Modified UK and Victory Conditions

@The-Captain

Dang. Truly undefeated in an exaggerated way.

@barnee said in USSR and UK/USA sharing/liberating territories:

@CorporalClegg Hi Clegg
yea very few instances of allies and russia fighting together. Heard of some air units, but that’s all I can really remember. Cwo marc probably would know more.

Anyway, using the Global game, I like Black Elk’s " Sphere of Influence" house rule. Gives a minus 10 bucks if Russia has any allied units in russian controlled TTys and vice versa. Same for Germany/Italy and Japan.

Have to use it with some Russian boost rules too, but it gives a more historical game play pattern without eliminating the possibility of “what if”

Cheers Barnee I’ll check out Black Elk’s house rules and see what I think. I was hoping to avoid an IPC reduction for Russia but maybe that is simply the best way to go. I definitely want to allow for “what if” possibilities so perhaps banning movement of units through eachother’s territories isn’t ideal. Thanks for your contribution

@caesar-seriona Historically Mussolini declares war when there is no doubt Paris is going to fall to Germany.In a G40 game Germany often combat moves through N.Italy and NCM air units to S.Italy,both of which require Italy to be not neutral.
So to keep Italy neutral until UKs turn Germany would need to retreat from Paris{leave it for Italy to take perhaps}and NOT enter Italian territory G1.

I personally have more than one way to “win” the game for each side.

Axis -

Economic Victory - The Axis powers make 150 IPC’s combined
Total Victory - The Axis powers control all Allied Capitals
Victory Objectives - The Axis powers have 5 Victory Objectives
VC Victory - The Axis powers control 12 Victory Cities or the OOB rules

Allies -

Economic Victory - The Allied powers make 200 IPC’s combined
Total Victory - OOB Rules
Victory Objectives - The Allied powers have 5 Victory Objectives
VC Victory - The Allied powers control 16 Victory Cities

World Domination is also a possibility, one we play when we have time.

Here is a rule we have been trying…

Engaged Land Combat:

The attacker has 3 options after each round of combat;

continue the battle, 2) retreat, 3) partial retreat, or 4 ) stand.  Options 3 and 4 end further combat by the attacker, and allow the defender a one-time only play of any of these 3 actions; retreat, stand, and/or counterattack.  Defending unit retreats follow the same retreat rules as attacker except the destination territory is any that is under friendly control.  Counterattacking units get one round free combat using attack dice.  Defending air units must retreat and cannot counterattack.  After the counterattack, the counterattacking units are considered engaged and cannot be moved on their turn and must become the attacker.  Attacking or defending units that stand and are still in a territory that contains unfriendly units on their turn, must either attack and/or move to territories that were in friendly control or had friendly units at the start of the their turn.

Flashman, can you be a little more specific about what you mean by “a nation is defeated?” Does that mean all of the nation’s pieces are immediately removed from the map when it loses its last production center? If not, are there any practical consequences to being “defeated” other than not being able to produce new units? And by “nation,” do you have in mind something like “France,” or more like “the Allies?”

If you treat production centers as victory cities, then how many victory cities do you think each side should have to control in order to win? Would you have any victory cities that are not also production centers?

Finally, would you agree that banning the creation of new factories takes some of the variety and surprise out of the game? Off the top of my head, it seems like Japan is more or less required to try to conquer India (since Japan can no longer build a factory in Manchuria or Kazakh), and the USA is more or less required to try to conquer Italy or Tokyo (since the USA can no longer build a factory in France, NW Europe, or Norway). I would also be sad to lose the option of having the UK build a factory in South Africa, having the USA build a factory in Sinkiang, having the UK (or Germans!) build a factory in Egypt, having Japan build a factory in Alaska, and having the USA build a factory in Borneo or the Philippines. No one of these options is really part of ‘orthodox’ play, but collectively they spice the game up quite a bit, and often players will adjust their moves to make sure that these builds don’t become optimal. For example, the US might leave a significant garrison, including a tank and a fighter, in Western USA / Western Canada to guard against a Japanese Alaskan factory, but if Japan can’t build in Alaska, then the USA can make do with a much smaller, cheaper, more passive defense of the homeland.

Hey Desertrfox, trust me when I say that I’ve spent a lot of time on this and there are no easy solutions. Your idea has a good solid foundation for naming a winner. However, I see a few issues that might undermind some strategies.

1. There is no reason for the Axis to go into Africa if it does nothing to help them win the game, this would be unfortunate as most fun games have good battles in the Med.

2. It is almost imposible to hold both Moscow and London in one game, so my Allied strategy would be to go after Japan where Calcutta and Sydney are more likely.

3. It does not address what the Allies need to do to win seeing as holding all 3 Axis capital is impossible, they will revert to the popular and unimaginative “hold out as long as possible” strategy.

Here is my solution…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35267.0

OK, got it.