The Victory Territory (VT) system that I use in the tournament that I run has a stipulation that is similar to what Jen is talking about.
The determination of who wins a tournament game will be based upon the control of Victory Territories (VTs). The Victory City method of determining a winner will NOT be used. Each side controls 12 Victory Territories at the beginning of the game. The Victory Territories are listed below.
If a player holds 18 (or more) VTs for a full round of game play (From the end of a country’s turn to the beginning of that same country’s next turn.), then that player automatically wins the game.
In the event of a VT tie at the end of the game, whichever side increased its IPC total is the winner. If the game is still tied after reviewing the IPC totals, then the GM will make a determination of the winner based on upon the game situation at the time the game ended.
If a player chooses to concede a game before it has reached the 18 VT automatic win threshold or the game time limit (4.5 hrs), a default score of 19 VTs and +30 IPCs will be awarded to the winner.
I agree with Jen that the ability to have the US sneak in and grab a territory with no response afforded to the Axis is a crappy way to judge a game.
The use of the OotB VCs is another subject entirely!
This is an interesting system to manage the victory condition. It should also allow battle in almost all parts of the board allowing for more dynamic games.
However, I do not see such a big problem with VC (OOB or LHTR, we play with the latter) the objective of the game is fixed before the start and is not difficult to see where the enemy may strike, it is a necessary skill of an A&A player.
Moreover the system of VT multiply the objectives and is useful for a tournament. In our face2face game we have no problem of time, we usually interrupt the game and we “save” the position to continue the next time.
The scenarios considered here are hypothetical situation in wich the Axis tries with a last ditch offensife to grab the victory. Consequently also Allies have the opportunity to strike for a last ditch offensive, because the Axis allow that.
So the situation we are considering is: Axis is losing, then tries to grab the victory, in the attempt Allies have als othe opportunity to sneak in for the victory. Where is the problem? It is a conscious choice of the Axis player, that also know the rules. It is not a fault in the rules it is a result of the Axis player choice.
Is like in chess: an all out attack to the enemy king may fail leaving the opening for a counterstrike of the opponent that achieves a victory with a checkmate. There are more situation in chess when, after a series of forced moves for example or with a combo, a player manage to win having less pieces of the oppoennt. There is nothing of strange. There is no one law that states that the one who is winning have to win.
Said this if an house rules that states that for winning a game is necessary to “mantain” the VC for an entire turn may also be introduced. Only I doubt of the utility of its application in the greater part of the games played.