Whenever I play and the USSR captures Berlin I alway play this song on Youtube. The reaction is great.
Victory Cities
-
@Subotai:
@Cmdr:
It’s a cruel way to put it, but honestly speaking, the rule should have always been take the cities AND HOLD THEM denying any liberation attempts for a full turn. Then you have proven you are in a superior tactical position. Otherwise, you are just proving that your opponent is better than you are and you cannot hold your own, so you’ll use tricks to steal a victory.
Either this or just remove VC’s entirely from the game. Usually game ends with concession.
Are you agreeing that you should have to hold them for a turn, giving your opponent at least a chance to liberate one or are you advocating the allowance of letting someone make a bone-headed, stupid move to win the game through luck instead of skill?
Honestly, if you had to hold them for a round, would Germany care if you got W.Europe for 9 VC with one dude in it? Nope. They could easily liberate. Therefore, that cheap victory would be gone.
If you had to hold them for a round, then would Japan and Germany waste all their manpower attacking Caucasus ending with maybe one tank left after losing all their fighters and bombers to get that 9th VC, even though Russia could easily liberate with the couple of infantry and tanks in Russia? Of course not! So that cheap victory would also be gone.
But you could still win with 9 VCs if you really had the superior position to hold them. It wouldn’t be hard. It would require taking W. Europe with enough to defend it or Caucasus with enough to defend it. That’s all I’m saying. If you have enough to actually HOLD IT, then you won legitimately. If you do not, then it’s a cheap victory and you’re an inferior player to your opponent.
-
If you do not, then it’s a cheap victory and you’re an inferior player to your opponent.
I think this statement is not interally true but the premise is very valid. It removes making shitty strategic moves for tratical purposes. The ONLY reason I can see this was the game testers were like SHITTa Germany can turttle and stil defend there content and get significant money. This really lengths the game so lets just add in allied win after end of AMerica turn. The thing is it is a horrible rule. Works for most of the world that only plays this game a couple time and then it sits on their shelf the rest of the time.
Just Hold it for a turn and if you could and have the game then the other side will win. Or for the League have 2 mods review the game or something.
-
I think one side must hold VC’s for one complete rnd, not only end of US turn, or use 10 or 11 VC’s.
Most players know if they won’t win, but in f2f casual games some ppl might not think as (time) effective as we do, we concede when opponents TUV is too much to fight. -
I agree, Subo. In a f2f game you do not have the access to all the dice calculators and literally days to think about your move and play with the pieces on the board in privacy. (I don’t know about you guys, but I write down my moves then physically move the pieces around to see what it looks like before posting them. In f2f games this can give away the entire strategy!)
Honestly, if you are a superior player (this is not an indictment on your character or personality, just your game play) then holding your victory cities for the win shouldn’t pose a challenge to you. It may delay the game an extra turn, maybe two, so you can line up the extra units you’ll need.
However, if you are an inferior player (again, not an indictment on your character or personality, just your ability to play that specific game) then you won’t be able to steal a victory by suiciding your entire army and air force for all your powers on one territory to get that one unit there to win and preventing the other side from even getting a chance to kick you back out.
In real terms, did France surrender everything the instant Hitler rolled into Paris? No. They had a resistance that kept fighting. Same with Norway and some other states. Should Germany have been declared the winner of the world just because France fell for a brief time and the allies didn’t immediately liberate it on America’s “turn” to move? Of course not! That’s just silly!
Now, I realize this is a game, and as such, there needs to be a way to declare a winner without taking both enemy capitols just for the sheer reason that some players are so pig headed they’ll refuse to concede defeat even when reduced to one island nation with no navy.
That, in my humble opinion, is why there are Victory Cities. (The reduced numbers were probably added after the fact for those who want to play Axis and Allies in 30 minutes or so.) The idea was, if you get a significant amount of Victory Cities, say 9, then you should be in such a position that you are almost certainly going to win. I do not think the idea ever was:
“Oh crap, we’re getting our butts handed to us. Quick, America, if you attack S. Europe with everything in range, and kill all your fighters and bombers before that last tank, you have a 70% chance to win the game before Germany can move to kick you out!”
or
“Oh crap, America and England have a HUGE frakking army in E. Europe. But England failed to take W. Europe this time and we have barely enough firepower, if we suicide EVERYTHING Germany has except those few units that cannot reach and everything except that last tank from Japan to take Caucasus and get the 9th VC for a win, assuming the dice fall with average to above average results! Quick, Germany suicide your airforce, you need 4 hits so that I have a chance to take Caucasus with Japan!!!”
I cannot believe that was EVER the intent of Victory Cities. Not ever, never. They were NEVER intended to be used as get out of losing free cards. They were only intended to give a player with almost insurmountable odds of victory a way to say “game over, you’re losing, and it’s 1 am. If I don’t get home by 1:30 am, I won’t get sex and then I’ll really be pis*ed.”
-
… and that’s where you’re totally wrong, IMO. VC’s are an alternate victory condition for those who like the complexity of playing to more than one potential game-winning objective. They serve that purpose by potentially being different from a typical winning objective of destroying your opponent.
The argument about dice calculators makes no sense, as the same is true when judging how carefully to defend your capital in the face of an unlikely attack. Odds judgements and walking a fine line are just a central part of this game whatever the victory conditions. Some of us like to have more things to consider rather than fewer.
The 10, 11, and 12 VC victory conditions are all sufficient alternatives if one wants to be sure of being completely ahead in the game before winning.
… and don’t get me started on building destroyers in AAR, but feel free to try it against me should we ever play a game :)
-
Well put Jen. The system has a hole and people are exploiting it when it is played as a hard set rule. If the game takes 8-10 tursn to win whats the h-a-r-m in letting it another round when the turns are very short. I’m all for 9 VC just not as a hard fast rule. The rules should not matter the order of the turns but collect position on the map. Its the principle of the rule that matters not the letter of the law!
-
Sounds similar to AARe there, Craig. But yes, I agree, that’s a much better way of handling it.
Honestly, I have no problem with the concept of victory cities. AARe fixed the over all problem of sniping a victory city to steal a win from the jaws of certain defeat by just adding 3 more victory cities to the game and requiring the allies to get 11 and the axis 10.
That means you can still win without taking a capitol city, but you have to basically control the entire board to do so. In other words, you are in such a strong position that it’s virtually impossible for your opponent to recover. Or, basically, the original intend of victory cities in the first place.
However, there are some who prefer to make the absolute minimum changes to the game to correct an unbalanced situation. (This is Caspian Sub’s basic premise I believe.) The absolute MINIMUM to fix this problem is not to add more cities (which would necessitate making new maps, figuring out balanced places to put them, adjusting units to compensate, etc.) and would not add more cities to win (which would require significantly more time and effort since you have to maneuver to more places.) No the absolute MINIMUM fix is to just require that you hold all 9 victory cities for a game turn. If you get the 9th on Japan’s turn, then you wait until Japan’s next turn, if you still have all 9, then you win.
This does not take any new units, new maps, no tactics, or anything to accomplish. The only thing it would do is stop the snipers from stealing undeserved wins due to luck and return the game to it’s strategy core.
-
This does not take any new units, new maps, no tactics, or anything to accomplish. The only thing it would do is stop the snipers from stealing undeserved wins due to luck and return the game to it’s strategy core.
\
Again well said. The point is to make the game end when it does and ahve everyone happy with that. Instead of taking a place with retard atack knowing it losses the game for your straticalyl but you because of a X rule. Why play a long long game for such a shitty ending.
-
Obviously we have people here talking from different perspectives. In the league and tournaments here, VC’s are a win condition eumaies. And yes some people take forever to go off and analyze their moves with dice calculators and all that.
Personally I agree with Jenn VC,s should have to be held for a full game turn to decide a win. If you are actually winning that should not be a problem.
-
Perhaps we should have a poll.
Darth, if you are reading this thread, if we had a poll would you make it binding for the league? Maybe not tournaments since most players will give more attention to what they are doing in those than they would a league game where you can get 2 more rematches if you get snookered.
We’d make it a simple poll: Should Victory Cities be counted at the end of America’s turn or at the end of a game turn after you get the 9th?
-
What is AAR League? And where are these tourneys? I’ve seriously never heard of any of this? except here.
-
toblerone77 in the play by forums section you will find our league and tournaments section. Most of the players here use Abatlemap to play online with. Abattlemap is a simple virtual game board used to track the moves and the dice are rolled via the forum. Such as.
Rolls: 2@1 1@3 1@4; Total Hits: 12@1: (4, 3)1@3: (6)1@4: (2)Abattlemap can be found here http://www.flames-of-europe.de/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=2
-
Thanks everybody.
-
Does anyone have any new opinions to share?
-
There’s nothing wrong with 9 VCs–it adds a great dimension to the game. As I was learning, I lost alot of games to VCs…especially as Axis. But eventually holding them becomes part of the game and an excellent way to incorporate the historic importance of capital cities into the game.
If you feel 9 VCs is too hard for the Axis the solution is easy–play with 10 VCs.
-
9 VC’s for the axis is the same as playing without any VC’s, Sure you can take LA from a USA player but then he deserves it. Other then that you need 1 capital and how many will continue playing if you lost 1 capital and the enemy is looking strong still?
9 VC’s for the allies is relaxed you can get 10 without attacking a capital so a lot easier to do.
That was the basic idea behind the discussion. It’s possible for the allies to “snipe” a VC for the win. Sniping is landing one or two guys there and taking a VC for the win because the opponents either do not get a turn to liberate or are not in position to liberate regardless of who is winning.
It’s also the idea that one team should not be rewarded from making a tactically insane move by being awarded the game. If you plow 48 bombers into S. Europe with an infantry and a tank, taking it (at the cost of 48 Bombers) and the Axis have 100 tanks in Central USA (between the east and west, the one that is not a VC) and America only has a couple of infantry in E. USA and W. USA combined, did the allies deserve to win just because they denied the axis another round of play (which probably would have resulted in the Axis getting +3 Victory Cities for Toronto, LA and Washington!)
It’s just an ill-thought out rule. Requiring a team to hold all 9 victory cities does not change the game, it just prevents one side or the other from pulling a hail mary or sniping a territory for the cheap win.
As I said back in December 2008, if you are in a position where winning is assured, then it should be a simple thing for you to hold all 9 VCs for a game turn, right? Many people who use the 9 VC system like to argue that if you can manage to get 9 VCs then you are going to win the game anyway. But it’s been demonstrated that the premise is false. 9 VCs do not necessarily mean you are going to win. In fact, it means absolutely nothing tactically. HOLDING 9 VCs shows you have strength and position on the board.
-
9 Victory City is good rule. I find that here rather then 8 or 10 in box rules and I like. Allies, I guess people mean United States, grab the 9 Victory City in United States turn mean Axis not play well and leave opening for Allies.
Japan have India by Turn 4 and Allies not able to trade for many turns after. That 1 Victory City to Axis.
Unless Germany or Japan fall which is game over Axis, Allies need Western Europe, Southern Europe, Philippines Islands and Kwangtung to have 9 Victory Cities. If United States has moved into Pacific Ocean that they can take both Philippines Islands and Kwangtung from Japan in their turn then is not “snipe” is bad play by Axis player.
If Axis have only Germany, Japan, India to start turn, Germany in trouble and Japan is on defense. United States have Pacific Fleet and Allies have control of Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Allies also hold Karelia S.S.R. Axis not win from that position unless Allies throw game or dice change game big way. Is surrender for Axis.
-
@Cmdr:
9 VC’s for the axis is the same as playing without any VC’s, Sure you can take LA from a USA player but then he deserves it. Other then that you need 1 capital and how many will continue playing if you lost 1 capital and the enemy is looking strong still?
9 VC’s for the allies is relaxed you can get 10 without attacking a capital so a lot easier to do.
That was the basic idea behind the discussion. It’s possible for the allies to “snipe” a VC for the win. Sniping is landing one or two guys there and taking a VC for the win because the opponents either do not get a turn to liberate or are not in position to liberate regardless of who is winning.
It’s also the idea that one team should not be rewarded from making a tactically insane move by being awarded the game. If you plow 48 bombers into S. Europe with an infantry and a tank, taking it (at the cost of 48 Bombers) and the Axis have 100 tanks in Central USA (between the east and west, the one that is not a VC) and America only has a couple of infantry in E. USA and W. USA combined, did the allies deserve to win just because they denied the axis another round of play (which probably would have resulted in the Axis getting +3 Victory Cities for Toronto, LA and Washington!)
It’s just an ill-thought out rule. Requiring a team to hold all 9 victory cities does not change the game, it just prevents one side or the other from pulling a hail mary or sniping a territory for the cheap win.
As I said back in December 2008, if you are in a position where winning is assured, then it should be a simple thing for you to hold all 9 VCs for a game turn, right? Many people who use the 9 VC system like to argue that if you can manage to get 9 VCs then you are going to win the game anyway. But it’s been demonstrated that the premise is false. 9 VCs do not necessarily mean you are going to win. In fact, it means absolutely nothing tactically. HOLDING 9 VCs shows you have strength and position on the board.
Yep that is my point also except that i dont agree that 9 is really fair, 8 would be more fair and would force the allies into suboptimal moves removing the bid thingy.
Example if japan captures india turn 1 and germany has karelia as well you would win next time japan’s turn comes around and both zones have not been traded hands.
That removes the sniping thing but at the same time forces the player into suboptimal moves sometimes.Well, the problem is 8 is less fair than 9 (too ez for the Axis generally). I agree in principle that the game would be more interesting if the Allies couldn’t abandon places like India. Maybe the introduction of more VCs in Anniversary is a step in the right direction.
-
I don’t understand why people still have discussions about VCs. Its not what this game is about. It’s about conquering the world. Global victory. I cannot remember any opponent who started to talk about VCs during games, and I have never done this myself.
VCs is only a minor issue, and only for new players. After getting some fundamental experience in the AAR/AA50, games are ended when one player concedes.AA Pacific is designed differently then AAR and AA50. Pacific is tactical game in which time, like in number of moves and rnds are determining the winning factors of the game. If VCs was meant to be important in global games like Classic, revised and AA50, all these games had to be designed radically different. The premise for A&A Pacific is different than AAR/AA50, b/c AAP is not mainly about resources. AAR + AA50 is about resources and economy, as well as strategy. If A&A Pacific was to be designed the same way as A&A global games, then Japan would loose every single game.
It would be very unhistorical and bad for game play if Larry Harris changed one of the basic premises for the A&A game series of global conflict. WW2 was a struggle of raw materials and resources, technology and manpower.
-
The game is won by VCs, that is the target and there is not other. If rival concedes, OK. If not, you must continue until someone reaches the target of the game (the VCs). If someone chooses ignore VCs (the goal of the game) and only keep the eye on capitals (they are not the goal of the game), it’s not so strange that the player(s) who chosen go after the game goal (the VCs) win the game. Complaining about a rival wining because has enough VCs is like playing chess, losing the king, and complaining because you had still the queen, the rooks and many other pieces.
And there are many, many things more unhistorical than VCs: Japan attacking soviets all games, the ignore Japan strat, a lone fighter or sub auto-killing infinite trannies without chance of escape and China falling round 1 :-P
Suggested Topics
