I’ve done some searching and didn’t see a similar topic, so apologies if this has already been discussed at length.
But I was wondering about changing win conditions to help balance some of the OOB rules, which I think would also reflect actual political will at the time. Bidding has apparently done well, too, but something about it doesn’t sit right with me.
The win condition for the Axis is the primary issue, as there are scenarios in which Japan wins with Calcutta and Sydney, while Germany is in real distress and London is doing well. It just seems unlikely the Allies would surrender in this case.
Some options I’ve thought of:since the Allies need to take and hold Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo to win, why not offer the same to the Axis? Take and hold any three of these four: London, DC, San Francisco, Moscow. The Axis already get National Objective bonuses for the other victory cities. The US cities are hard to take, but truly winning in both theaters means this can happen. Most games would probably end in resignation. All capitals of Opponents held: DC, London, Sydney, Moscow (again, forgoing Calcutta as necessary). This would be similar to StarCraft where almost no games actually go to the final destruction of everything and you expect resignation. But for cheeky/BM players, there’s still a total victory condition.
Curious about thoughts on this.