Make India count as a Europe VC

@hengst not wasted at all. Repetition is what fine tunes these scenarios to make them the best they can be. Keep up the good work

To add some diversity and other strategies to winning.

21 points to win  (Axis pts/Allied pts)  Axis starts with 9  Allied starts with 15

2/4 Germany - Berlin
2/2 Southern Italy - Rome
1/1 Norway
1/1 Northern Italy
1/2 Poland - Warsaw
2/2 Eastern US - Washington
3/2 United Kingdom - London
2/2 Russia - Moscow
2/1 France - Paris
2/1 Egypt - Cairo

1/1 Novgorod - Leningrad
2/1 Ontario - Ottawa
1/1 Volgograd - Stalingrad
1/1 Union of South Africa
1/2 Suez Canal
2/1 Gibraltar
1/1 Greece
2/1 Iraq & Persia
2/1 Libya & Malta
1/0 Axis units in S. America
1/0 No Russians W of Kar/Ukr
0/1 No Axis units in Africa
1/0 Strict Neutrals in place
1/0 No US in France & Germany

In a game without bids, the med is still interesting in 50% of my games, and nearly all games I have ever played involve Taranto. Granted, 50% is not 100%, but still, it happens pretty often. In a game without bids, the Med can be, and often is, simply more fun and more interesting. I’m not saying no Allied help, mind you, just not a bidding system (I have been recently playing with +10 IPCs/turn -> USA).

In a game with bids, those bids often put a UK sub there to make Taranto nigh un-losable, and even an extra Inf in Alexandria/Egypt on top of that, and yeah, I can see how that pretty much ends the intrigue.

It’s cool, I have come up against resistance to the city bonuses idea virtually every time I try to persuade people of its merits, despite its evident superiority to me hehe.  :-D

I made my case against National Objectives pretty clear when Larry and others originally proposed them for AA50. I still believe now, as I did then, that NOs are way more complicated and numerous than they need to be, and that there are better, easier, and more consistent ways to introduce money into the game. Moreover, I feel quite strongly that National Objectives (if they are included in a game) should be strictly optional, they shouldn’t be a requirement for game balance.

I also still believe, as I did when Revised came out, that absent some real in-game economic draw, VCs are pretty ineffective at influencing the way players approach the endgame.

Many players (the ones I play with anyway) simply do not find VC victory conditions satisfying, perhaps in much the same way that they did not find the Economic victory conditions in Classic satisfying. Outside of tournaments, I expect that many players will continue to ignore VCs, in favor of capital capture, because capital capture has an in game economic influence which is decisive during the endgame. You can state the official VC Victory Conditions as flatly as you like, by the book 100% (with “Axis need X” and “Allies need Y” and all the rest), and you will still see players ignoring VCs, or subordinating them to Capitals, because a VC win is like winning on a technicality. Often both the Victor and the Vanquished both go home feeling like the VC game lacks the sort of climax they desire. If the VC conditions are such that a capital must be taken regardless (to satisfy the total requirements) then VCs just seem redundant, or secondary at best.

What most people want out of the VC system is instead, a way for Axis to “Win” that does not require Moscow. A narrow win game, absent the capital capture dynamic, but this almost never pans out, because there are not enough VCs on the map…

And also (perhaps more importantly) because there is no strong mechanism in place to encourage vigilant tracking of “VCs controlled” in a given round by the players who are actually playing.

That is essentially what it comes down to right there, its a player tracking problem, not a systemic problem or a problem with the concept of the VC itself. The lack of diligent tracking comes from the fact that (in real game_play_ terms) VCs don’t do anything inside the game, but are used only to determine when its supposed to end.

I believe that by attaching bonuses directly to VCs controlled, you can start to get a game where VC tracking is imperative, and all players will pay closer attention to them.  This mitigates the feeling of “losing or winning” on a technicality, because one or the other player got so caught up in everything else that needs to be tracked that they neglected to track the VCs! In TripleA for example almost everyone I know “unchecks” the victory by VCs in the game options, because of how annoying it is to see a multi-round game just get torpedoed right before achieving climax, after several hours invested, on a VC technical win.

My hope would be that, once you get players used to the notion that VCs have value (real value in terms of the games underlying framework of IPCs) then you could potentially use them to replace the capital capture dynamic.
But again, I don’t expect everyone to just hop on board with this idea because I say it’s great. Some players seem to rather enjoy having 28 complex rules for income bonuses, which are unavoidable, and which complicate the game’s economy in various ways. I’m just not really one of them haha.  :wink:

I will play Halifax using the City Objective bonuses and report back with my findings on overall balance by side.

I think G40, like most A&A games lately doesn’t give players enough cash in hand to overcome game breaking exploits or a single bad roll of the dice. For a game that takes nearly an hour to set up, there is very little margin for error when you’re actually playing, almost no room for recovery, because the unit replacement cost is so high relative to the economy. I believe this a problem which can be solved by adding more cash into equation. And that this actually accelerates game resolution rather than drawing it out, under the general principle that players are willing to risk more, when they have more.

NOs try to achieve the same, but they do so in way which is very rules intensive. In Global there are so many NOs, and they have such a huge influence on the gameplay… Such an overwhelmingly dramatic influence on the basic strategies at work, that the map itself, (and all the ipc values and information written on it) ceases to communicate the situation in a particularly meaningful way to players. You cannot survey it at a glance, but instead you have to be aware of all the NOs and all the stuff behind the scenes. OOB these are not presented as optional, and in gameplay terms they are basically mandatory. The game doesn’t balance well at all without them.

So that is the way I see it. To me a VC bonus scheme handles two separate issues with one simple mechanic. It makes VCs relevant, gets the money into play, and restores the map itself (over the NO page in the manual) as the primary way players evaluate their standing and situation vis a vis their opponent.

I have seen many Axis won games where the Axis won by the skin-of-their-teeth. If those games went on a couple of more rounds, it would have surely turned into an Allied victory.
For example, I have seen this happen: Germany takes over Russia gaining Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. They already have Berlin, Warsaw and Paris, plus Italy has Rome. There is 7 of the 8 VCs they need to win on the Europe board.
While Germany was fighting in Russia and Italy was dealing with the British in the Med, the US fleet stomps the Japanese fleet and has them cornered on Japan. The US also builds up a HUGE invasion force in the Atlantic. They move it to SZ 91 off of Gibraltar. That same turn, Italy finally manages to grab Cairo from the Brits –- VC #8 — and puts a single destroyer blocker in SZ 92.
See, the Allies are screwed. That big US invasion force could easily take Rome, but the US fleet has to stop in SZ 92 to smash that 1 Italian destroyer. Therefore they can’t get to Rome, or Cairo. From SZ 91, even with the Gibraltar Naval Base, there is no other European VC that is under Axis control that they can get to. They could invade W. Germany, but while that would hurt the German effort, there is no VC there. Both Berlin and Paris are 1 more turn away. At the beginning of Italy’s turn, the Axis win.
Berlin, Rome and Paris could all be totally undefended, but since the Axis captured their 8th VC and held it for one full round, they win. In a way, this kind of sucks but that’s the rules. I guess it is designed to make the Allied players think harder about their defence of VCs. Perhaps go all out on that critical 8th VC to keep it from the Axis an any cost, whether it be Cairo, Moscow or even London.

Air Transport planes will make it so much easier to get that Egypt NO for Germany.  In a number of our games Germany never gets that one because they have no transports in the Med (actually no naval presence period) and too often the Italians are using their transports too much to keep sending troops over from Italy to Africa to keep fighting the Brits and don’t have time to ferry over any Germans.  Plus, if the Brits have fighters about, then it can be dangerous for a German land unit just sitting on an Italian transport waiting to be ferried over to Egypt.  A lot of the time Italy keeps having to replace transports because of British air power and not enough naval protection.

If Germany had an air transport plane, they could wait until Italy captured Egypt and just fly a couple of guys down there then send the plane back to Germany.

Britain can start with more factories only if nations are not allowed to use captured factories.

Germany+Italy should outproduce UK+Russia while Japan should be two times weaker than USA in a 1942 scenario.

I’d stick with the Larry Harris scheme (factory in Sink for 5 doesn’t seem right), just add a total of 5 inf to what China already has.  1941 requires even more inf I think as China is much too weak.

If Japan can destroy China by Turn 3 something isn’t right IMHO.  A pro Japan should capture China by Turn 4-5, India by 6-8, and start threatening Moscow around Turn 10.  If Germany/Italy can still hold out for a few more turns at this point then the Axis probably deserves the win.