End of Round Victory


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    End of Germany:  Axis have 6 VC (Germany, Karelia, W. Europe, S. Europe, Japan, Philippines)
    End of America:  Allies have 9 VC (W. Europe, Karelia, Russia, S. Europe, Kwangtung, E. USA, W. USA, England, India)

    But if you make the allies hold those VC until the next enemy’s turn is complete, the axis will have:

    Moscow, Karelia, W. Europe, S. Europe, Germany, England, Philippines and Japan; 7 VC and two of them are enemy capitols, the traditional way to win the game.

    This is a major problem.  America should not have that much influence over the game, they are one country.  They should be equal to the other 4 countries and not a wild card that can trump the axis through ridiculous luck.



  • @Cmdr:

    This is a major problem.  America should not have that much influence over the game, they are one country.  They should be equal to the other 4 countries and not a wild card that can trump the axis through ridiculous luck.

    you raise valid point.  however I do not think it is a major problem because it works for both sides.

    I’ve seen desperate Caucasus grabs by Japan and even Germany when the opportunity is there (READ no UK or US to take back before the end of the game turn).

    I would be curious to see the results of several games of play testing to see if this helps one side or another.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    But it does not work for both sides because no matter what happens, America always gets a turn to liberate or take the 9th VC and thus has undue power over the game for a nation that’s usually relegated to a support role.



  • In this other example (that is different from the preceding) I see that Allied have Kwantung and not Philippines, a little bit strange. Moreover it is a completely speculative scenario.
    But we may consider this still possible.
    So what happens after the end of the German turn?
    Allied are able to conquer three VC: W. Europe, S. Europe and Karelia.
    They where all controlled by Germany that loses all three of them in a single turn.
    A real genious.
    For me this is already enough to say stop to this slaughtering!
    But we may go further and consider the strategy of the German player.
    The fact that having 9 VC means game over is known to all the players.
    So German player should know that if he loses three VC he loses.
    He may not plan to conquer England and Moscow in the same turn leaving open the VC he controls.
    But the German player do not care and instead of thinking to defend himself he managed to lose three VC in a single turn. Now, he may also have 500 IPC of units available to obliterate the allied troops but if he place them in the wrong place he deserve to lose!

    Indeed I think that reaching 9 VC is the result of a global advance of one side.
    It is possible that one side is at 8 VC and is already winning and to try to finish the game attempt one attack, and USA may do this more easily tha German does, but is only a matter of time.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    In most games you’re probably right, who ever has 9 VC is probably winning.

    But in some games it is totally and completely broken because the allies can, in effect, cheat their way to a victory.

    How do you fix it so that it’s never a cheat and the persons with 9 VC at the end are winning all the time?  By requiring that you have 9 VC after the enemy gets a chance to reclaim some.

    I don’t think what I’m asking for is too ridiculous.  All I’m saying is that maybe the allies (or the axis for that matter) should have to HOLD 9 VCs for a very brief amount of time (1 turn by the enemy).



  • I have not said that it is ridicolous.
    I am only wondering if it possible other than the theoretical scenario depicted.

    I see them as very much improbable. So what we could obtain?
    Changing the rule for a very particular and highly improbable case we will create problem to the general case that now we have not.
    It is like the Amdahl’s law: in a system the perfomance improvement for a partial enhancement is proportional to the real use of the portion of system that has been enhanced. Consequence: the way to improve the system is to work for the general not for the improbable specific case.



  • Couldn’t the Axis plan better and not give Kwangtung to the Americans? I’m too lazy to go through all the unit listings, but if you say the Japanese has 500 IPCs of tanks on the mainland, how did they let the Americans get Kwang for a turn? I think this is just another consideration you have to make, even if it comes up not that often. If we did as you say, then there’s no point to victory cities at all, which is actually what you might want since you’re looking at it as more of whose army/positioning/economy is better rather than who has the VCs.

    The best way isn’t to try to do something that would only apply to one side (the allies). Either suck it up and just remember that as part of your planning, or try to abolish the VC system entirely (or require 10 VCs, omg that would take forever!!)



  • Exact.
    My point is victory condition is lnown from the beginning. Axis have to try to win accordingly, and not planning ignoring VC allowing Allies to sneak in.

    There is another point to clarif. Usually Allies use a steamroller strategy, leveling down each Axis opposition. Are really improbable the occasions in which they have to steal a VC to achieve victory.



  • I agree with Jen that the ability to have the US sneak in and grab a territory with no response afforded to the Axis

    Defend better? It’s not like you can’t see where the Americans will attack. I find it difficult to believe that the Americans can be operating strongly in both theaters to the point where the Axis can’t defend a VC, yet the Axis are winning.



  • @Craig:

    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.

    Adjudication System-
    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.

    AXIS POWERS

    GERMANY
    Germany
    Western Europe
    Southern Europe
    Eastern Europe
    Ukraine SSR
    Norway

    JAPAN
    Japan
    Manchuria
    French Indochina
    Philippine Islands
    East Indies
    Borneo

    ALLIED POWERS

    USSR
    Russia
    Caucasus
    Archangel
    Novosibirsk

    UK
    United Kingdom
    India
    Anglo-Egypt
    Australia

    USA
    Eastern US
    Western US
    Hawaiian Islands
    Sinkiang

    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.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @trihero:

    I agree with Jen that the ability to have the US sneak in and grab a territory with no response afforded to the Axis

    Defend better? It’s not like you can’t see where the Americans will attack. I find it difficult to believe that the Americans can be operating strongly in both theaters to the point where the Axis can’t defend a VC, yet the Axis are winning.

    Defend better is a strawman argument.

    One attacking infantry has a possibility to kill 100 defending infantry without being killed.  Probability is very low, but possible, this allows any ridiculous hail Mary attack to successfully win the game despite bad strategy.

    For instance, in the scenario I posted, Germany had S. Europe defended successfully with 97% odds, but America squeeked out that 3% chance of taking it.

    What I find curious is your adamant refusal to give the opposing player, whether allied or axis, a turn to liberate that 9th VC.  Obviously if you are winning you should be more then capable of defending all 9 of your VCs, right? (To spin your argument back on you.)



  • I have no objection to someone beating a dead horse.

    Someone beating a dead horse on my time, though, is a different matter.

    Hence, why I would rather that an extra turn not be required.  They’ve already lost; why prolong the game another 30-45 minutes?



  • There is no problem with domination if players have common sense.
    As I said in another thread, if you lose a capital and can’t take it back, and if you can’t take the opponents
    capital, then the game is lost.
    In few cases, allies may take Berlin 2-3 rnds after Moscow has fallen to Jap, but everyone can see if that is likely, or
    possible. When players don’t get it even when the map has changed colour radically to their disadvantage,
    and income is much higher for the other side, then it’s bad sportsmanship not to concede.
    Decent players know when they can’t win.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’m not asking for domination.  That can take forever.  All I’m asking is you give the other team a chance to save themselves.  As is the case in the scenario I offered, it’s clear the allies have lost but due to a fluke of the game rules, they are allowed to steal a victory away from the axis.  This very slight, very inconsequential change to the rules would prevent a sneaky, underhanded move like this from stealing a hard won victory.



  • Robbery chess? Never heard of it.  Honestly.  If it’s your strategy to take pieces with total abandon towards things like value, position, and momentum, go right on ahead. I will play you any day of the week. You are going to lose.  It is a losing strategy.

    It is also a losing strategy in A&A, so go on ahead… And although the physical idea is somewhat similiar, your analogy is misleading, as you are talking about an end-game scenario in A&A, not the overall strategy over the course of an entire game. You said it yourself, people shouldn’t deserve to ‘win’ that way…

    Or should they?  A much better analogy is the no-move stalemate in chess.  Sure, you might have overwhelming pieces, position, and strategy, but if you are dumb enough to push the king into a corner which denies your opponent any moves, you force a draw.  You don’t lose, but you don’t win, either.  Any player worth his salt is careful not to do this, and an experienced player will even use this strategy to escape defeat in the face of a more skilled opponent.  At least, he can try…

    The strategy just adds a whole new level to the endgame approach… It is something you have to keep an eye out for, and I wouldn’t want to get rid of the possibility.  It adds challenge, it adds fun.  Don’t want to fall victim to this? Then why are you using such a poor strategy that your enemy can blitz thru your lines in one round in the first place? My advice to you is, you had better keep a closer eye on both the points and your frontlines, dear.



  • Domination could possibly take a long time, but in the lobby I have only once seen a game played with the 9 vc rule.
    Most games do not exceed 10 rnds, maybe 30%-40% go 10-15 rnds.
    Often players concede even before a single capital is lost. That’s because most players don’t screw up their
    game once they got a clear advantage. And they keep gaining TUV and keeping production level above opponent
    rnd by rnd, most ppl don’t play it out.
    Even if domination rules states all capitals must be captured, or all units killed, you never play until the very end.
    I never met someone who wanted to play out, and if I did, I wouldn’t play him/she again,
    I wonder how someone can be good players and not see when a game cannot be won.



  • At this point we may do a distinction. In on line play or pbem games it may be a house rule introduced on wich both teams agree.
    However at this point I agree with Lucifer: at this point is better to play dominance.

    For face2face play, to which I am interested, I found this rule a problem. It may prolong the game for much turn that are almost useless. So I see no needs for its introductin.

    About the scenario discussed I have answered in the preceding posts. They are impossible or higly improbable or unrealistic.



  • This conversation is crazy.  Not that we are for trying to better the game, but I have yet to find anyone who really plays to a set number of VC’s.  I always play till someone sues for peace, which is the way it should be and saves long hours of playing when everyone with any experiance can see what is going to happen.  Just my opinion.  I can always tell who is going to win without the city thing.  Sometimes, 9VC doesn’t do it.  I kind of depends on what cities and the looks of the board as a whole.  We don’t have set conditions we just know when it’s over.



  • @Cmdr:

    I’m not asking for domination.

    I’m the one who’s asking for domination….  😉



  • @triforce:

    This conversation is crazy.  Not that we are for trying to better the game, but I have yet to find anyone who really plays to a set number of VC’s.  I always play till someone sues for peace, which is the way it should be and saves long hours of playing when everyone with any experiance can see what is going to happen.  Just my opinion.  I can always tell who is going to win without the city thing.  Sometimes, 9VC doesn’t do it.  I kind of depends on what cities and the looks of the board as a whole.  We don’t have set conditions we just know when it’s over.

    “If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it” – Albert Einstein

    Discussing do not cost nothing and helps in sharing the knowledge between us.

    Having a vistory condition of 9VC is a aimed at having a shorter game and a game that
    may ends without the needing of a victory “assigned”.

    Having time, playing for dominance is better. We usually do so when play face2face games, because we “save” the game and continue the next time.



  • @Romulus:

    @triforce:

    This conversation is crazy.  Not that we are for trying to better the game, but I have yet to find anyone who really plays to a set number of VC’s.  I always play till someone sues for peace, which is the way it should be and saves long hours of playing when everyone with any experiance can see what is going to happen.  Just my opinion.  I can always tell who is going to win without the city thing.  Sometimes, 9VC doesn’t do it.  I kind of depends on what cities and the looks of the board as a whole.  We don’t have set conditions we just know when it’s over.

    “If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it” – Albert Einstein

    Discussing do not cost nothing and helps in sharing the knowledge between us.

    Having a vistory condition of 9VC is a aimed at having a shorter game and a game that
    may ends without the needing of a victory “assigned”.

    Having time, playing for dominance is better. We usually do so when play face2face games, because we “save” the game and continue the next time.

    also VCs allow you to have a sort of poltical objectives. like the Philippines were a political target and would cause the US to have great desire to attack it. THe VCs basically create targets that were not economically significant in the real war. such as the Philippines.



  • allow me to clarify.  i was not saying that this should not be discussed.  There is always value in discussion, but lets be fair VC or no does the US EVER go after the Phillipines? No. I’ve never even seen the US go Island Hopping.  So why bother.  I understand that it gives some histoical credibility to the game but we all know how history turned out and we all realize (i think) that this is only a loose intrpretation of history.  SO, play untill someone wants to admit defeat (which is how the war was determaned in all reality) and set up for the next game. It just make the game simpler and answers Jens question.



  • Defend better is a strawman argument.

    One attacking infantry has a possibility to kill 100 defending infantry without being killed.  Probability is very low, but possible, this allows any ridiculous hail Mary attack to successfully win the game despite bad strategy.

    I don’t understand. Any hail Mary attack can end the game. It doesn’t have to be on a victory city. Any time that a ridiculous hail Mary attack succeeds, you can win the game despite bad strategy. So why pick on the victory city system?

    Why make such a big change for such an inconsequential happening? You want to extend every game by one turn so that in the 1/5000 games are “fair”? There’s nothing “fair” about bad dice, regardless of victory city conditions.



  • There is nothing fair about war either, which is why I like the dice element in this game.  The best laid plans often go astray.



  • @trihero:

    Defend better is a strawman argument.

    One attacking infantry has a possibility to kill 100 defending infantry without being killed.  Probability is very low, but possible, this allows any ridiculous hail Mary attack to successfully win the game despite bad strategy.

    I don’t understand. Any hail Mary attack can end the game. It doesn’t have to be on a victory city. Any time that a ridiculous hail Mary attack succeeds, you can win the game despite bad strategy. So why pick on the victory city system?

    Why make such a big change for such an inconsequential happening? You want to extend every game by one turn so that in the 1/5000 games are “fair”? There’s nothing “fair” about bad dice, regardless of victory city conditions.

    Really I think that the extension may be more than one turn. If the “winner” has not success in defending the 9 VC then games continues.

    9 VC is a victory condition to have games end in shorter time than player surrendering.
    So the game is flawless in that. We play 9 VC games when we want a shorter game. Otherwise we play dominance, that have not to be finished because sooner or later one side surrenders.

    My interpretation of 9 VC is like a chekmate in chess. Your king is in chekmate, you lose. No matter how many pieces you have or what they are doing. Opponents has been quicker than you, or has applied a more efficient strategies etc.
    I have to admit that in A&A there is another point: dice. So it could be possible to lose a game for unlucky results. But this may happen in every phase not only in the final turn. I have lost games that began bad and became worst cause unlucky dice rolling.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 29
  • 62
  • 88
  • 4
  • 1
  • 48
  • 13
  • 65
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

53
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts