@CWO:
Here’s a thought: rather than playing for total annihilation, what if the Axis were playing for victory conditions based on the theories of geopolitics that were popular at the time of WWII? Those theories divided the world into three regions, and they stated that directly ruling one region meant indirectly dominating the next region; by that theory, it was possible to command the world without necessarily conquering the whole planet. I’ve quoted the basic relavant points below.
–-----------------------
According to Halford John Mackinder, the Earth’s land surface was divisible into:
The World-Island, comprising the interlinked continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa. This was the largest, most populous, and richest of all possible land combinations.
The offshore islands, including the British Isles and the islands of Japan.
The outlying islands, including the continents of North America, South America, and Australia.
The Heartland lay at the centre of the world island, stretching from the Volga to the Yangtze and from the Himalayas to the Arctic. Mackinder’s Heartland was the area then ruled by the Russian Empire and after that by the Soviet Union, minus the Kamchatka Peninsula region, which is located in the easternmost part of Russia, near the Aleutian Islands and Kurile islands.
Later, in 1919, Mackinder summarised his theory as:
“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world.”
(Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150)Any power which controlled the World-Island would control well over 50% of the world’s resources. The Heartland’s size and central position made it the key to controlling the World-Island.
CWO, at least for me, in the games I play, this is a de facto occurrence. Once the axis for instance gain control of most the “World-Island,” it’s very difficult to turn the tide.
I think the Allies’ requirement of holding the Axis capitols makes sense. It’s based on reality with FDR’s Unconditional Surrender doctrine. It also makes sense that the same requirement isn’t needed for the Axis, since a negotiated peace is what they were after. But as long as the Allies are still capable of defeating the Axis, they would fight on. For this, perhaps the victory conditions needs to be maintained for 3 turns. If the Axis can consolidate it for multiple turns…if the Allies are unable to dislodge the Axis after said number of turns, perhaps they would negotiate a peace agreement, which would be an Axis victory.
This makes for a game that isn’t as long as Total Annihilation…
That being said, Japan should be required to hold the west coast of mainland U.S. for victory in the Pacific.
Savage,
The idea of forcing the Axis to hold their objectives for a few turns sounds perfect in respect to gameplay, history, and balance. The question is how many turns?
@Charles:
Savage,
The idea of forcing the Axis to hold their objectives for a few turns sounds perfect in respect to gameplay, history, and balance. The question is how many turns?
The Allies’(technically, it was ONLY FDR who wanted this) doctrine of Unconditional Surrender–or face annihilation–was because the Allies already knew they were going to win. Summer of 1942 the U.S. Navy was the largest and most powerful in the pacific. Just 6 months after Pearl Harbor the U.S. was stronger than Japan in the Pacific with navy and air. By December of 1942 Germany’s last strategic initiative on the Eastern Front would wind to a halt due to it’s second Russian Winter in a row(which was Germany’s last). At this point Germany could not recover it’s losses and Japan was even in worse shape. The following month(Jan. 1943) we have the Unconditional Surrender policy. Despite having 2.5 years left of hard fighting, the outcome was NEVER in question at this point. The Allies will impose their will even if the Axis countries face total annihilation–and the Allies knew they could do it…
The difficulty lies in the Axis victory. The game starts 1940, 2 years before knowing for sure the outcome, so the Allies aren’t so bold at this point. They know the Axis could win. So at what point do the Allies say they can’t defeat the Axis and agree to terms? There comes a time when they realize they just can’t defeat this Axis Machine, even if London and Washington are safe. At what point do the Allies concede? In reality it would be when they realize that the Axis just can’t be stopped. For gaming purposes, I have the least amount of actual playing time than anyone here, but to lose because someone wasn’t paying attention and got out of position, when they still have the capacity for victory…
We could say 3 turns. Definately not less than 3
I think 2 would be ok.
Losing because 2 inf stepped on Hawaii when you don’t have any transports in SZ10 is pretty bad. It’s really only in the Pacific that there’s any issue. I don’t think there’s a problem with holding for one turn in Europe.
The OOB rules have the axis and allies playing two different games IMO. The Axis play for a VC win, and the Allies are playing the longer annihilation game (must take all 3 axis capitals, that’s going to take a while lol). That’s why the allies rarely win OOB, and a bid is often used. Seems to me that the bids don’t necessarily allow the allies to win in the short term, but rather we are placing units on the board to stop the axis from achieving their victory in the first 10 rounds. This gives the allies time to where they can over power the axis at some point (forcing an annihilation game).
I’m not a fan of the axis VC win, because as pointed out it can be a cheap way to win the game that you have invested many hours into. Besides that, I also don’t like how the axis can completely sell out one side to gain victory on the other. Like when the Japanese buzz Moscow with their entire air force just to take out a few Russian inf allowing the Germans to take it when they wouldn’t have had a chance otherwise. To add insult to injury the Japanese have also bypassed India/Middle East and their transport fleet goes over to attack Egypt for the last VC on the Europe map (if just to soften it up). Boom game over, but the Japanese have basically lost all holding and objectives on the Pac map (with exception of Tokyo).
However, on the other hand the axis VC victory conditions are set-up so the allies have to play on both sides of the map somewhat. If that wasn’t in place then the allies could spend all income on one side, totally ignoring the other w/o consequence. Once one of the major axis powers are gone (Germany or Japan) then there really isn’t much hope for the other.
In my opinion the VC condition should be amended to encompass more of a global game. You need to make sure that the axis can’t sell out one side to win on the other. Not sure if this would be enough, but maybe a stipulation that in order for the axis to win on one side, they also need to hold 1/2 the number of needed VC’s for a win on the other. Like an 8 VC win on the Euro side would require the Japanese to also hold a min of 3 VC’s on the Pac side (1/2 of their own VC victory conditions). Likewise for a Pac win the Japanese would need 6 VC’s on the Pac side, and the Euro twins would need to hold 4 VC in Europe (1/2 of the Europe win VC condition). This way you could be kick-n butt on one side, but holding par on the other. This would also give the allies a chance to stop a win on say the Euro side by taking a VC on the on either side.
You could also give the axis a world victory goal of say 13 VCs for the win (maybe 14 for longer game). This way they would basically be able to get to a VC win on one side, but would also have to hold on to certain assets on the other side as well (no sell outs). Stipulate that the axis must also hold at least 1 allied capital to win (London, DC, Moscow, or Paris). I threw in Paris so that it might force the allies to liberate it!
I would also like to see a World VC count for the allies to win as well. Not sure what that number should be, but lets say 15 VC (leaves the axis with only 4 VC’s left). Stipulate that for the allies to win w/15 VC’s they must also hold at least 1 Axis capital (Berlin, Rome, or Tokyo).
What I’m noticing is that if we throw the VC rules completely out there will still come a time within 12-15 rounds that one side will have tipped the scales of the world map and will inevitably be pushing back on all fronts. Even though it would take an additional dozen turns to fully wipe the enemy out, the side getting pushed back would concede. The writing is very clearly on the wall once the scales have tipped.
@WILD:
The OOB rules have the axis and allies playing two different games IMO. The Axis play for a VC win, and the Allies are playing the longer annihilation game (must take all 3 axis capitals, that’s going to take a while lol). That’s why the allies rarely win OOB, and a bid is often used. Seems to me that the bids don’t necessarily allow the allies to win in the short term, but rather we are placing units on the board to stop the axis from achieving their victory in the first 10 rounds. This gives the allies time to where they can over power the axis at some point (forcing an annihilation game).
I’m not a fan of the axis VC win, because as pointed out it can be a cheap way to win the game that you have invested many hours into. Besides that, I also don’t like how the axis can completely sell out one side to gain victory on the other. Like when the Japanese buzz Moscow with their entire air force just to take out a few Russian inf allowing the Germans to take it when they wouldn’t have had a chance otherwise. To add insult to injury the Japanese have also bypassed India/Middle East and their transport fleet goes over to attack Egypt for the last VC on the Europe map (if just to soften it up). Boom game over, but the Japanese have basically lost all holding and objectives on the Pac map (with exception of Tokyo).
However, on the other hand the axis VC victory conditions are set-up so the allies have to play on both sides of the map somewhat. If that wasn’t in place then the allies could spend all income on one side, totally ignoring the other w/o consequence. Once one of the major axis powers are gone (Germany or Japan) then there really isn’t much hope for the other.
In my opinion the VC condition should be amended to encompass more of a global game. You need to make sure that the axis can’t sell out one side to win on the other. Not sure if this would be enough, but maybe a stipulation that in order for the axis to win on one side, they also need to hold 1/2 the number of needed VC’s for a win on the other. Like an 8 VC win on the Euro side would require the Japanese to also hold a min of 3 VC’s on the Pac side (1/2 of their own VC victory conditions). Likewise for a Pac win the Japanese would need 6 VC’s on the Pac side, and the Euro twins would need to hold 4 VC in Europe (1/2 of the Europe win VC condition). This way you could be kick-n butt on one side, but holding par on the other. This would also give the allies a chance to stop a win on say the Euro side by taking a VC on the on either side.
You could also give the axis a world victory goal of say 13 VCs for the win (maybe 14 for longer game). This way they would basically be able to get to a VC win on one side, but would also have to hold on to certain assets on the other side as well (no sell outs). Stipulate that the axis must also hold at least 1 allied capital to win (London, DC, Moscow, or Paris). I threw in Paris so that it might force the allies to liberate it!
I would also like to see a World VC count for the allies to win as well. Not sure what that number should be, but lets say 15 VC (leaves the axis with only 4 VC’s left). Stipulate that for the allies to win w/15 VC’s they must also hold at least 1 Axis capital (Berlin, Rome, or Tokyo).
Agree. That’s why in my 40 game I’m been playing with victory city points with added city’s and gives the axis 4 ways to win. Axis has to do this in a certain amount of time to get 30 points for a win. After so many turns you’ll be able to see it will not be an axis win. Other way I’ve have done it is axis needs 13 VC by the end of turn 10. Other wise allies win.
GHG is play testing or toying with adding a few VC to 40 OOB game do the axis needs to win on both sides.
Game 169 (G42) lasted 3 sessions. I was the Axis, knew I was beat after session 1. Still, we wanted to play it out till turn 9–total annihiliation right?
Italy hadn’t done anything but repair for 5 turns. Germany failed to take Moscow. UK took Turkey and USA blew up all my Axis nodes on the shores of the Black Sea.
You guys inspired me to play on getting my butt kicked for two more evenings. I even blew up an 24 hit allied fleet–but had to take 3 follow-ups. 2 subs lived.
@WILD:
The OOB rules have the axis and allies playing two different games IMO. The Axis play for a VC win, and the Allies are playing the longer annihilation game (must take all 3 axis capitals, that’s going to take a while lol). That’s why the allies rarely win OOB, and a bid is often used. Seems to me that the bids don’t necessarily allow the allies to win in the short term, but rather we are placing units on the board to stop the axis from achieving their victory in the first 10 rounds. This gives the allies time to where they can over power the axis at some point (forcing an annihilation game).
Well, in my experience when you have a group of players who are new to 1940 the Allies have the advantage in a OOB game.
Once players get more experienced they realize the Axis have to go on a singular focus plan of attack…J1, Calcutta Crush, All in on Moscow, so and so forth. The Axis cannot win the game with a balanced approach and take their time.
Thus as we move on and experienced players are at the table the Allies need a bid to stop these singular focused attacks and give them a chance to win.
Now at the end of the day around turn 8-12 if the Axis have not achieved their victory conditions the Allies are on the move…the game is basically over. Now, it is up to the players, specifically the Axis if they want to drag it out to Turn 29 for the Allies to win a total victory.
Indeed, the key to Axis victory is concentrated determined attack. The same applies to World War II itself. The Axis got spread too thin. However, as we experience with alternate victory conditions, strategies, and setups, we have found it to be a lot mor fun and fair to try unorthodox methods and massive assaults across a wide front. With the Allies, fighting out losing battles like Leningrad can be interesting as well even as a legitimate way of slowing down the enemy. There is an element of fun and variety and even balance when players try different routes and get the dice rolling. Too many players are afraid to defend with unfavorable odds because the Axis are always attacking with huge force.
In essence, yes, suboptimal Axis play is more preferable in the gaming point of view.
The main allied strategies still hold up. The one that becomes more dominant would be shuffling 20 units a round into Spain from USA… But even this has its flaws.
