Six Player Victory Objectives (Global 1940)
Young Grasshopper last edited by
So we play a lot of 6 player games, and in light of “The Big Bang Theory” A&A fupa when Leonard asked if they should play individuals or teams, I’ve come up with a victory condition system that would allow players to gain points even if their teammates drop the ball. Here’s my idea, what do you think?
Player for Germany gets 2 points if they hold 6 victory cities (including Berlin) at the end of any game round. If the game ends for whatever reason without Germany gaining this objective, they will collect 1 point if all other players agree that Germany would eventually achieve this victory objective if the game were to continue.
Player for Japan gets 2 points if they hold 6 victory cities (including Tokyo) at the end of any game round. If the game ends for whatever reason without Japan gaining this objective, they will collect 1 point if all other players agree that Japan would eventually achieve this victory objective if the game were to continue.
Player for Italy gets 2 points if they hold Rome and all of their National Objectives at the end of any game round. If the game ends for whatever reason without Italy gaining this objective, they will collect 1 point if all other players agree that Italy would eventually achieve this victory objective if the game were to continue.
Player for United Kingdom gets 2 points if they hold London, Cairo, Calcutta and the allies have captured at least 1 Axis capital at the end of any game round. If the game ends for whatever reason without the United Kingdom gaining this objective, they will collect 1 point if all other players agree that United Kingdom would eventually achieve this victory objective if the game were to continue.
Player for United States gets 2 points if they hold all their original territories and the allies have captured at least 1 Axis capital at the end of any game round. If the game ends for whatever reason without the United States gaining this objective, they will collect 1 point if all other players agree that United States would eventually achieve this victory objective if the game were to continue.
Player for Soviet Union gets 2 points if they hold Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow and the allies have captured at least 1 Axis capital at the end of any game round. If the game ends for whatever reason without the Soviet Union gaining this objective, they will collect 1 point if all other players agree that Soviet Union would eventually achieve this victory objective if the game were to continue.
So, if any of these nations earn their respective victory objective, they will get points. However, the game doesn’t need to end with a winner declared, it just means that player has reached a goal that is impressive and should be rewarded. Also, this idea shouldn’t promote individual play and selfish strategies, the objectives are very much in line with what is expected of each nation anyways. For example: Germany goes for 6 victory cities without helping Italy in Africa or the Mediterranean, but an experienced player might agree that 6 Victory cities for Germany is difficult if the United Kingdom own all of Africa and the Middle east.
Curious about Italy. When you say all their National Objectives, do you mean the three main $5 objectives (no Allied ships in Med, all of N Africa and 3 of 4) or are you including the $2 objectives for Iraq, Persia and NW Persia?
Also, wouldn’t this end up in a lot of ties? It seems to me like it would be possible for more than one country to get 2 points, even if their side loses. Plus, Japan’s condition would win the game for the Axis in the Pacific.
Here’s my idea, what do you think?
I’m not sure I’m grasping the aim of this proposal. It seems to be designed to allow the players to potentially accumulate points at the end of every round, but without these points having any defined purpose since it’s not indicated how they determine who wins the game. They seem to be more like “intrinsic reward points” (points which provide gratification in and of themselves) rather than victory points (which determine who wins the game) – but perhaps I’m missing something. I’m also a bit perplexed by the “collect 1 point if all other players agree that Country X would eventually achieve this victory objective if the game were to continue” element which applies to each country “if the game ends for whatever reason without Country X gaining this objective”. What is the function of this element? And what incentive would the other players have to give their consent to the awarding of this point to an adversary, especially if such an award would result in that player being declared the winner (if that’s the function)?
Young Grasshopper last edited by
To clarify for both KNP & CWO,
This rule was conceived to address the problems that our particular group has been facing over the years. Essentially, we usually play a 9-10 hour game without resolve, and we have a couple of players that want to name a winner after each game. The regular rules for victory conditions might be realistic for the Axis, however, they’re near impossible for the Allies and they usually win by surrender only. Considering the fact that we have players that would rather fight until the last infantry before surrendering, or that the German success or failure has little to do with Japan and vice versa, we needed a new system. My idea was to essentially breakdown our monthly games into a league format where each member collects points from each game they participate in, regardless of how their teammates fair. These “victory objectives” are still inline with what each nation needs to accomplish in order to be successful, the only question for the Allies is, who will lead the charge to take an Axis capital (I think America should take Tokyo while protecting Manila, or help the United Kingdom take Rome), and if getting an Axis capital seems impossible than no one gets a point. To answer the question of Italy’s victory objective, I would say all of them, but after reading my own post… I see that there’s a lot of holes with this idea.
Thanks for providing this background information, YG. I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish. I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider. The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points? Here are a couple of aspects of that question:
First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome? Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game. Under the second option, the reverse would be the case. Each option has its upside and its downside. For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.
Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes? Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game. Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points. Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses. In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game. That would sound bizarre to me. One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures. In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow. But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)? Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded? (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)