiang

    If a player holds 18 (or more) VTs for a full round of game play (From the end of a country’s turn to the beginning of that same country’s next turn.), then that player automatically wins the game.

    In the event of a VT tie at the end of the game, whichever side increased its IPC total is the winner.  If the game is still tied after reviewing the IPC totals, then the GM will make a determination of the winner based on upon the game situation at the time the game ended.

    If a player chooses to concede a game before it has reached the 18 VT automatic win threshold or the game time limit (4.5 hrs), a default score of 19 VTs and +30 IPCs will be awarded to the winner.

    I agree with Jen that the ability to have the US sneak in and grab a territory with no response afforded to the Axis is a crappy way to judge a game.

    The use of the OotB VCs is another subject entirely!

    This is an interesting system to manage the victory condition. It should also allow battle in almost all parts of the board allowing for more dynamic games.

    However, I do not see such a big problem with VC (OOB or LHTR, we play with the latter) the objective of the game is fixed before the start and is not difficult to see where the enemy may strike, it is a necessary skill of an A&A player.
    Moreover the system of VT multiply the objectives and is useful for a tournament. In our face2face game we have no problem of time, we usually interrupt the game and we “save” the position to continue the next time.

    The scenarios considered here are hypothetical situation in wich the Axis tries with a last ditch offensife to grab the victory. Consequently also Allies have the opportunity to strike for a last ditch offensive, because the Axis allow that.
    So the situation we are considering is: Axis is losing, then tries to grab the victory, in the attempt Allies have als othe opportunity to sneak in for the victory. Where is the problem? It is a conscious choice of the Axis player, that also know the rules. It is not a fault in the rules it is a result of the Axis player choice.
    Is like in chess: an all out attack to the enemy king may fail leaving the opening for a counterstrike of the opponent that achieves a victory with a checkmate. There are more situation in chess when, after a series of forced moves for example or with a combo, a player manage to win having less pieces of the oppoennt. There is nothing of strange. There is no one law that states that the one who is winning have to win.

    Said this if an house rules that states that for winning a game is necessary to “mantain” the VC for an entire turn may also be introduced. Only I doubt of the utility of its application in the greater part of the games played.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @trihero:

    I agree with Jen that the ability to have the US sneak in and grab a territory with no response afforded to the Axis

    Defend better? It’s not like you can’t see where the Americans will attack. I find it difficult to believe that the Americans can be operating strongly in both theaters to the point where the Axis can’t defend a VC, yet the Axis are winning.

    Defend better is a strawman argument.

    One attacking infantry has a possibility to kill 100 defending infantry without being killed.  Probability is very low, but possible, this allows any ridiculous hail Mary attack to successfully win the game despite bad strategy.

    For instance, in the scenario I posted, Germany had S. Europe defended successfully with 97% odds, but America squeeked out that 3% chance of taking it.

    What I find curious is your adamant refusal to give the opposing player, whether allied or axis, a turn to liberate that 9th VC.  Obviously if you are winning you should be more then capable of defending all 9 of your VCs, right? (To spin your argument back on you.)


  • I have no objection to someone beating a dead horse.

    Someone beating a dead horse on my time, though, is a different matter.

    Hence, why I would rather that an extra turn not be required.  They’ve already lost; why prolong the game another 30-45 minutes?


  • There is no problem with domination if players have common sense.
    As I said in another thread, if you lose a capital and can’t take it back, and if you can’t take the opponents
    capital, then the game is lost.
    In few cases, allies may take Berlin 2-3 rnds after Moscow has fallen to Jap, but everyone can see if that is likely, or
    possible. When players don’t get it even when the map has changed colour radically to their disadvantage,
    and income is much higher for the other side, then it’s bad sportsmanship not to concede.
    Decent players know when they can’t win.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’m not asking for domination.  That can take forever.  All I’m asking is you give the other team a chance to save themselves.  As is the case in the scenario I offered, it’s clear the allies have lost but due to a fluke of the game rules, they are allowed to steal a victory away from the axis.  This very slight, very inconsequential change to the rules would prevent a sneaky, underhanded move like this from stealing a hard won victory.


  • Robbery chess? Never heard of it.  Honestly.  If it’s your strategy to take pieces with total abandon towards things like value, position, and momentum, go right on ahead. I will play you any day of the week. You are going to lose.  It is a losing strategy.

    It is also a losing strategy in A&A, so go on ahead… And although the physical idea is somewhat similiar, your analogy is misleading, as you are talking about an end-game scenario in A&A, not the overall strategy over the course of an entire game. You said it yourself, people shouldn’t deserve to ‘win’ that way…

    Or should they?  A much better analogy is the no-move stalemate in chess.  Sure, you might have overwhelming pieces, position, and strategy, but if you are dumb enough to push the king into a corner which denies your opponent any moves, you force a draw.  You don’t lose, but you don’t win, either.  Any player worth his salt is careful not to do this, and an experienced player will even use this strategy to escape defeat in the face of a more skilled opponent.  At least, he can try…

    The strategy just adds a whole new level to the endgame approach… It is something you have to keep an eye out for, and I wouldn’t want to get rid of the possibility.  It adds challenge, it adds fun.  Don’t want to fall victim to this? Then why are you using such a poor strategy that your enemy can blitz thru your lines in one round in the first place? My advice to you is, you had better keep a closer eye on both the points and your frontlines, dear.

Suggested Topics

  • 13
  • 1
  • 8
  • 22
  • 21
  • 24
  • 7
  • 16
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

41

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts