Proposed Victory City Rules to Make Each VC Matter


  • I have read some criticism of the standard 9/10 VC victory condition, and it made me think about the victory cities.

    Here’s what I came up with:
    –The VCs don’t matter at all unless it’s the 9th for the Axis or 10th for the Allies for the standard victory or unless it’s the 13th one for the total victory. The IPCs, Industrial Complexes, and Capitals attached to the spaces matter, but the VCs themselves don’t.
    –That last VC means everything.
    –Players don’t necessarily worry about every single VC. Whereas, in the real war, both sides were majorly concerned with protecting all of those cities that belonged to their sides.
    –Players will sometimes make otherwise ridiculous attacks on a VC when success in the attack automatically wins the game.

    To make defending each VC critical to protect and important to pursue, I have the following ideas:

    –1-- After each USSR turn, whoever is up on VCs gets to roll a d6. If that roll is less than or equal to the number of VCs that team is up by, then that team wins. If not, then the game continues.

    This means that losing any VC COULD cost you the game, and defending EACH VC is critical. This makes pursuing each VC important. But because taking that next VC only gives you an extra 1/6 chance of winning the game this round (or decreases your chance of losing by 1/6), it’s not worth it to totally throw away your position in an effort to claim a single VC for a single round.

    Also, putting the victory check at the end of the USSR turn may help to alleviate Axis bias in the game and prevents the Axis from getting an automatic roll at the end of round 1 from holding Karelia.

    –2-- Alternatively, roll for Victory at the end of the USA turn, but a side only gets to roll if it’s up by at least 2 VCs (or 3, etc.).

    –3-- If deciding the whole game by a single roll of a die is seems too extreme, then you could have some kind of bonus (National Objective or National Advantage) for the side with more VCs at the end of each round, and that bonus would increase by the advantage in VCs that side held. The idea is that the more VCs your side has, the greater the momentum your people feel that they are winning the war and the more effort and enthusiasm with which they give their effort to the war.
    I think this vein of design space has a lot of room to work with.
    For exapmle, assume you’re playing with the total victory condition. At the end of each round, if your side is up by at least:
    1 VC, then your side gets an extra 6 IPCs divided evenly among your teams.
    2 VCs, then each team on your side gets 1 free INF in its capital.
    3 VCs, then enemy DDs only prevent your SSs from submerging for the following round. They do not cancel any of the SSs’ other abilities (i.e., Surprise Strike, Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly, Cannot be Hit by Air Units).
    4 VCs, then your side gets 1 free ARM in each VC you control.
    5 VCs, then each power on your side may place 1 free Super BMR on its capital. Super BMRs have 5 ATK, 2 DEF, 8 MOVE, can’t be fired at by AA or AAA, and do 1D6+1 damage on SBRs.


  • Interesting ideas.

    monitor.jpg


  • honestly, i wasn’t really feelin it but this part is intriguing.

    For exapmle, assume you’re playing with the total victory condition. At the end of each round, if your side is up by at least:
    1 VC, then your side gets an extra 6 IPCs divided evenly among your teams.
    2 VCs, then each team on your side gets 1 free INF in its capital.
    3 VCs, then enemy DDs only prevent your SSs from submerging for the following round. They do not cancel any of the SSs’ other abilities (i.e., Surprise Strike, Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly, Cannot be Hit by Air Units).
    4 VCs, then your side gets 1 free ARM in each VC you control.


  • I definitely like the idea of a (small) advantage for controlling VCs, I can’t stand the thought of losing a game second turn to a d6 roll!  =/


  • @UrJohn:

    I have read some criticism of the standard 9/10 VC victory condition, and it made me think about the victory cities.

    Here’s what I came up with:
    –The VCs don’t matter at all unless it’s the 9th for the Axis or 10th for the Allies for the standard victory or unless it’s the 13th one for the total victory. The IPCs, Industrial Complexes, and Capitals attached to the spaces matter, but the VCs themselves don’t.
    –That last VC means everything.
    –Players don’t necessarily worry about every single VC. Whereas, in the real war, both sides were majorly concerned with protecting all of those cities that belonged to their sides.
    –Players will sometimes make otherwise ridiculous attacks on a VC when success in the attack automatically wins the game.

    VCs on the 1st Edition of the game were useless, no one plays for the all-VC victory and the Axis could only get the 9 VC by conquering Russia, which pretty much meant game over since the Allies would concede at that point.
    But on 2nd Edition, with Honolulu as VC the scenario completely changes for Axis. If the Axis retain Berlin, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Shanghai and Manila, while conquering Honolulu, Calcutta and Leningrad at the end of the US turn, they win without having to conquer Moscow. This makes the 9 VC scenario a lot more attractive for Axis - specially when the Allies go KGF and leave Honolulu up for Japan to grab.
    And you need to worry about all the VCs - otherwise the US can land and liberate one for a single turn and deny the Axis victory.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

32

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts