1. Yes, tacs can only bomb airfields and naval bases.
2. Perhaps the CV as a landing site has already had its capacity used up by other moves you have made?
In defense of total annihilation victory rules to balance OOB setup
-
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.
Suggested Topics
