• '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    A lot of our games end when the losing side realizes they aren’t going to win and they surrender before any capitols are even lost.

    To me this cheats us out of some interesting play. For the winners - how do you maximize your large budget to bring down the enemy capitol in the shortest time? And for the losers - how long can you hold out against overwhelming odds? Often someone will get an arms research breakthrough but the other side will surrender before we see how the new weapon will play out. It seems this keeps us in a repeating loop of opening and mid-game play.

    Does anybody use any house rules that keep players motivated to stick it out until the bitter end?

  • '17 '16

    Most of my ordinary game 1942.1 and.2, played on 6 or 7 hours, finished with a general idea which side is winning but not with a clear win.
    I can only see real Victory conditions might help, as YG suggested.
    Or a more increase swing shift when a VC is conquered, so winning one increase the pace toward a swift victory.

    You pointed a difficult problem to solve.
    Maybe, decrease Tech roll cost, to increase hope of finding a breakthrough, once a VC is conquered.
    The more desperate, the more a Power insist on using Techs to overcome the odds against him.

    Something like “6” on start. Cumulative roll if unsuccessful, and decrease level by one for each VC lost. Never returning to higher number even if VC is gained. Work only once per VC.

    Germany historically knowing they will lost, insist a way more on Tech.
    They never have enough time to test and produce massively more useful Tech.
    Assault rifle was too late in war. Me-262 was not sufficiently tested and was mass produced way too early in schedule, etc.

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @Der:

    Does anybody use any house rules that keep players motivated to stick it out until the bitter end?

    Interesting question.  I’m wondering if perhaps this problem could be tackled by having, in addition to the regular victory conditions, a supplementary goal that would apply only to the side that’s losing: the goal of holding out for as long as possible, ideally (if that’s the right word) against overwhelming enemy forces.  Call it, let’s say, the epic defeat objective, and think of the game as having a double-outcome system (whether one side wins, and how well the other side holds out against defeat).  A player who’s defeated in terms of the regular winning conditions might still be able to achieve an epic defeat, whose scale would be determined by the number of rounds the player manages to hold out multiplied by the size of the force difference between the two sides.  Think of the Battle of Thermopylae, where a small Greek force managed to hold up a huge Persian army for several days.  The force’s rear guard – about 300 Spartans and about a thousand other troops – ultimately died in a last stand, and technically the Greeks lost the battle, but their courageous stand is still remembered today and is still regarded as a great exploit.  So if it becomes clear that one side of a game is losing, that side’s new objective could be to make the winning side’s victory as hard as possible, and the losing side could receive due credit for it under a double-outcome system.  (And in fact, in WWII, “making the winning side’s victory as hard as possible” is pretty much the revised strategic objective that Germany and Japan were pursuing in 1945.)

  • '18 '17 '16

    Try my R&D rules and see if that works. The ability to share weapons between allies gives players something to look forward to if they can acquire a weapon that will help them in their current situation. I know you use a different board but I’m sure you can adapt the same principle of developing weapons to fit your game. It also makes each game unique because the teams have a different combination of weapons each time you play. You can decide how many or how few tokens to put on the map before the game and see what works for you.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxSi3Ew3olY

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    The trick is getting players to emotionally invest in converting a “major defeat” into a “minor defeat.” You could work out a point system easily enough; suppose you call the game after 10 rounds and award 1 point per net victory city owned by the leader, or if you force a win before the end of round 10 by conquering 3 net victory cities, then you get 15 - X points, where X is the number of the last round. If you force a win on round 8, you get 15 - 8 = 7 points.

    But, who will care about the points? It’s not a tournament; most groups are lucky to get a game played once a month, and you often have different teams from month to month, and people are not interested in tracking points across the whole year. People like to win the game! It’s fun; it feels good; it’s satisfying. I agree with you that a desperate defense is interesting and worth expkoring, but if your buddies aren’t interested, then don’t try to force them to spend more time “losing.”

    Someone made a pretty good Summer 1943 setup for German masochists – if you really want to explore a bitter delaying action, you could volunteer to play Germany in 1943 and see how many rounds you can last…

  • '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    Thanks for the input, guys. I’m thinking of putting in some kind of reward system in the line of what has been suggested. I already have Victory Levels on my Production Chart, found here:

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38903.0

    1. Short term reward: the winners could roll for a “prize” to use in the next game (a bonus unit/units) - the higher the Victory Level, the better the prize. Top tier might be a free battleship, bottom tier an infantry. This might keep people playing to deny the winners a big prize.

    2. Long term reward: Points could be awarded sort of like Argothair suggested. Losers would also get points for showing up and playing. The winners/losers would have to share a 10 point purse. So the highest victory would give the winner 9 points, the loser 1 point. But a victory stretched out too long would result in the winning country’s war exhaustion and too much spilt blood, giving the winner 5 points and loser 4 points. These points would add up over time and become like a “career score” for each player. Players may want to see themselves as tops on the list and thus hold out longer to get a better score and reduce the winner’s score.

    3. Ego motivation - having past performances posted on the wall, this may motivate players to think “Well I’ve never had a Major Loss - I’m not going to start now!” - and hold out longer.

    The negative of these ideas is if a player is kind of a “weak link” or has a losing streak this will show for all to see on the wall and this may cause him to get discouraged and quit playing.

  • '17 '16

    It is hard to find an in game motivation.
    Scores helped on ego.
    Is there any way to still provides hope of changing tide?
    Hope to go from a loosing position to a draw can be an incentive.
    IDK if there is someway to bring desperate player that hope.
    Besides more Techs, do you have other special rule in your game?
    Victory conditions, what are yours?

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I don’t know, I’ve always felt that what the game needs is some kind of 8 ball, where either side can dramatically fail at any point. Or a 9 ball, where the losing side can dramatically recover at the last minute. It just hard for me to picture what that might look like in A&A terms haha.

    I think anything that’s just sort of tacked on at the end, like a point spread or league standing won’t really be enough to keep the casual underdog engaged. Maybe just try to take what’s interesting about the endgame (like the production resets and cash windfalls) and try to build more of that stuff into the midgame? More variability and less inevitability, so it’s harder to predict where things are going to end up more than a round or two out. The promise of cash or tech or something significant, that might swing things at the last minute, if the losing players can just play through long enough.

    Anything like this is bound to be gamey, but without a randomizing element of some kind for the endgame, it’s probably too predictible after a certain point. Too easy to see what’s coming and just call it. What you need are more blinders.

    In RISK for example you have cards and the ascending match, which give the losing players some hope. Probably A&A needs something similar, where the underdog has a shot at dramatic recovery through a combination of audacity and luck. Though again hard to say what the best fit might be, and still not so extreme as to undermine sound strategy and good gameplay in favor of just sloppily muddling across the finish line. Tech was supposed to fulfill this role, but it’s never quite lived up to the promise.

  • '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    Baron we play until 2/3 enemy capitols are taken or the other side surrenders - whichever comes first.

    To be the most realistic we have to ask, what made the Axis keep on fighting long after it was over?
    I’d say the reasons were:
    1. Fear of what Allies would do once disarmed
    2. Hitler hoped the Allies would split and start fighting each other.
    3. Hope in super weapons
    4. Fighting for your friends next to you

    1. You can’t make others fear losing unless you put some kind of huge bet on the game.
    2. this could be possible - you might be able to do something which causes an enemy to quit the war - but then the player chosen can’t play anymore. Maybe one could join the other side?
    3. Tech doesn’t work because the other side can get it too and will have more money to spend on it.
    4. The guy next to you is not going to get killed and probably just wants to quit and start over like you.

    So its hard to resolve this.

    Black Elk those dumb lucky cards are why I hate playing Risk - LOL. AA has a nice balance of strategy and luck - I’d hate to throw more luck in there.

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Black Elk is right that tech was a big “endgame surprise” in the historical war – the Germans kept betting that their latest jet fighter or assault rifle or rocket or superheavy tank would turn the tide of battle, but they never manufactured their superweapons in enough quantity, and in any case the Allies were usually only about 6 to 9 months behind on deploying effective counters.

    One way to redeem tech as an endgame surprise is to decouple it from money – just give each country two or three “scientist” tokens. Each turn, each scientist assigned to reearch a tech Co tributes 1d6 points of research toward the tech, and when you accumulate enough research points toward the tech (with higher target totals for better techs) then you gain the tech’support benefits. Throw in a -1 per die penalty for additional scientists assigned to the same tech (e.g., two scientists who are both researching Rockets at the same time only cobtribute 2d6-2 points per turn), and most techs will naurally be discovered later in the game when they can provide a dramatically appropriate twist. On average, the player who is behind will still lose, but sometimes a series of lucky rolls on tech (plus thoughtful tech selection) can allow the underdog to eke out a draw. Combine with a firm deadline (e.g. game is an equal draw at the end of round 10) and you can try to get techs that will allow you to force a stalemate, just like the historical Germans!

    Another source of hope for the underdogs was that mounting casualties would persuade the attackers to give up and go home. It worked in World War I and Vietnam! To simulate this, starting on turn 8, any player may choose to force a morale check at the end of his combat turn. Roll 1 die for every 2 enemy infantry killed that turn. Count each roll of “6” as a hit. If you roll three or more hits against morale on the same turn, the game is a draw. Alternatively, if you score at least two hits against morale, plus one more hit for each victory city occupied by your enemies, the game is a draw.

  • '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    Give each country a certain tech a turn . Adjust accordingly.

  • '17 '16

    @Argothair:

    Black Elk is right that tech was a big “endgame surprise” in the historical war – the Germans kept betting that their latest jet fighter or assault rifle or rocket or superheavy tank would turn the tide of battle, but they never manufactured their superweapons in enough quantity, and in any case the Allies were usually only about 6 to 9 months behind on deploying effective counters.

    One way to redeem tech as an endgame surprise is to decouple it from money – just give each country two or three “scientist” tokens. Each turn, each scientist assigned to research a tech Co tributes 1d6 points of research toward the tech, and when you accumulate enough research points toward the tech (with higher target totals for better techs) then you gain the tech’support benefits. Throw in a -1 per die penalty for additional scientists assigned to the same tech (e.g., two scientists who are both researching Rockets at the same time only cobtribute 2d6-2 points per turn), and most techs will naurally be discovered later in the game when they can provide a dramatically appropriate twist. On average, the player who is behind will still lose, but sometimes a series of lucky rolls on tech (plus thoughtful tech selection) can allow the underdog to eke out a draw. Combine with a firm deadline (e.g. game is an equal draw at the end of round 10) and you can try to get techs that will allow you to force a stalemate, just like the historical Germans!

    Another source of hope for the underdogs was that mounting casualties would persuade the attackers to give up and go home. It worked in World War I and Vietnam! To simulate this, starting on turn 8, any player may choose to force a morale check at the end of his combat turn. Roll 1 die for every 2 enemy infantry killed that turn. Count each roll of “6” as a hit. If you roll three or more hits against morale on the same turn, the game is a draw. Alternatively, if you score at least two hits against morale, plus one more hit for each victory city occupied by your enemies, the game is a draw.

    I pretty like this idea.
    Maybe it can be 1 Scientist per nation until one important defeat occur:
    Like loosing a VC, a big battle (naval or ground) which is clearly a turning point, or something else (like loosing more than 50% IPCs due to Convoy Raids…)

    When this happen, it triggers another Scientist for this nation (up to three or four).

    Also, it can be decided that first Tech requires for each Power: 6 points, second 8 points, third 10 points, fourth 12 points, fifth 15 points.

    It may play on player’s curiosity to see more Techs into action, increasing motive to stay.
    Also, as winning side, can be seen as non-needed to invest in Tech as we win without all that fancy stuff.
    Our armies work well with their weapons, no need to change.
    From the underdog POV: “We have our butts kicked, we need something to change the course of war. We need Tech!”

    This works both sides, as major battles can sometimes be lost by winning side so it can still get a new Scientist.

    It is just a draft, but it can increase challenge for the winning side while giving hope and more fun for the loosing side: at least they can play with these shiny toys.

  • Sponsor

    I would love to here opinions on my Victory Token system… what are the core reasons for not adopting it?

    Victory Objectives & Victory Tokens

    Once a victory objective is achieved, a victory token will be awarded, the side with the most victory tokens at the end of the day wins the game. Victory tokens are awarded immediately upon completion regardless of when, or how the objective was achieved. Also, a token can never be taken away once earned, and they may never be awarded twice for the same objective. It doesn’t matter which round the game ends, however, a win or a tie can only be declared at the end of a full game round.

    Optional Rule: The first side to achieve 3 victory tokens will immediately win the game.

    New Research & Development Rule:

    Research rolls are no longer used to develop breakthroughs, instead, nations are awarded development rolls when victory objectives have been achieved. Once a victory token is gained, the nation with the corresponding (*) instructions listed with each objective will choose a breakthrough chart, and make a free development roll with the resulting breakthrough taking effect immediately (may not effect units already in battle during the turn in which the breakthrough was rolled). Any breakthroughs gained by the UK regardless of which side of the map a token was achieved will effect all UK purchases and all UK units on the board.

    Here is a list of all victory objectives for each side…

    Axis Powers

    London -The Axis control London
    (R&D) *The nation that takes control
    Moscow -The Axis control Moscow
    (R&D) *The nation that takes control
    Calcutta
    -The Axis control Calcutta
    (R&D) *The nation that takes control
    Sydney
    -The Axis control Sydney
    (R&D) *The nation that takes control
    Africa
    -The Axis control Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, Alexandria, and Egypt.
    (R&D) *The nation that controls the most
    Pacific -The Axis control 6 victory cities on the Pacific map
    (R&D) *The nation that controls the most Europe
    -The Axis control 7 victory cities on the Europe map
    (R&D) *The nation that controls the most

    Economy
    -All 3 Axis powers have a combined total of 136 IPCs on the income tracker
    (R&D) *The nation that is earning the most
    Allied Powers

    Berlin
    -The Allies control Berlin
    (R&D) *The nation that takes control
    Rome
    -The Allies control Rome
    (R&D) *The nation that takes control

    Tokyo
    -The Allies control Tokyo
    (R&D) *The nation that takes control
    Africa -The Allied powers control all non-neutral territories on the continent of Africa
    (R&D) *The nation that controls the most
    Paris
    -The Allies have liberated Paris
    (R&D) *The nation that takes control
    Philippines
    -The Allies have liberated the Philippines
    (R&D) *The United States

    Asia
    -The Allies control the Burma road as well as Hong Kong and Shanghai
    (R&D) *The United Kingdom

    Pacific
    -There are no Japanese Capital ships on the board
    (R&D) *The United States

  • '20 '16

    Interesting topic. I personally find the gameplay, after an eventual winner is obvious, to be quite monotonous. I’m not interested in spending hour after hour, round after round chasing your fleeing Russian stack or Japanese navy. I would lean in the opposition direction of wanting more end game play, toward Young Grasshopper’s Victory Tokens so that a clear winner could be declared without all that end game run around.

  • '17 '16

    @Young:

    I would love to here opinions on my Victory Token system… what are the core reasons for not adopting it?

    Victory Objectives & Victory Tokens

    Once a victory objective is achieved, a victory token will be awarded, the side with the most victory tokens at the end of the day wins the game. Victory tokens are awarded immediately upon completion regardless of when, or how the objective was achieved. Also, a token can never be taken away once earned, and they may never be awarded twice for the same objective. It doesn’t matter which round the game ends, however, a win or a tie can only be declared at the end of a full game round.

    Optional Rule: The first side to achieve 3 victory tokens will immediately win the game.

    New Research & Development Rule:

    Research rolls are no longer used to develop breakthroughs, instead, nations are awarded development rolls when victory objectives have been achieved. Once a victory token is gained, the nation with the corresponding (*) instructions listed with each objective will choose a breakthrough chart, and make a free development roll with the resulting breakthrough taking effect immediately (may not effect units already in battle during the turn in which the breakthrough was rolled). Any breakthroughs gained by the UK regardless of which side of the map a token was achieved will effect all UK purchases and all UK units on the board.

    Somehow, YG, your Victory tokens provide a clear objective to judge which side is winner.
    I saw that you give a tech per token.

    It give an additional bonus for one victory, this help swing further on one side. I see this as a way to shorten the game.
    Does it really produce this effect in game?

    The loosing side is just in deeper problem.

    In principle, it is exact contrary to what I just suggested: to increase finding Tech probability on the loosing side.
    So increasing hope on the loosing side.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I like the sudden death option.

    One issue I see is that without some way to enforce when the game is called, it might encourage a player to bow out prematurely, like just quit while you’re ahead. Sort of the inverse of what we have now, which is quit when you’re clearly down haha. Might be frustrating for the underdog, who could perhaps recover if the match was extended, but gets denied when the team with more tokens decides they’ve played enough for one night. Sudden death kind of gets around that issue, by making it clear that the first to achieve 3 token will win no contest. I like that option.

    Only other downside I can think of is just that it’s G40 exclusive. Would be nice to have something similar that worked for 1942.2 too, though I guess there you have the issue of no standard tech system for the smaller board that could have the victory tokens attached to it.

    I’m still not sure how you really get around the main problem, which is the sense of inevitability to the win that makes the underdog feel like that game is not worth pursuing further. This predictability is sort of baked in, and what allows strategies to function in A&A on a very basic level. I think Der Kuenstler is right to be suspicious of the analogy I made earlier with risk cards. That only works in risk because the game itself is so simplistic. They offer two options for the cards, one ascending and the other with set values for the trade (the later is less extreme), but both are still random at bedrock. It’s luck of the draw there. Probably most people don’t want to see the A&A win reduced to something so capricious as a random draw that up ends all expectations haha.

    That’s what I meant by saying it’s hard for me to imagine something that fits with the broader A&A model. An upset blinder that isnt all cheeseball our out of character with the rest of the game.

    From an historical standpoint, the only way I see it being realistic is with tech. But the kind of techs available in A&A probably aren’t what would have won the war for Germany anyway, not at the late stage, when they were already up against the ropes… we’ll maybe rockets would have played a role, but in reality, I think the nearest the Axis could have come to forcing an end to the war (after the point when they were already losing so badly), would have been with Chemical or Biological weapons. It’s the closest they got to something strategic on the level of an A bomb. Like putting all those crazy organophosphates into a v2 warhead and hitting London or Amsterdam for the lights out Armageddon. Or using defoliants or hoof and mouth style attacks against the Soviets to induce widespread famine. But the game doesn’t go there, and probably for good reason. Nobody wants Tabun strikes in their plastic army men game. It’s just too dark, like way R rated hehe. Instead they keep things pretty conventional. For the best I’d say, so the game can still be played with the kids.

    I like the idea of the convention techs becoming more common by default as the game goes on, but it would be cool if it was weighted more heavily for the underdog somehow. Even if it’s somewhat unrealistic for jets and long range delta wing bombers to make appearances in the midgame, we probably need em coming in earlier to suggest a turn on the dime where the losing side can somehow turn it around with radical new Super weapons.

  • '18 '17 '16

    The problem with radical new super weapons is that it can take a balanced game and turn it in favour of one side on the roll of one lucky dice. If one side is losing it’s probably because they are getting beat honestly and turning the tide without earning it just for the sake of prolonging the game is wrong. That breaks the game in my opinion. Honestly, if you just tried my R&D rules you would see that it takes skill to develop weapons and share them and that having that many weapons in the game can increase the possibilities that each side can be capable of. The weapons themselves can be tweaked to whatever you want them to be but if you don’t have a way to put them in the hands of the players they are useless.

  • '17 '16

    I suggest a different approach for Techs.
    More like: leading powers don’t need to invest in these crapy unreliable inventions.
    While loosing sides is so desperate that they try everything to change the tide of war.

    However, you are right HandGrenade about superweapons. Techs should be just as powerful to tip balance from a lost to a draw.
    And with luck and a good strategy, from a draw to a win.

    On the reverse, when the leading is loosing ground, it also gains more access to Tech to switch the game toward them.

    So, it becomes a race for tech, too.

  • '18 '17 '16

    All of the research tokens in my rules are snatched up and developed in the first 4 turns or so. After that it comes down to sharing tech and whether or not that’s a good idea. One way to turn the tide would be to abandon a losing strategy and focus instead on taking out one nation and stealing the 2 or 3 (or 4) tokens they have in their possession that can be shared now on the other side. It depends on what tokens they have and whether or not they can help turn the tide of the war. That’s why you may not choose to share all of your tech with Italy or ANZAC if you think they might be vulnerable in that game.

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Can we get a link to your R&D rules, General Hand?

  • '18 '17 '16

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Young Grasshopper, I respect the work you put into creating a well-balanced set of victory token objectives, but I don’t like the system for the same reason I don’t like Twilight Imperium 3: when I play a game as long and intense as Axis & Allies, I don’t want it end because my opponents reached an arbitrary target before I did. World War 2 isn’t a horse race; it’s a wrestling match. I want one side to have to force the other to submit in order to score a win. If I understand your victory tokens correctly, if the Allies have 2 tokens and are one territory away from earning a third token when the Axis collect their third token, then you end the game immediately and the Axis totally win the entire game, just as if the Axis were comfortably occupying London and Moscow and Washington all at once. That doesn’t seem either fair or interesting to me.

    General Hand Grenade, your R&D tokens are an interesting way to put new areas of the board into play, and there’s some cool drama in trying to share or rescue or capture an R&D token as it moves toward a weaker ally, but I don’t see that system as a real solution to DK’s original complaint about how hard it is to get people to engage in end game play. If you happen to have a killer tech that can be shared with the right ally at the right time in a way that will actually turn the tide of battle, OK, fine, maybe you play on. If you happen to be able to capture an enemy capital that is rich in tech and then safely return the looted tech tokens to your capital, despite the fact that you’re steadily losing the game, then, OK, fine, that’s an interesting comeback mechanic. My first impression is that these scenarios are very unlikely, though – most games won’t even appear to have a plausible tech-based comeback, and so people will still want to quit once they start to fall behind.

    Black Elk, the “ascending cards” mechanic in RISK is an interesting parallel. Sure, there’s way too much luck involved in whether you draw the card you need (infantry/artillery/cavalry) to complete your set, but if you zoom out, you can think of the mechanic as “the longer the game goes on, the more violently a pendulum swings back and forth based on cashing in cards, and the less it matters who controls a given continent.” So there’s kind of an inherent timer in the game; yes, you want to (1) control continents/territories in RISK, but you also want to (2) make sure to collect a card every turn and to preserve your armies; the longer the game goes on, the more important Goal 2 becomes and the less important Goal 1 becomes.

    I think Axis & Allies actually has a decent natural timer built in based on the completion of the Allied fleets. In the beginning of an Axis & Allies game, position and momentum are the most important thing – the Axis are trying to penetrate to London and/or Moscow before the Allied fleets can arrive to provide reinforcements, and the Allies are trying to slow them down. It’s OK to take fairly large losses in order to gain one extra space as the Axis or in order to deny one space to the Axis. Later in an Axis & Allies game, territory control and preserving armies are the most important thing – if the capital hasn’t fallen yet, then it’s probably not going to fall anytime soon, so the only way to win is by outproducing your opponent and trading your armies more efficiently so that your armies gradually get larger than your opponent’s armies over many turns.

    The difference between the two timers is that the RISK timer is chaotic/divergent, in that it rapidly destabilizes the game, whereas the A&A timer is orderly/convergent, in that it gradually stabilizes and freezes the game. Stabilizing the game to the point where the fronts are practically locked in place has the disadvantage of being anti-climactic and of not technically triggering any end-of-game conditions, but it has the advantage of being fair and predictable; instead of winning because you happened to be on the last “upswing” of the pendulum that mattered, you win because the game stabilized at 130 to 110 IPCs in your favor, instead of the other way around.

    I don’t think I would change anything about the A&A endgame except maybe to put a hard deadline in somewhere around round 12 – if you can’t win by the end of round 12, the game is a draw. That will encourage at least some players to fight on when they’re slightly behind, and it will encourage strong players to take the occasional risk instead of only attacking when the expected profit is guaranteed positive (cough Marine_Iguana cough), and it will help players agree on how to “score” a game when one side has only a very slight advantage, and it’s not clear whether that advantage will definitely lead to victory.

    That said, if you’re specifically looking to explore situations from 1944, 1945, or after because you find those situations interesting, why not play a scenario? There’s nothing wrong with setting up a position where the Axis (or the Allies!) are doomed to lose, where the object of the game is simply to last for X turns without being defeated. There’s also nothing wrong with starting the game from a balanced position that’s much later in the game, e.g., US has conquered Tokyo and Germany has conquered Moscow, or even an early Cold War type scenario, with the USA in West Germany/Tokyo and their ex-ally Russia in East Germany/Manchuria.

  • '18 '17 '16

    Argothair, if you read the original post he says that he wants to keep his players interested in the game, not necessarily to come back for a win. I agree that it would be a rare situation in which you could come back from certain defeat even using my rules, but at least it gives a side something to try for rather than just rolling out an inevitable defeat. Good observations though.

    I like YG’s method of victory token objectives. If all players are aware of what those objectives are before the game begins then they can play to either achieve them or prevent the opposition from achieving their objectives. Most of the objectives are not easy to achieve so it isn’t like you haven’t accomplished anything. There are just more ways of rewarding teams rather than simply capturing capitals or victory cities. In reality, there was more to winning wars than capturing cities.

    Or…you could just give the American player atomic bombs at the end of the 12th turn and let him drop them on Japan. I hear that works like a charm when you want to end a world war.

  • '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    I am testing my game with tech and with NAs with event cards. We all know a lot of games start out the same, but with my stuff in game, it changes some moves do to NAs and if u get the good tech for your country early.
    Each deck of cards have 10 good and 10 bad cards. In each deck for all countries there are Get 1 free tech, 2 research tokens (u roll for free) and spy steals a enemy’s tech. Plus you also can buy up to 2 research tokens per turn. Tokens carry over to next turn. If you roll a breakthrough then u lose all tokens. If u roll 3 die and get 3 6s u only get to roll 1 die for tech chart. I know some will disagree but I’m trying to put in tech so u have a chance of getting ave of 2 to 3 techs a game but not make it over powering. If u get all useless tech oh well at least the games will play different. But u also have the chance to get a couple of techs later in game that may change the tide.
    So for my end game I have it were Axis must control 15 victory city’s at the end of turn 10. That’s it no chasing pieces around and waiting for total destruction.
    Until you play test your theory’s then what ever you suggest may work or not.
    I will know if mine work soon.  I’ll tell you this it’s funny because the guys can’t wait to draw there event card to see if they get anything good.
    At least this game has more Pazazz in it  Each game plays a bit different at least too.


  • You could add a Axis victory condition that provides a game endpoint if the Allies request a ceasefire.  This ceasefire would occur if war is not going well for the Allies, and unrest, cost, and weariness back home cause the Allies to look for a way to stop the war.  CONDITION: IF France and Moscow have fallen, and there are no US forces on the continent (except Italy), Germany retains all of their home territories, PLUS there has been an invasion by the Allies that has failed, then the Allies have 2 turns to capture any victory city to re-bolster morale, otherwise the Allies sue for peace and the war ends.

Suggested Topics

  • 25
  • 45
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
  • 11
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

47
Online

16.4k
Users

38.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts