• @TG:

    axis_roll,

    Something akin to LHTR will come about to make a standard win condition.

    What is LHTR?

    Larry Harris Tournament Rules (LHTR) were a product of many online A&A gaming clubs in conjunction with Larry Harris (A&A creator).  These Rules ‘clarifications’/changes for the Revised version of the game made it playable for a ladder-style club.  This was mainly driven by the fact the technology in Revised was instantaneous and directed (can target one specific tech).  This made sea lion on G1 a sort of Yahtzee strategy…. if you get long range, you should be able to take UK.

    This heavy-luck influence wouldn’t fly when a high rated player was playing a low rated one.  Risking only a few ratings points, the underdog could take a shot to win the game.

    One of the clarifications was to make a tournament standard VC win condition: 9 VCs.

    Here’s a link to LHTR:  http://www.geocities.com/headlesshorseman2/RevisedRulesandClarifications.htm


  • I think the problem with 12 is that it allows the Allies to win at the end of the U.S. turn with an insecure grasp on either Warsaw or Paris (which generally seem to be the ones most likey to put the allies over the top), which could easily be swept away by Germany on the start of the next turn. Whereas 13 most likely has required the allies to hold either Paris or Warsaw for a whole turn and then add the other during the next. While it’s possible that quick, simultaneous raids into Paris and Warsaw in the same turn could accomplish the same result, it’s a lot less likely.

    If you’re going to play with a house rule of 12, you probably should require the game to go one full round from the point when 12 are taken; e.g., if the UK takes Warsaw for 12, the Allies should have to hold 12 until the UK’s next turn.


  • axis_roll,

    Thanks.  It’s good to see Larry Harris is an avid member of the gaming society.

    Zephaus,

    I think the problem with 12 is that it allows the Allies to win at the end of the U.S. turn with an insecure grasp on either Warsaw or Paris (which generally seem to be the ones most likey to put the allies over the top), which could easily be swept away by Germany on the start of the next turn. Whereas 13 most likely has required the allies to hold either Paris or Warsaw for a whole turn and then add the other during the next. While it’s possible that quick, simultaneous raids into Paris and Warsaw in the same turn could accomplish the same result, it’s a lot less likely.

    You make a good point.  Though in this case, I rather keep the VCs at 12 than 13 since I suggested 11 VCs for the Allies.  With 13 VCs the Allies still have to take Calcutta (if they don’t take Berlin), which is implausible if the Japanese are actually doing something.

    If you’re going to play with a house rule of 12, you probably should require the game to go one full round from the point when 12 are taken; e.g., if the UK takes Warsaw for 12, the Allies should have to hold 12 until the UK’s next turn.

    Another fair idea.  Let the game outcome be determined at the end of a Round or when one side has held 12 VCs for one turn.  This may require a change in VCs because it becomes much harder to capture and hold a VC.


  • I cant recall that I have ever played with VC’s. It’s always total domination. And I have never encountered opponents who wouldnt concede when I captured their capital or if I have a TUV which is significantly higher then my opponent. In AAR that would be about 150-200 depending of the situation on the map. Why play against players who will not concede if they do not know what it means if the TUV difference is 400 vs 800?


  • Late post to an old topic so forgive me if I’m revisiting something that most of you might already consider resolved, but I am currently debating this VC issue with my monthly gaming group.

    We have some veteran players of AA50 (some college dudes that have played at least three to five games a week since AA50 was released) and we have some rookies (dudes that haven’t played A&A since the days of classic) and with this collection of players we are running into this question; “when is the game over”?

    The handful of times I’ve played AA50 and the umpteen times I’ve played AAR we’ve just played till someone cried uncle…oops…surrendered.

    Most of the rookie players are willing to fight to the last man; primarily (it’s believed by the most of the veterans) due to their inexperience at begin able to “see the end”.

    Most of the veteran players are pushing to end a game after a few “key things” (more “interpretative things” than “factual things”) have happened; things that they are convinced (from the experience) are “game ending situations”.

    We are beginning to experience this situation were some rookie players are feeling like they aren’t being given the chance to win (even IF they had their back against the wall) and some veteran players are beginning to feel like they are being asked to play another few grueling rounds of play in a game that is already “finished”.

    Let me explain it this way…
    IF this was a game of baseball, the veteran players are feeling like they are being asked to bat at the top of the ninth inning even though they already have more points than the rookie players have.  There asking “What’s the point of batting one more time when you already have the lead and the other team has no times at bat left (no chance at scoring again)”?

    And IF this was a game of bowling; the rookie players are feeling like they are being asked to end the game after only 7 frames simply because the veteran player has scored more points so far; taking “any chance” they might have had (no matter how slim) that the rookie player might win…and not to mention…just quitting the game before it is over.  And the veteran players (who are averaging more points each frame and because of their experience they can “see the end of the game”) want to end the game; cutting the game short just because they KNOW the ending of the game so what’s the point of playing it out.

    In any event, we are basiclly ending games before a set standardized ending has occurred.  There is no “END” to the game in A&A, its left up to interpretation more than set criteria, so for that reason alone I have been looking at the VC as a way to standardize the games end.  Its clear, clean and consstiant for all players (both rookies and veterans)  something that is needed (IMO) for any game.

    Take chess, arguably the longest running strategy game in the history of strategy games.  The game is over when the king is in check mate (or a stale mate), it doesn’t matter if the looser is cut all the way down to his only piece being a king or if the loser has all their pieces still on the board, the game is over when a king is in check mate.

    It’s a clean clear rule that is consistent.

    I think VC has the potential to be that kind of rule but in a game of A&A with so many variables for what defines “Check Mate”, how does one conclude what is check mate; 12VC, 13VC, 18VC, when a player looses his capital?

    I think most players would agree that if a capital is lost (Axis or Allied) to the enemy, the “odds” of winning (coming back from the grave) are pretty dismal…so what’s the point of playing more rounds.  And I think most players would argue that if both Germany and Japan (in AAR) have been pushed all the way back to the only territories they own are their capitals, the Allies will eventually win…so what’s the point to fighting the next 5 rounds to get rid of the last units held up in the capital?  So there are some “key things” that any “veteran player” can “see” as the end of the game, but so much of that depends on personal interpretation rather than “hard facts” which is what ends 99.99999% of every good game ever designed/played (football 4 quarters, baseball 9 innings, bowling, 10 frames, golf 18 holes, chess check mate, monopoly bankruptcy/own everything, life get to the last square with the most money, yatzee, scrabble, clue, Othello, settlers of Catan, etc, etc, etc…)  My point is, every game I can think of has a clear defined ending…except A&A.

    To me, a VC condition looks like the most clean, clear consistent way to end every game; regardless of experience of players and personal interpretation of the board situation.

    If most players agree that loosing a capital is a solid “sign of the end”, and if some players agree that if so many VC are lost is “just a matter of time” before the game is over, why not make a rule that combines the two schools of thought.  Kind of a middle ground.

    Something like this…you need to capture 11 VC and at least one of those VC has to be a capital to end the game.  11 VC makes the VC count low enough that it would represent the minimum # of cities that would “normally be captured” in a game that was a rush for Russia’s capital (since most players believe that is the focus of EVERY game anyway) and one capital meets the idea that if Russia or Germany looses their capital than the game is pretty much over anyway.

    But don’t make goofy rules that are separate for each side or power; that would be like making rules for chess that said something like this; if the black captures the white queen they or puts the king in check mate they win but the white has to capture two pawns and one knight AND put the black armies king in check to win.

    In other words, if the VC is 11 with one of them being a capital; keep it that way for both sides even if one of those capitals is the small little Italian capital.  (some would argue that Italy…the soft underbelly of Germany…was not a significant part of the war) but in the game, so long as they have the potential to earn IPC and purchase units they are a Power just like any other power…no matter how small they are.


  • It has never been about VC’s for me, just finding a way to dominate and win the board.  This usually goes with the fall of Russia or Germany.  Play to the point where you can only lose supremecy of the board if you have a MAJOR MAJOR oversight or some of the worst luck in the world.


  • you should have to hold the VC’s for an enire round, that keeps axis from feeling cheated if USA suicides itself for that final VC. I also feel that losing your capitol should be bad but not as bad as it is in A&A (fork the cash). that makes VC strats less viable and capitol capture pretty much game ending. perhaps keep your money but no buy that round (can you even spend and place it all if you have no capitol?) or you get no combat move as you regroup. I am getting into house rules now and will stop.

  • Customizer

    We don’t usually play with victory cities, we play until someone surrenders (usually someone surrenders if moscow or berlin is taken without an immediate rebuttal or something else going for them).
    If I had to play with Victory cities, I would play with either 12 or 13.
    If you play with 12, then the axis can win by taking Karelia, India, Australia, and Hawaii, and if 13 then add in the Caucasus.
    And with 12 the allies can win by losing India, but keeping control of Karelia, Australia, Hawaii, and the Caucasus, as well as taking France, Poland, and Italy.  If playing to 13, then the allies also have to take Berlin (more likely than taking India IMHO) which makes it just like the capitulation rule above.

    To be honest, playing to 13 VC is pretty much the same as playing until capitulation, and playing to any more than 13 is like beating a dead horse, since if you have 13 you are going to win anyway, so you are just dragging it out.


  • In AA50 the default is 15 VCs, and this is practically the same as victory by concession.

    In the official rules, we can choose between 13, 15 and 18 VCs, and this is A&A according to history, the allies demanded unconditional surrender, and 15 VCs is just that, or the axis powers will rule the world  :-)


  • 12 is too easy for the axis to achieve.

    13 is better.

    15 is silly (no need for VC’s)


  • 13 VCs is practically the same as 15 and 18 VCs. I don’t think that any side can recover if the other side holds 13 VCs. So 13 VCs is total domination, but with 13 VCs it helps for new players who can’t see when a game is lost.

    For me, is always concession, and usually before 13 VCs are taken. So even with 13 VCs, the VC system have no meaning outside helping new players see the end. It’s not unusal in some of my games, that when I or my opponents concede, we don’t feel the victory is safe yet, but the other player thinks he can’t win, and thats the way it should be.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

31

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts