• Sponsor

    @Argothair:

    Young Grasshopper, I respect the work you put into creating a well-balanced set of victory token objectives.

    Thank you Argothair, I really appreciate your comments, and the time you took to address each of us.

    @Argothair:

    I don’t like the system for the same reason I don’t like Twilight Imperium 3

    I’ve played TI3 and I don’t like it either, mostly because TI3 creates a different victory condition during each different game when factions pull a random card from a deck of many which is kept hidden from all others. However, on the other hand… A&A victory objectives are always the same for every game, they are exposed for all to achieve or prevent, and strategies to do this can be planned before each game (which is not the case with TI3).

    @Argothair:

    I want one side to have to force the other to submit in order to score a win.

    I’ve had many types of A&A players at my house over the years, and I can say undoubtedly that some players are so delusional as to what the board is truly saying about who won… that I no longer depend on one to surrender when they so obviously should.

    @Argothair:

    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.

    The 3 token immediate win is stated on the document as an Optional Rule, which is good for games with time restraints… besides that another optional rule could be a total domination of all tokens needed.

    Thanks again for all your comments.

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    @generalhandgrenade

    What’s cool about the tech sharing/stealing idea, is that it fits pretty well with the actual spoils of war that the winners were after. Like there’s a reason to fight longer just to deny the enemy your research, or I guess to put your research into the right hands when all else is lost. Since that’s what happened anyway when the curtain was drawing on the war.

    In a multi, you maybe have the advantage of getting to try and screw over one player on the winning team more than another by denying them your choice research and scientists haha. Or put the plans on a sub and make a last ditch effort to get your super weapons to a buddy who might still fight on.

    It would be fun, though perhaps impractical from a gameplay standpoint, if the game had more of the post war dissolution of the winning alliances built into it. Like racing to paperclip up the best tech, before the other guy on your team steals it out from under you. But there’s no real backstabbing or alliance switching in the normal formula of A&A, since the game doesn’t really model any kind of post war order as part of the victory conditions, and the Alliances are totally fixed for the duration OOB. Probably since it is such a complex game it’s still oriented towards the 1v1.

    For a multi the deep endgame and ultimate victory tally might entail an eventual split of the winning team into two waring factions. Like Anglo-Americans vs Soviets or Germany vs Japan. Some kind of side switching at the end, could allow for a dramatic reset, or way to keep the underdogs engaged, as they angle for a better position in the aftermath, or try to back one horse over the other among their enemies. A&A has never really modelled that type of situation though. The co-location of friendly units kind of works against it. I often wondered what the game might look like if Russia switched sides after Berlin fell, and all Anglo American units on Russian tiles just became Soviet. Then at least for the Allies you’d have a way for the winning players to remain invested in the final slog, even if the losing players get picked off. But the OOB team structure doesn’t really accomodate a shift in the politics like that for the endgame.

    Basically a workaround like, ‘ok, if there isn’t much you can do to prevent the weak links from bowing out early, you at least have a way to let the two strongest links continue on and duke it out during the final stretch.’ The vanquished go home, while the victors stick around till 3 am to see who really wins heheh. I don’t know, that’s one of the features risk has, that A&A doesn’t, owing to the FFA character of the simpler game vs the team oriented character of the more complex one.  I’ve never really seen a good way to implement such a breakdown of victor alliances in A&A, since it would require a multi, and because the early and midgame require such a total commitment to coordinating with and propping up the friendlies on your team. Whereas the real war was almost entirely about determining the post war order among “friends”, and not just defeating the bad guys by any means. Tech sharing would be a really cool feature of the ultimate endgame and true victory status, if it could somehow be worked into a system where the dissolution of the winning side was an inevitability in every game. Probably only work well for a 2v2 match, but would still be nice to have some rules in place, for a play group that regularly has 4 or more players per game.

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Two thoughts:

    1. If you are fascinated by jockeying for position in a post-war order, Churchill is a fantastic new board game that directly and successfully addresses that issue. You play with 3 players: Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, and you fight against two “scripted” Axis opponents that behave the same way given the same circumstances and the same dice rolls. You get a few victory points for winning the war harder and faster than your opponents (e.g. if the Soviets make it to Manchuria and Kyushu before the Americans even make it back to the Philippines, that’s worth some VP for Stalin), but mostly the victory points come from technology, politics, and setting up friendly puppet regimes in the countries that used to be occupied by the Axis.

    2. If you’re willing to take the time to get the balance right, you could actually use the fact that Anglo units in red territories become Soviet after a German collapse to properly incentivize Anglo players not to deploy units to the USSR unless the situation is truly desperate. Like, right now that’s handled by a National Objective that says “no Allied soldiers in Russian territories,” which is kind of weird. But if the Western Allies know that they’ll eventually lose whatever they put into Russia, then they’ll be motivated to put in only just enough direct reinforcements to hold Moscow, and to open a second front as fast as possible as an alternative (i.e., safer!) way of relieving pressure on Moscow.

    I’m not sure how you would manage the team-switching in a four-player game, though…I think it might have to be a 3-player game. Otherwise you wind up with either a surplus player, or a three-way conflict. Suppose Berlin falls on round 8. The German player could take over the USA or the UK, and then you’d have someone playing the USA, someone playing the UK, someone playing the USSR…and then what happens to the Japanese player? Does Japan fight on, in a 3-way conflict? So you have Western Allies vs. Soviets vs. Japan? What are the win conditions?

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Fair enough, Young Grasshopper. Your objectives are at least out there for everyone to see, so you can try to deny them to your opponents. The fact that there are three big objectives instead of ten little ones also makes the game firmer and more decisive than TI3. I’m sorry I slandered your rules by comparing them to TI3! That wasn’t deserved. 🙂

    Nevertheless, I think your objectives are so ‘big’ that if you fight for total domination of the objectives, you are essentially playing until surrender. If you have to take multiple capitals and have a big economic advantage and prevent your opponent from dominating any maritime region of the world to win, then you basically have to conquer the world to win.

    Likewise, I think that if you want to play with the optional “sudden death” rule and say that the first player to three tokens wins, it will save time, but only by allowing for what would feel to me like a relatively artificial victory. If I’m short on time, I would rather call the game at the end of a certain round, or at the end of a certain number of hours, and assess the situation from there.

    I’m sorry to hear that some of your players are delusional about when they’ve lost. I consider that poor sportsmanship. In my play group, I’m lucky enough to have players who fall over themselves to point out reasons why the other side was doing well when the game was called! If my buddies were delusional, I might want to use your victory tokens as a way of keeping score, i.e., to say “well, the Axis were ahead 4 tokens to 2 tokens when we called the game, therefore by definition the Axis were winning.”

    I’m sure your victory objectives work well for a certain kind of play group, and I do not think there is anything wrong with them – the overall premise is just not to my taste.

  • '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    Interesting discussion. Here’s a possible rewards chart I made that includes both points for wins and bonus units you can roll a D6 for at the beginning of your next game depending on your performance. The victory level is determined by how many rounds it takes you to get a victory. (For example, you get a Glorious victory if the other side surrenders in three rounds or less.)

    So….if you knew you were going to eventually lose a game, would a chart like this keep you playing longer? Or would it be useless?

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    @Der:

    Interesting discussion. Here’s a possible rewards chart I made that includes both points for wins and bonus units you can roll a D6 for at the beginning of your next game depending on your performance. The victory level is determined by how many rounds it takes you to get a victory. (For example, you get a Glorious victory if the other side surrenders in three rounds or less.)

    So….if you knew you were going to eventually lose a game, would a chart like this keep you playing longer? Or would it be useless?

    For me it would. But I don’t need much help, since I’m kind of a masochist. I enjoy the end game, even if it’s from a losing perspective.
    😄

    I’ve seen two really different attitudes towards playing out a likely defeat, which suggest very different ideas about game resolution etiquette. On the one hand I’ve seen players who think concession is good sportsmanship, like “let’s not drag this out any further.” And on the other hand I’ve seen players who think basically the exact opposite, that it’s the height of good form to play out the victory lap and let their opponent experience an endgame win. In both instances I’m talking about respectable players, not the kind who’d drop out or flip the board in protest haha. I guess it comes down to who you’re playing against.  I have a certain respect for players who just want to grind it out till the bitter end, but others might find that annoying and just want the likely loser to “give up already, and stay down.” Some of it probably depends on how long you’ve been at it, whether a rematch is in the offing, or if a single session is all you’re going to get. I think in the latter case, I’m more inclined to play out the endgame than reset for a game that has no chance of finishing. Online play is probably a little different, than FtF here, since online players have a better chance of landing another opponent for a new game, whereas FtF it’s usually one session per night. Most of my FtF friends enjoy the deep endgame, even if they’re losing, so it hasn’t been a major issue for me really, but in tripleA I’ve seen it run both sides of the gamut.

  • '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    Thanks Black Elk - I happened to think over the weekend - why not give the loser who holds out rewards? Thus here is a chart adaptation - a dubious loss here would actually earn you a better unit than a dubious victory, although you’ll still get less victory points.

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

    @Black_Elk:

    I’ve seen two really different attitudes towards playing out a likely defeat, which suggest very different ideas about game resolution etiquette. On the one hand I’ve seen players who think concession is good sportsmanship, like “let’s not drag this out any further.” And on the other hand I’ve seen players who think basically the exact opposite, that it’s the height of good form to play out the victory lap and let their opponent experience an endgame win. In both instances I’m talking about respectable players, not the kind who’d drop out or flip the board in protest haha. I guess it comes down to who you’re playing against.  I have a certain respect for players who just want to grind it out till the bitter end, but others might find that annoying and just want the likely loser to “give up already, and stay down.”

    Black Elk’s paragraph is a good description of the two basic reasons for either ending a game or prolonging it, and as he says it’s pretty much a matter of personal preference because both reasons are valid in their own ways.  This thread has brought up – and has to some extent blended together – what are in fact two distinct issues.  The first issue is the question of whether a game should be prolonged to the bitter end, which is what Black Elk was addressing in the above quote.  And as he said, there’s no right or wrong answer to that question.  The second issue has to do with a question that arises only in a situation in which the players have decided to prolong a game: how to keep the game interesting for both sides as it drags on (and therefore how to encourage the players to stick with their decision to prolong the game rather than having a change of heart and pulling the plug).  The side that’s losing has to be provided with a motivation to keep fighting in the face of the discouraging prospect of probable defeat, and the side that’s winning has to be provided with a motivation to keep fighting in the face of the annoying fact that the the opponent is refusing to concede what looks like near-certain defeat.

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

    Here are a few additional thoughts on this subject.  The idea below is only fragmentary, but I’m posting it in case it’s of any use and in case someone can work out in detail how it would operate.

    I was reading YG’s comment that “I can say undoubtedly that some players are so delusional as to what the board is truly saying about who won”, and it started me thinking about that element of the wargaming experience.  I think that many A&A players find the game enjoyable because it allows them to be armchair generals and admirals for a few hours, and by extension because it gives them the opportunity to demonstrate their skills in those roles.  In other words, it gives them a chance not just to play at being armchair generals and admirals but also to show that they are great generals and admirals, which is a very satisfying thing to do if you can pull off a victory.  Let’s call it the “generalship factor,” for want of a better term.  (And even though I’m a naval enthusiast, let’s assume for discussion purposes that “generalship” also covers naval warfare.  It’s shorter than saying “generalship and admiralty,” and anyway “admiralty” doesn’t have the same sense as “generalship.”)

    This then led me to think about Rommel, who was widely regarded on both sides as being a great general.  I once saw a WWII documentary which made the interesting statement that (if I can remember the line accurately) “Rommel showed that he was as dangerous an opponent in retreat as he was on the attack.”  The point to be taken here is that demonstrating great generalship doesn’t necessarily depend on being on the offensive or even on being the winner (though of course those things help).  A related point is that, arguably, winning a war through overwhelming material superiority doesn’t necessarily mean that the winner showed great generalship (though of course great generalship combined with overwhelming material superiority is an excellent combination).  This is why, incidentally, ancient fictional accounts of wars (the Chanson de Roland being a good example) sometimes show a huge numerical disparity between the two sides, with the “good guys” being the side with the small numbers and with the “bad guys” often being described as attacking “with total disregard for their own losses.”  If the good guys win despite facing overwhelming numbers, it makes their victory seem all the more impressive; if the good guys lose, then there’s no shame in being crushed by overwhelming enemy numbers.

    So I’m wondering if the A&A game, in addition to its normal winning conditions, should have some sort of “generalship tracker”, roughly along the lines of the income tracker.  The generalship tracker would compute in some way (either after every power has played its turn, or after a full round of play by all the powers, or both) how well each power played from a generalship point of view, and would display the results on a tracking chart.  I don’t know how the computations would work, but one idea would be that having superior numbers would not earn someone any generalship points in and of itself.  Fighting successfully against superior enemy numbers, on the other hand, would count positively in the generalship calculation.  And fighting badly even though you have superior numbers on your own side would count negatively in the generalship calculation.  (For an example of this dynamic, look at the first couple of years of the American Civil War, which saw Lee’s reputation grow every time he defeated superior Union numbers, and which saw one Union general after another fired for incompetence because they lost even though they had superior numbers.)

    The point of this “generalship tracker” is that it would serve as a potential counterbalance to the conventional A&A victory conditions, which to some extent do depend on superior income and superior numbers.  A player could theoretically lose the game in terms of territory but still win the game in terms of generalship.  And because the tracking process would be constant, the player displaying superior generalship would get constant feedback and encouragement throughout the game, which might serve an an incentive to keep playing.  Also, this would serve as a partial solution to the problem raised by YG: a player who lost but who displayed superior generalship would be able to blame (or at least would have more justification to blame) his loss on something other than his own generalship.

  • '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    The “generalship tracker” sounds great Marc! If only there were some simple way to implement it. One major attribute that a great general with inferior forces has is to take advantage of better intelligence by fainting here, attacking there, etc. But there is no fog of war in this game so it makes it difficult.

    At the start of an Axis and Allies game there is a great, almost euphoric, feeling of anticipation for everyone around the table. “Who’s going to win this thing?”  Also confidence “No one can defeat my plan this time!” I have noticed when we get together for a new game the guys are all gung ho - some even dressing head to toe in a uniform of their country. By round 4 or so, the enthusiasm wanes as the winning side begins to say “I think we’ve got this.” And the other side starts to lose hope. The rush of having six guys all looking at the map and interacting, talking smack and laughing it up, is really powerful. There is a sense of oneness - a group of guys forgetting life’s troubles for a while and enjoying the same thing together. This is almost unheard of nowadays - a time where almost everyone has chosen to isolate themselves to a smart phone or some other electronic device rather than interact with those around them.

    At some point in time the game becomes decided and the oneness fades - you have cheerful winners on one side and gloomy losers on the other. The feeling of a whole group enjoying and focusing on the table is so strong that I doubt if we would ever continue a game if one guy was totally knocked out.

    An incentive would have to be so strong that the winning side would stay focused on performing an efficient “coup des gras” while the losing side would focus on survival though defeat is a given. I’m not sure that there is such an incentive out there.

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

    @Der:

    The “generalship tracker” sounds great Marc! If only there were some simple way to implement it. One major attribute that a great general with inferior forces has is to take advantage of better intelligence by fainting here, attacking there, etc. But there is no fog of war in this game so it makes it difficult.

    At the start of an Axis and Allies game there is a great, almost euphoric, feeling of anticipation for everyone around the table. “Who’s going to win this thing?”  Also confidence “No one can defeat my plan this time!” I have noticed when we get together for a new game the guys are all gung ho - some even dressing head to toe in a uniform of their country. By round 4 or so, the enthusiasm wanes as the winning side begins to say “I think we’ve got this.” And the other side starts to lose hope. The rush of having six guys all looking at the map and interacting, talking smack and laughing it up, is really powerful. There is a sense of oneness - a group of guys forgetting life’s troubles for a while and enjoying the same thing together. This is almost unheard of nowadays - a time where almost everyone has chosen to isolate themselves to a smart phone or some other electronic device rather than interact with those around them.

    At some point in time the game becomes decided and the oneness fades - you have cheerful winners on one side and gloomy losers on the other. The feeling of a whole group enjoying and focusing on the table is so strong that I doubt if we would ever continue a game if one guy was totally knocked out.

    An incentive would have to be so strong that the winning side would stay focused on performing an efficient “coup des gras” while the losing side would focus on survival though defeat is a given. I’m not sure that there is such an incentive out there.

    So true Der !!!  Just the look on the losers faces after you just defeated some of the best players is rewarding enough also.

    The only incentive out there to play until the end is to pay your players to play !  😄 😄

  • '17 '16

    “coup des gras”
    it is “coup de grace”. with “^” on top of “a”

    You wrote “fat strike” instead of “mercy blow”.
    😄

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    I strongly agree with Der Keunstler.

    CWO Marc, I do like your idea about generalship, although I can’t think of any way to track it without a computer. With a computer, you could use the following formula:

    Log_2 (TUV of units that you battled over the course of a full round) * log_2 (Change in your TUV + cash) / (TUV of your units).

    The idea is to measure how good the results you achieved were in the context of (a) How much you had to work with, and (b) How courageously you addressed the enemy’s main forces, rather than just leaving them all for an ally to deal with. E.g. if Britain sends it’s whole air force to take Morocco at a profit while leaving the German army intact and ready to crush Moscow, Britain’s generalship score would be smaller than if they engaged the Germans in the Baltic States for a small loss.

    Every turn, every country would collect a small boost to its cumulative general score, but if you have a lousy turn, the boost could be tiny, like only 0.2 general points instead of 5 general points.

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

    @Argothair:

    CWO Marc, I do like your idea about generalship, although I can’t think of any way to track it without a computer.

    I haven’t thought about the specifics of how the concept would work in practice.  I first wanted to see how the concept itself flew, since there wouldn’t be much point of putting a lot of work into a operationalizing concept that wasn’t attracting much interest in the first place.

    If it were to be operationalized, however, I’d hope to find something that’s simple and straightforward, which does not involve complex mathematical formulas and which does not require a computer. Nothing more than a couple of quick operations on a simple calculator, ideally.  I don’t know if that’s achievable, but that would be my preference.  Should I give this some thought to see if I can come up with something that would work along those lines?

  • Sponsor

    These are all very creative and interesting ideas, however… getting the average A&A player to accept a house rule victory condition of the magnitude you’re suggesting is difficult at best (no matter how pretty the charts look).

  • '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    @Baron:

    “coup des gras”
    it is “coup de grace”. with “^” on top of “a”

    Gee, I even spell checked it first…

  • '17 '16

    @Der:

    @Baron:

    “coup des gras”
    it is “coup de grace”. with “^” on top of “a”

    Gee, I even spell checked it first…

    Nonetheless it help me explained my actual condition (due to lack of exercice), in the last months I got a “fat strike”… or “coup de gras”

    😄

  • '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Any ideas relating to victory conditions will be good for the HR list.

    If we can formalize them, then I’ll drop the links in the same section, so we can keep track of what’s out there.
    I put one in the HR List sticky already, for the Victory Objectives/Tokens idea that YG has proposed, with a link to that thread. Since YG has locked up, presumably it will house whatever rules are current, or at least make a ref for now.

    Maybe we can do the same with some of those charts? Or with the kind of generalship scheme CWOMarc suggested?

    Global clearly needs some alternative Victory Conditions

  • '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    @CWO:

    Should I give this some thought to see if I can come up with something that would work along those lines?

    I would be interested in it  - if the answer is simple enough…overcomplication kills most house rules for me…

Suggested Topics

  • 57
  • 1
  • 9
  • 1
  • 4
  • 4
  • 17
  • 42
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

49
Online

16.4k
Users

38.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts