Simple idea for game balance
larrymarx last edited by
It struck me that a simple way to keep the Allies from focusing on the European Axis and crushing it before Japan can do anything would be to change the victory conditions for the Axis.
My suggestion is to use the victory conditions for each board as they were before combining them instead of the Global change to 14 VCs. The Axis would still win if Japan controlled 6 VCs on the Pacific side, so the US would have to intervene by the time Japan reached 5, which could be as early as turn 5 or so. Also, this rules change would open the door to new Axis strategies such as Japan sacrificing the Pacific side of the board to pin the US down and allowing the European Axis to claim 8 VCs on their side.
The other side of the coin is that the Allies would win according to the original victory conditions as well, so if Japan played as mentioned above, the European Axis would have to race to capture 8 cities before Australia and Britain took Japan. I would propose that if the Allies can capture Japan within a round of the European Axis achieving 8 VCs, the game would be considered a draw, and vice versa if Japan captures 6.
JamesAleman last edited by
That sounds good. I wonder if it would lead to too many axis wins?
Do you think it would be balanced?
Care would need to be taken to prevent it shifting the game pro axis.
Would it drastically change the “flow” of the game?
There are a couple of things about this concept that I’m wondering about. The first thing that puzzles me is the idea that it would be possible for an international coalition to win a global war by simply having one-half of the coalition win in just one-half of the globe. What would the rationale for this be? For example, let’s say the Allies are on their way to winning in Europe, but haven’t quite achieved victory, and that the Axis wins in the Pacific at this point. Why would the Allies fighting Germany in Europe consider a Japanese victory in the Pacific to be a global Axis victory, and why would they stop fighting the Germans at that point (especially if they’re getting the upper hand in Europe)? I’m also wondering about the fact that this proposal is supposed to “keep the Allies from focusing on the European Axis and crushing it before Japan can do anything.” Since the proposal would make it possible for one side to achieve a global victory by winning in just one theatre, then the Allies should be able be able to win the game by focussing on defeating Germany and ignoring Japan…which is exactly the kind of scenario that this concept is supposed to prevent in the first place.
Henz last edited by
i would say the only problem with this idea is there is no historically the euro axis were defeated on turn X so it makes it hard to judge
larrymarx last edited by
Thanks for the criticism.
I do agree that the historical justification for my idea is not clear, but consider that the present Axis goal of controlling 14 cities isn’t necessarily historical either. Militarily, no side was going to give up while they still had fight in them. If the Nazis had crushed Russia and overrun Egypt, I think we would still have tried to take them out. Churchill didn’t think of giving up even after Hitler cut through France like butter. Likely we still would have carried out a US/British invasion of France, and Germany would have had to scramble to defend themselves after expending so much to crush the Red Army and subjugate the Russian people. If Japan had taken Honolulu and Calcutta at the same time, would we have laid down our arms?
For this reason, I believe that the 14 VC condition is not intended to reflect a situation in which the Axis will be capable of eventually prevailing over the Allied military. It more reasonably represents a situation in which the Axis powers will be able to exit the war without having to offer their unconditional surrender. It could represent a level of Axis expansion at which it would no longer be worth it to the Allies to attempt to crush them utterly as they did historically. This could be for any of a number of reasons, including unacceptable loss of life, too much long-term damage to Allied economies, or a shift in public opinion against continuing the war. Realistically, an Axis “victory” probably would have been a treaty in which Germany, Japan and Italy would be allowed to retain some, but not all of their new holdings.
What if Japan had reached this threshold of unacceptability while Germany and Italy were steadily being reduced? Possibly Japan would have been able to exit the war retaining much of their empire, and this would have been a bad result for the people in that side of the globe. Considering that the war was begun as a stand against tyranny and oppression, an Allied failure to eliminate any quantity of tyranny and oppression against which they were fighting could be seen as a loss. Or, looking at it another way, if Tojo had accomplished his goals while watching Nazi Germany implode, would he have shed any tears?
As far as game balance, I think this new way would certainly not tilt the game in favor of the Axis. I’ve played and won several times as the Allies using a split Pacific/European strategy that would have made a one-theater Axis victory unlikely. I still think the game would be tilted towards the Allies, but they would just have to be a bit more careful about the strategies they employed. I think the games would become more interesting and a little bit more historical.
As to the Allies achieving a one-theater victory, I believe that given their victory conditions of having to control enemy capitals it would be a bit harder to do and usually take more time than the Axis performing the same feat.
i think it is a great idea larry.
it helps balance the game by making it easier for axis to win and it has the added benefit of helping to reduce all usa cash being diverted against one axis power.
for those worrying about realism, there is plenty to worry about, but this is just as realistic as any other rule.