Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Point system to victory in G40



  • I was wondering if anyone has looked at giving victory cities a point value to achieve victory conditions. I have heard that in tourney games they put in some kind of point system in to determine a winner, but I would think time restraints has much to do with that especially in G40. Just wondering if anybody has instituted a very basic point structure to achieve victory when playing a causal game. I would imagine others have looked at, or done something similar. Some feedback would be great.

    I find it very annoying in G40 when a power will do something completely ridiculous and give up their own goals for their side to gain the individual theater victory conditions on the other board. Like Japan melting its air force into Moscow for the Germans to win on the Euro side. You know that would never happen, because the Japanese would never sacrifice their selves for the Nazis. They’re not going to take a hit for the team giving up everything they had worked for since the start of the war (and reverse). I was thinking of more like a global win, rather then individual theater wins based on points awarded for victory cities, and more important VC would be worth more.

    Again I don’t think this is ground breaking, just looking for feedback if you have tried something like it. I don’t want to try out a whole complicated system, just something very basic.

    Was considering something like:
    Major Capitals  +3
    Minor Capitals  +2
    Reg Vic Cities  +1

    List:
    Ottawa    +3
    Wash      +3
    London    +3
    Paris       +3
    Moscow   +3
    Berlin      +3
    Rome      +3
    Tokyo      +3
    Calcutta   +2
    Sidney     +2
    Warsaw   +1
    Cairo       +1
    Leningrad +1  
    Stalingrad +1
    San Fran   +1
    Shanghai   +1
    Hong Kong+1
    Manila      +1
    Honolulu  +1

    19 VC worth 37 points.

    Now the question is how many points to achieve victory, and what conditions should be built in. Should both sides have the same points to win. Here are some conditions that would need to be met off the top of my head.

    1. Must control at least one major enemy capital, and one major friendly capital.
    2. Must have 23 points to win (not sure if this is the right number) ?
    3. Must hold the needed points for one round of play (again thinking 23 ?).
    4. Get to 25 points and win w/o going another round as long as you meet #1

    With this point system the game starts with the allies/26 pts, axis/11 pts (37 pts total). Although the allies start with the points to win, they don’t have an enemy capital. At the end of turn 1 Paris will be in axis hands making it allies/23, axis/14. After Japan gets going rd2, or 3 at the latest (capture Hong Kong, and Manila) it would be allies/21, axis/16 (axis need 7 more pts). Is that 2 capitals, and a reg VC; or 1 major capital, 1 minor capital, and 2 reg VC ? etc…

    No I didn’t pick 23 pts because of the movie,or TV series LOL, (but that would be as good a reason as any).

    I think it might force the axis powers to stay the coarse, because I think they have to maintain VCs on both sides to reach victory. Can the allies whether the storm, and start regaining VCs to win, and should it be the same amount of points for the allies to win (w/1 enemy capital). Might the allies try to pull Paris back to their side to attempt to win, if they drop Rome?



  • A global victory mean that USA can go 100% Pacific or 100% Atlantic with no remorse.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    Sounds ok WildBill.
    I hate all this talk of landing a UK fighter or US bomber in Moscow etc.
    I just won’t do it. Offends my historical prejudices!



  • I had an idea like this a while back which was for the Axis only.

    They had to earn so many points a turn, or they lose. (couldn’t fall below like 15 I think)
    But they won if they ever went above a certain number (like 25 -ish)

    Each axis turn you totaled up your VCs and NOs and that was your score.
    VCs were worth 1, each NO was worth 1, Captials were worth 2
    So if Germany had Paris, Berlin, Warsaw and Lenningrad, and 2 NOs it would get 8 VPs
    Japan had Tokyo, Honk Kong, Manilla, Signapore and 2 NOs it would get 7 VPs
    And Italy has Rome and an NO it would get 2 VPs

    A total of 17 VPs

    I never really solidified the idea though….
    But food for thought



  • I’m not sure what the best system is, I just know that we desperately need one. At the end of our close games we get into these arguments about who won, or who would win if we had 5 more hours to play. The truth is, games never reach their technical end objectives, so a side will ether quite to end a game that they have obviously lost, or your looking at another hour debating who the game’s winner is. I’m all in favor of working out a system that will make wins more clear, as long as it’s simple and makes sense, because I have to be able to sell it to my opponents.

    I understand the points per victory city concept, however, I think that the difficulty in obtaining some of the city’s should factor into their value. For example: lets say that in a strange game Japan took & held San Francisco, it would suck to achieve such a thing and only get 1 point for it, and Italy won’t spend in the Med if Cairo is only worth 1 point.

    I don’t have any solid suggestions right now, but I will think on it. All I would say right now is that, if everyone still owns their capital, there is no winner at that point…. I don’t care how the board looks.
    I guess the first thing to do is, find out for sure what the major tournament rules say about winners in unfinished games, and than go from there.



  • Another point about my system was that the number needed for the Axis to win decreased each turn.
    So that the longer the game dragged on, the goals for the axis decreased.
    So they could still “stave off defeat” if the allies played super slow.



  • @oztea:

    Another point about my system was that the number needed for the Axis to win decreased each turn.
    So that the longer the game dragged on, the goals for the axis decreased.
    So they could still “stave off defeat” if the allies played super slow.

    Wouldn’t that also allow the Axis to play slow?



  • Yea, but if they Axis plays slow then the allied economic advantage is going to become insurmountable.
    The axis needs to grab and hold.
    If they don’t take that initial “grab” then the Allies will box them in, and the victory conditions won’t get low enough for them to win with what they just start with until after turn 10

    Imagine for example.
    1 VP for each VC you control
    1 VP for each NO you accomplish
    2 VP for each capital (economic HQ) you control

    Axis needs 25 VP to win by turn 10
    Or -1 VP for each turn thereafter

    At the end of round 1 the axis will probably have Berlin (2), Paris (2), Warsaw (1), 2 German NOs (1+1), Tokyo (2), Shaghai (1), 1 Japanese NO (1), Rome (2), 1 Italian NO (1)

    So they would have 14 at then end of round 1 (probably)
    Up for grabs within the next 9 turns is Lenningrad (1), Stalingrad (1), Moscow (2), London (2), Cairo (1), Calcutta (2), Manilla (1), Hong Kong (1), Honolulu (1), Sidney (2)
    As well as another two German NOs, (but they lose the at peace with USSR one), Two more Japanese NOs, (but they lose the at peace with the West one), and Three more Italian ones I think.

    I exclude San Fransisco, Washington and Ottowa from the calculation, but the axis can reach around 33ish
    This would need to be worked on from a math perspective, but thats my 2 cents.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Imagine for example.
    1 VP for each VC you control
    1 VP for each NO you accomplish
    2 VP for each capital (economic HQ) you control

    Axis needs 25 VP to win by turn 10
    Or -1 VP for each turn thereafter

    Two obvious problems…

    1. a capital is the hardest objective… VP needs to be like 3-5 VP for that

    2. Germany or Japan could turtle till like turn 18 and get win…no -1 VP modifier should be awarded. It makes the game longer or get players to play a certain style. In Chess this is called “drawing masters”



  • Like I said, the numbers aren’t set in stone.

    My goal is to somehow replicate the original Pacific victory conditions for Japan, and have a setup and NO situation where the Allies will have an insurmountable advantage after like 25 turns. So the axis has to win before that, or face the economic onslaught.



  • I wouldn’t mind points given for both VC & goals (NOs), and yea i believe certain VC (capitals?) and hard to achieve NOs should carry more weight in that point system. I also think there are way too many NO’s in the game though (as many do), and wouldn’t mind seeing a reduction. Would like it more if capturing territories was the the main engine, and if you capture a VC you get a set income bonus, and point(s) towards victory conditions. Let the NO’s work as a supplement to income, instead of generating like 1/3 of it or replacing lost territories. Reduce both the number of NOs, and the amount of income NOs generate, but allow them to work towards victory conditions (works for me).

    I’m not sure what that table would look like, but it would make the game more dimensional IMO.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Also, perhaps when the combined allies/axis is greater than X over the combined allies/axis, they generate one VP?

    This would solve the turtle issue forcing whichever side to come out and fight or face defeat.

    Example: is axis have 25+ more IPC combined than allies, +1 VP per turn as long as they have this advantage.

    Secondly, the axis and allies start with a different number of VC, so you might have to assign different values for every city, rather than blanket the map with fixed values for each city.

    The ability to gain objectives matters alot toward balancing…which is one of the main reasons why i don’t like NO’s because they are not equal in terms of capturing/protecting…partly why the OOB setup was imbalanced IMO.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 15
  • 8
  • 7
  • 5
  • 30
  • 15
  • 17
I Will Never Grow Up Games

53
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts