Alpha axis victory conditions in Alpha

  • please vote

  • Krieghund, Calvinandhobbesliker and imperious leader, what are your thoughts about this?

  • '10

    It makes sense that for an “Axis” Victory at least 2 out of 3 Capitols should be controlled. If not all 3 of them!  IMHO

  • I do think that tthe axis should have one capital on each side of the board to win.

  • Official Q&A

    The purpose of the separate Axis victory conditions is to keep the Allied powers from ignoring one side of the board entirely.  This change would run counter to that purpose, as crushing one side of the board would keep the Axis from winning.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I agree with KH.  It’s just simply too easy for the USA to build everything they have in the atlantic, when at war invade gibraltar.  Use all available resources from the U.K. to clear the path, and pound every dollar it owns into taking Italy to prevent victory.

    It makes the game a tight balance however, when the axis could “win” at anytime, if you’re not paying attention.  I like it that way.  It’s a constant struggle of needing resources everywhere.  How it ought to be…

  • if germany and italy built a big fleet and send it to indic and pacific is relatively easy for axis to win the game by smashing pacific side and being smashed on europa side with alpha victory conditions.

    This is totaly ahistorical.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Actually whats even EASIER when that is done by the axis, is that the U.S. puts 100% of it’s money into the pacific, and make sure Hawaii and Sydney don’t fall.  It’s a no brainer.  Then the Axis fails.

  • A friend has urged me to play the alpha setup. My initial dislike of the coastal territories being able to scramble was offset by the fact that the axis can win without half the board. I therefore voted to keep the rule the same.

    The totality of the changes I have tested so far, seem to make an allied win a challenge. My first impressions (not born out through many games, but only a few) seem to force the US to apply resources in each board. If you change the victory conditions to permit the US to focus all of its efforts on one side, I predict a loss for most axis players.

  • That’s completely intentional.  Previously the USA could dominate whichever side of the board it chose.  Forcing it to play on both sides makes the USA a bit less of an unstoppable juggernaut.

  • The problem with requiring one capital in each theater is it means if Japan falls, Germany and Italy can never win.  In real life Europe and the Pacific were separate theaters, so a victory in one and a defeat in the other could have happened.  It makes sense from the Allied perspective, though, for them to only win if they stop the Axis in both places.

    Of course, there’s also the problem that this rule would allow the US to dump all of its economy into the Pacific, grab Japan, and make it impossible for the rest of the Axis to win (while they may have taken most or all of Europe due to no American help).

    Do you really have to bump your polls so much?

  • Customizer

    I just finished a game where the US spent the majority of it’s money in the Pacific.  The Allies were able to successfully wear down Japan’s air and naval superiority and by round 7, all that was left was Japan itself, which I believe would have fallen the next round.
    In Europe however, the Axis ended up very strong.  Germany had captured London, mostly smashed Russia and had Moscow surrounded.  Italy ruled the Med and Africa and was starting to head for India.  The US was keeping the Axis at bay with fighters and destroyers, but with Russia about out of it, it wouldn’t have been long before Germany built up a sizable enough fleet to invade North America and get a foothold somewhere to wear the US down.
    So, while the Axis together only had 9 Victory Cities total, they did have 8 of 11 on the Europe side so it was an Axis victory.  In this case, Japan at least still had it’s capital.  However, if we would have went just 1 or 2 more rounds, both Tokyo and Moscow would have fallen.  Then the Axis would have 9 of 11 cities on the Europe map, but Japan ceased to exist.  Still an Axis victory? 
    Also, consider this:  if we had kept the game going, now the remaining Allies could focus all their attention on Germany and Italy.  I imagine it would have been more or less USA vs Germany and India/ANZAC vs Italy.  China was very strong but they couldn’t do much more than prevent Germany from totally capturing Asia, although they probably would have grabbed up all the far eastern Soviet territories for a few more points.
    Basically, I just don’t see this as an Axis victory with Japan losing so badly.  Then again, if the US had spent more in the Atlantic, maybe Germany and Italy wouldn’t have been so strong.  I’m afraid I have mixed feelings on this and just can’t decide which way is better, splitting the victory conditions or keeping it at 14 total for all three Axis.  One thing I have figured out is this is probably a way to shorten the game.  If we had went with the original 14 city conditions, this game would have went a lot longer. 
    Looking forward to trying out my first game of Alpha+2.

  • Well, I think the main difficulty behind the USA strategy is deciding how much to focus on each theater, and I like that.  I think the US player should be forced to spend of both sides, because that’s historically accurate and makes the game more interesting.

  • I think it is good that Axis can win on one side of the board and lose on the other because it means we will no longer see ignore Japan strats like in revised,spring 42 and AA50. This will also then make it easier for Germany to try and win thus creating a fairer game

  • In WWII USA crushed Germany and only after crushed Japan.


    In WWII USA crushed Germany and only after crushed Japan.

    Yes however they has started to attack Japan prior to that. Guadalcanal started in 1942. It was only in 1943 that the western allies invaded Italy and in 1944 was when D-Day happened. The US also After Guadalcanal launched other attacks throughout the Pacific. Japan left the war after Germany and that was because of the A-Bombs.


    In WWII USA crushed Germany

    I must disagree with this because:

    One: US had UK help and French resistance help to plan D-Day.
    Two: The Soviet Union Gained a large amount of German occupied territory(Which became the Eastern Bloc) and also put pressure on Berlin. I have more points if you care to ask


    In WWII USA crushed Germany and only after crushed Japan.

    Also How relevant is this as the poll was about Alpha victory conditions and I see no talk about what happened historically but just talks about not being able to play Ignore Japan/Germany strats.

    However (historically) it would have been possible if US had put all resources into the Pacific that the Allies could have won on both sides considering the large Soviet Counter offensive which included lifting the siege of both Stalin and Leningrad and the battle of Kursk and much more so I believe that with maybe some British help they could have forced Gerrmany into submission but the question is would the British and Soviet troops be able to form a cohesive army. Japan killed its chance of having a victory by attacking the Americans because they would have been happy being neutral because if they weren’t they would have attacked and joined the war earlier. But this is just my honest opinion

  • Yours comments are pertinent.

    I would like to point out that AA is a game that intends to be historical and Alpha rules seems to be made to balance the game instead of making it more historical.


    I would like to point out that AA is a game that intends to be historical and Alpha rules seems to be made to balance the game instead of making it more historical.

    However in many cases rules are made to be for game play rather than be historical. I.E. strict neutrals

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I am seeing a lot of discussion about this or that is more or less historically accurate.  While I am sure all the play testers and Larry wanted to be somewhat historical in their game (It is based on world war II after all) we do need to remember it is a game and games need to start off “fair.”

    I am using quotes on that because unlike Chess, there just is no possible way to set up this board to be exactly even for both sides.  For one thing, one side has more countries than the other!

    That said.  If America ignores the Pacific, the allies should lose. Period.  The game should be built around that basic premise, and it is.  Japan can easily sweep down, crush England and ANZAC and move to take Hawaii without serious American interest in stopping them.  (Isn’t it nice that this aspect is historically accurate?  America threw a lot of Marines and Army Air Corps into the Pacific to stop Japan while tackling Europe.)

    What I do not have a problem with is America all but ignoring Europe. (Note, I am talking the continent, not the board.)

    So the Axis having the ability to “snipe” a win in the old M84, AARe style is all good for me.  The one thing I would change is to move the VC in Ottowa to Central Persia.

  • this poll today is tied so it means little.

    at least it means that everyone should give some thoughts on the matter.

  • So to get the topic back to victory conditions as I have not had a chance to look at alpha setup because im apparently banned from the larry harris website is it 8 out of 11 AND 6 out of 8 VCs or is it 8 out of 11 OR 6 out of 8 VCs

  • @TheDefinitiveS:

    So to get the topic back to victory conditions as I have not had a chance to look at alpha setup because im apparently banned from the larry harris website is it 8 out of 11 AND 6 out of 8 VCs or is it 8 out of 11 OR 6 out of 8 VCs


Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 15
  • 24
  • 31
  • 9
  • 2
  • 117
  • 8
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys