Victory Cities: What I feared…


  • 2019 '15 '14

    Perhaps because you have not played a Revised game in which you CAN win without taking a capital (Like the Enhanced rules).  Let me tell you, I have played over 100 of these games, and Syndey or Hawaii or France can be VERY important, WITHOUT any additional increases in their value or other bonuses.  In Enhanced, you CAN win without taking Moscow…. and that’s <part of="">the beauty of it.</part>

    I fully support Joe’s Enhanced Ruleset. I even made those cardboard cut outs in Photoshop for Sydney, Honolulu and Stalingrad, way back when Revised first came out. I also can’t tell you how many times I argued the case about including even some elements of the Enhanced ruleset for TripleA. It was sidelined in favor of LHTR though, and since I do maps and not java, that’s as far as I was able to push the issue. Believe me though, I will be a very happy man if we ever get Subs doing proper economic damage and all the new NAs included. Some of them can actually be handled in the current engine, with the assistance of the edit mode, but its sometimes hard to persuade new players to try a House Rules variant that requires heavy editing.

    Like I said before though, I think the concept of VCs is great and I understand how they are meant to function. I also think bonuses are a brilliant idea. I just wish the two were integrated in a more 1:1 fashion. Also, and I don’t mean any offense to Enhanced, or the other House Rulesets floating around, but the longer it takes to explain a new rule, the harder it is to persuade people to adopt it. In general I favor a re-balancing and simplification of the existing rules over the addition of new ones. A highly nuanced house ruleset might be fun for experts, but I worry about the accessibility for new players. I always try remain optimistic, but I think others share similar concerns too, which I why I think its something worth discussing. 🙂

    I’ll let some other people weigh in though, since I’ve been talking a lot. I should really be doing laundry right now anyway hehe



  • @Subotai:

    because chess IS a technicality game, not a strategy game like AA.

    Now I’ve heard the total opposite: Chess is the utlimate strategy game…because it’s ALL strategy.  There is no luck involved (except maybe who gets to go first)

    @Subotai:

    WW2 was all about total domination. Also, common sense wouldn’t hurt anybody.

    We’re playing a game, not fighting a real war.  It’s nice to be able to win the game WITHOUT having to take a capital.  If you have the same target every time (i.e. Moscow), it becomes the same game over and over… can you say boring?!

    Been there done that since 1985!!

    IF you want to require a capital to fall to win, play with a higher number of VC’s to win (that necessitates taking a capital to get to that number)


  • 2019 '15 '14

    It’s nice to be able to win the game WITHOUT having to take a capital.  If you have the same target every time (i.e. Moscow), it becomes the same game over and over… can you say boring?!

    I agree.

    I was only 4 in 1985, but from the time that I started playing A&A a few years later, I’ve been agonizing over the same things you have. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if we sat down and hashed it out face to face, we would agree on all the major points.

    I think the only difference is in how we are approaching the underlying issues (i.e. Moscow centric, repetative gameplay, with scripted attack patterns that depart from the history… Jap tank drives etc.) Its my view that most of what we want to achieve, could be accomplished with adjustments to the Map/Game board, and by ditching the Capital/Cash dynamic in favor a one that is more heavily focused on VCs. I don’t think we really need things like National Advantages, National Objectives, or specific rules that only apply to a narrow set of situations. They’re cool to have as options, and for experts like us, but the more I see them getting built into the core game, the more I feel like the learning curve is getting away from us.

    I was introduced to A&A in the late 80s early 90s, when I was still pretty young, but the only reason I know how to play it was because I had older friends who taught me. I can remember puzzling over the rules for a long time. Concepts that seem simple to me now, like ‘fodder’ or ‘dead zones’, were all a total mystery when I first started playing this game. A&A is not like Risk, or Monopoly. You don’t just pick it up in one night. Of all the board games you can buy at Target, I think it is probably the most difficult to explain to newcomers. I’ve tried a number of times, even with game savvy friends, and its virtually impossible to do in one sitting. It’s like you need at least 2 people who already know what they’re doing, who can then just show the third guy by example. I understand that’s somewhat typical for all games, but in this case especially, introductions tend to be slow on the uptake.

    I don’t know. Maybe you guys have had a different experience than I have, so I won’t keep beating a dead horse. I still believe that we could achieve a dynamic two front War without sacrificing the ease of use though.



  • @axis_roll:

    VC’s ARE already targets.  Here’s a hypothetical:

    I have taken the Nth (13th… 9th… whatever the victory condition is set at) victory city from you and unless you take it back, I win the game.  Talk about important territories now!

    All VC’s value increase exponentially:  If you don’t take one back, you LOSE!

    Perhaps one VC is not important in and of itself, but collectively the VCs ARE really worth something… I think it’s called a victory.

    Perhaps because you have not played a Revised game in which you CAN win without taking a capital (Like the Enhanced rules).  Let me tell you, I have played over 100 of these games, and Syndey or Hawaii or France can be VERY important, WITHOUT any additional increases in their value or other bonuses.  In Enhanced, you CAN win without taking Moscow… and that’s <part of="">the beauty of it.</part>

    You are 100% correct except that you can’t win without a capital in AA50, and for the Axis to reach the 15 VC win condition, they need to realistically go for the same 15 each time.  If you could win like in the enhanced rules, I’d have no problem because VCs would be very, very worthwhile.



  • /Rakeman

    Read up the thread, it’s already established that 13 VCs will be one of the victory conditions in AA50 and we have already lined-up the probable actual cities this would involve and that list doesn’t have London or Moscow or Washington on it!



  • @Black_Elk:

    It’s nice to be able to win the game WITHOUT having to take a capital.  If you have the same target every time (i.e. Moscow), it becomes the same game over and over… can you say boring?!

    I agree.

    I was only 4 in 1985, but from the time that I started playing A&A a few years later, I’ve been agonizing over the same things you have. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if we sat down and hashed it out face to face, we would agree on all the major points.

    I think the only difference is in how we are approaching the underlying issues (i.e. Moscow centric, repetative gameplay, with scripted attack patterns that depart from the history… Jap tank drives etc.) Its my view that most of what we want to achieve, could be accomplished with adjustments to the Map/Game board, and by ditching the Capital/Cash dynamic in favor a one that is more heavily focused on VCs. I don’t think we really need things like National Advantages, National Objectives, or specific rules that only apply to a narrow set of situations. They’re cool to have as options, and for experts like us, but the more I see them getting built into the core game, the more I feel like the learning curve is getting away from us.

    I was introduced to A&A in the late 80s early 90s, when I was still pretty young, but the only reason I know how to play it was because I had older friends who taught me. I can remember puzzling over the rules for a long time. Concepts that seem simple to me now, like ‘fodder’ or ‘dead zones’, were all a total mystery when I first started playing this game. A&A is not like Risk, or Monopoly. You don’t just pick it up in one night. Of all the board games you can buy at Target, I think it is probably the most difficult to explain to newcomers. I’ve tried a number of times, even with game savvy friends, and its virtually impossible to do in one sitting. It’s like you need at least 2 people who already know what they’re doing, who can then just show the third guy by example. I understand that’s somewhat typical for all games, but in this case especially, introductions tend to be slow on the uptake.

    I don’t know. Maybe you guys have had a different experience than I have, so I won’t keep beating a dead horse. I still believe that we could achieve a dynamic two front War without sacrificing the ease of use though.

    Simplistic rules can lead to simplistic strategic plans.  You need other options to spice things up.  The more variables, the more strategic options, the more ‘complete’ the game is.  This is why I love Enhanced.  However, this can be a tough thing to achieve.  A lot of moving parts can be tough to ensure that they work smoothly together.

    I will say that Axis & Allies is really not for the casual board gamer.  Well maybe Classic is/was.  With each new game, more rules make it a bit more challenging for newbies, especially when playing seasoned veterans.



  • @Lynxes:

    /Rakeman

    Read up the thread, it’s already established that 13 VCs will be one of the victory conditions in AA50 and we have already lined-up the probable actual cities this would involve and that list doesn’t have London or Moscow or Washington on it!

    Is that confirmed?  Just because in the official knowledge thread here, it says that 15 VCs is the condition for each scenario.  If 13 is a condition, that is good to know.

    (I know I could play 13 regardless, but I like playing by the rules as closely as possible if I’m not using any other house rules)

    13 means that you’d need to, as Axis, capture every non-capital non-North American VC… which seems fair enough, if that happens it should be game over at that point.  (Enhanced was similar for victory, only there were less victory cities but same territory was required for a non-capital win)


  • Official Q&A

    @Rakeman:

    @Lynxes:

    /Rakeman

    Read up the thread, it’s already established that 13 VCs will be one of the victory conditions in AA50 and we have already lined-up the probable actual cities this would involve and that list doesn’t have London or Moscow or Washington on it!

    Is that confirmed?  Just because in the official knowledge thread here, it says that 15 VCs is the condition for each scenario.  If 13 is a condition, that is good to know.

    Yes, it’s confirmed.  The “standard” victory condition is 15 VCs, but you can optionally play to 13 or 18.

    @Rakeman:

    13 means that you’d need to, as Axis, capture every non-capital non-North American VC… which seems fair enough, if that happens it should be game over at that point.  (Enhanced was similar for victory, only there were less victory cities but same territory was required for a non-capital win)

    Yes.  This is the reason why I said earlier that you can’t ignore Japan, at least in a 13-VC game.  If Japan takes all the Pacific VCs, Germany and Italy will only have to hold six for the win.  Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw, Leningrad and Stalingrad fit that bill nicely.  Plus, with all those IPCs, Japan will either be banging on Russia’s back door or threatening the western USA.



  • @axis_roll:

    IF you want to require a capital to fall to win, play with a higher number of VC’s to win (that necessitates taking a capital to get to that number)

    I do not want any rules that say that one side must capture (and hold) an enemy capital to claim victory.

    And I don’t even like that one side can “claim” victory at all, I’m not an ace AAR player, but I know when I won and when I lost, one look at the map will tell any decent player if he has chance of winning. For some strange reason, almost all of the best players I’ve watched during games, one side surrenders without looking at capitals or VC’s.

    I want my opponents unconditional surrender  :evil:

    The reason I’m going after capitals is b/c of the money. $ helps me win the game.


  • '10

    Does anybody know why the victory cities are chips and not printed onto the board?


  • Official Q&A

    @johnnymarr:

    Does anybody know why the victory cities are chips and not printed onto the board?

    They are printed on the map.  The tokens are just for passing back and forth to indicate ownership.  They take the place of the VC chart that was in Revised.



  • I did a number crunch… if japan conquers ALL of the islands of the Pacific, India, and all of China, the Japanese income, with known bonuses, will be 60 IPC.  However… the US income is still 42, and the British income is still at 30.  Not all that devastating… if conquering all of the Pacific brings Japan to 60 IPC but leaves the UK and USA with a lot of money as well, I don’t see KGF/JTDTM going away in this game.  Conquering all of the Pacific barely leaves a dent in the American wallet, and while it takes quite a bit from the UK, 30 IPC is certainly enough to wage all out war on Germany.  So what’s Japan to do with this 60 IPC income?  Rush Moscow, of course!  Just a lot slower, since it’s further, but with more money.  Problem is, by the time the first tank reaches Moscow, it’s time to change route to Berlin.

    Just speculation of course, but I’m not convinced at all after checking out the numbers, that KGF/JTDTM are gone at all.


  • 2019 '15 '14

    It all comes down to whether or not the players are going to take a 13 VC win seriously.
    We already know that Moscow will be needed for 15, and definitely needed for 18, (though honestly at 18 I don’t think people are paying much attention to anything but the Capitals anyway.) I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what sort of patterns emerge.

    One thing is for certain though, if the listed values are correct, this game is going to be all about bombers. Without transports as fodder, the new unit roster will still favor aircraft over capital ships (even with the new rules for subs, and naval air strikes). And with bombers so cheap, we’re bound to see more of them purchased, which is likely to make any naval defense more challenging to coordinate. I’m a little spooked by the cheap bombers, because I’m used to playing in games where bombers are carefully controlled, and the purchase of new ones is rare. The higher cost of AA guns, combined with cheaper bombers, would seem to favor strat bombing games, which are inherently unpredictable. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

    The other thing I keep thinking about with the National Bonuses, is that they might be easier to take away from the enemy, than they are to achieve for yourself; just on account of the way the territories are grouped together. So it could be that we’re overestimating their impact on the gameplay for everyone. We’ll have to check out the starting units and round one purchase options, then see how these can be used to their greatest effect, before we understand which National Objectives are really in play.



  • @Black_Elk:

    It all comes down to whether or not the players are going to take a 13 VC win seriously.
    We already know that Moscow will be needed for 15, and definitely needed for 18, (though honestly at 18 I don’t think people are paying much attention to anything but the Capitals anyway.) I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what sort of patterns emerge.

    One thing is for certain though, if the listed values are correct, this game is going to be all about bombers. Without transports as fodder, the new unit roster will still favor aircraft over capital ships (even with the new rules for subs, and naval air strikes). And with bombers so cheap, we’re bound to see more of them purchased, which is likely to make any naval defense more challenging to coordinate. I’m a little spooked by the cheap bombers, because I’m used to playing in games where bombers are carefully controlled, and the purchase of new ones is rare. The higher cost of AA guns, combined with cheaper bombers, would seem to favor strat bombing games, which are inherently unpredictable. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

    The other thing I keep thinking about with the National Bonuses, is that they might be easier to take away from the enemy, than they are to achieve for yourself; just on account of the way the territories are grouped together. So it could be that we’re overestimating their impact on the gameplay for everyone. We’ll have to check out the starting units and round one purchase options, then see how these can be used to their greatest effect, before we understand which National Objectives are really in play.

    I think people will be taking the 13 VC win as seriously as they have taken the 8 VC win in Revised… but of course, we will see.

    I haven’t even thought about the bomber situation yet.  Something that bothered me was that, in the last game, in order to do a potential 20 IPC damage to Germany, you’d need a good 3 bombers for both the UK and USA, as each nation was capped to 10 IPC damage.  Now, USA can potentially just build bombers, letting the UK spend all it’s money on taking Germany down.  Of course, I guess we will see when the game comes out…

    Not only are AA guns more expensive, mind you, but they are less effective as well.  I don’t think AA guns fire at aircraft flying THROUGH their territory, just aircraft that commit to an attack in their territory.

    In LHTR, if America just bought bombers and shipped them to UK, then bombed Germany, they could do at most, 10 IPC damage per round, because of how those SBR rules worked.  In order to do more, UK would also need to dedicate itself to a bombing strategy.  In this game, USA could potentially do 20 IPC of damage to Germany per round, while the UK and Soviet Union beat it to a pulp.  My main concern, however, is still that the Pacific will be treated the same way it was in Revised when optimal strategies are used.  Something I like about Europe and D-Day is that they do play so that a historically accurate strategy is viable.  When the games give the US player a choice on to commit to East or West, and Japan the option to invade Russia, it seems all that goes right down the tubes.



  • @Rakeman:

    I did a number crunch… if japan conquers ALL of the islands of the Pacific, India, and all of China, the Japanese income, with known bonuses, will be 60 IPC.  However… the US income is still 42, and the British income is still at 30.

    I think your numbers are way off.

    UK + africa is only 21 IPC or so. Thats a large difference from 30. That also assumes no Germany or Italy conquest of Africa.

    Secondly, if Japan has taken and held all of china, which is much larger in this game, then USSR is in alot of trouble. China is not easy to conquer, and if it has been taken, that means Japan is unchallenged, and it should go for Moscow seeing as it is right there to take.

    However, you can build Inf/tanks in Japan or Manchuria, which take 3+ rounds to reach Moscow after being built, or have them take ONE round to reach Alaska.

    Once Japan gets 60 IPC, its potentially going to be easier for Japan to attack.



  • @squirecam:

    @Rakeman:

    I did a number crunch… if japan conquers ALL of the islands of the Pacific, India, and all of China, the Japanese income, with known bonuses, will be 60 IPC.  However… the US income is still 42, and the British income is still at 30.

    I think your numbers are way off.

    UK + africa is only 21 IPC or so. Thats a large difference from 30. That also assumes no Germany or Italy conquest of Africa.

    Secondly, if Japan has taken and held all of china, which is much larger in this game, then USSR is in alot of trouble. China is not easy to conquer, and if it has been taken, that means Japan is unchallenged, and it should go for Moscow seeing as it is right there to take.

    However, you can build Inf/tanks in Japan or Manchuria, which take 3+ rounds to reach Moscow after being built, or have them take ONE round to reach Alaska.

    Once Japan gets 60 IPC, its potentially going to be easier for Japan to attack.

    I assumed no Germany or Italy conquest of Africa because if USA/UK completely ignore the Pacific and bash Europe to the ground, I assumed the Axis would not have many gains in Africa.  Including the UKs bonus for holding African territories plus Gibralter, it’s actually 25 IPC- I was slightly off, but of course this is assuming that the Allies haven’t captured anything but Africa, despite dedicating their entire force to Europe for several rounds (since it takes that many for Japan to make a dent in the wallets of the Allies).

    You are right about Japan attacking Moscow with tanks- that takes 3+ rounds for the tanks to reach, 4+ if building from Japan (as in, a force worth fighting with, as opposed to 3 tanks per round).  What is the point about going for Alaska with 60 IPC, though?  You can only build 8 per turn in Japan… at most that is 8 tanks per turn, which 40 IPC would cover, which could easily be obtained in revised, yet we never saw that strategy work effectively there.  That’s because, most likely, the US player can produce 8 tanks per turn regardless of how much land it has lost, since the economy is so high.  Japan cannot outproduce US, and therefore is not likely to be able to threaten it.

    While I agree that a 60 IPC Japan will be able to do a bit of damage, I don’t see that mattering when Berlin and Rome have fallen because the Allies have dedicated everything they had to taking out Europe, leaving Japan to conquer meaningless things to slightly delay the inevitable.  Conquering all of the Pacific in Revised would give Japan a good 40 IPC, so yes there is improvement to the Pacific aspect, the problem is that none of this matters when the Allies can let Japan play by itself as they annihilate Germany/Italy.

    Of course, this is all speculation based on what we know about the game.  It definitely looks like, unfortunately, KGF and JTDTM are going to be viable, if not the best, strategies.



  • @Black_Elk:

    It all comes down to whether or not the players are going to take a 13 VC win seriously.
    We already know that Moscow will be needed for 15, and definitely needed for 18, (though honestly at 18 I don’t think people are paying much attention to anything but the Capitals anyway.) I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what sort of patterns emerge.

    Personally I prefer domination before VC’s, but as we can choose between 13, 15 or 18 VC’s that’s a good solution because players can choose what kind if game they want to play by setting the amount of VC’s needed for victory. The nr. of VC’s needed will have a great impact of how each game is played.
    I also imagine that the new AA50 map is closer to your POS map than the current AAR    8-)



  • Hey, you’re all talking about a push towards Moscow through China or Siberia. But a much quicker route is over India and Persia and going at Caucasus. That area can be attacked by all three Axis powers in the mid-game and once taken Russia is in very bad straits. Double ICs in India and FIC for Japan means it doesn’t have to ship units by sea. That 60 IPC Japan will then help Germany and Italy very directly, and not via any Alaskan invasion which I think is bullocks.

    The Allies counter to this will of course be an IC in India, combined with aggressive US play in the Pacific. But if you look at the Japanese strategy I posted at '41 strategies, you see that to hold India, Russia has to move a lot of Infantry down to India right away. I suspect this will become a standard strategy.


  • 2019 '15 '14

    I wish we’d just pony up and give the Brits a starting IC in India already.

    The game always works better that way, but no serious Revised player is going to buy one unless the Allies are going all out against Japan. Even then its usually just for a few rounds until the the tanks have to be backed out to Caucasus to save Russia from impending doom.

    I don’t know how its going to play out here, but in Revised the southern route to Caucasus via India is how most people get the job done, though a good player will also take China and the Soviet Far east at the same time, without missing a beat. I don’t expect much to change from the old pattern, except that now the Japs will have more money to throw at the Russians. I think the problem stems from the fact that we keep building China as a place to just get totally stepped on by the Japs. During the real war the fighting in mainland China was intense and constant. All told almost 5 million people died in this theater of the War, closer to 20 if you include civilians.

    The Japanese never penetrated the interior of China, even if they did manage to cut it off from the West for a time, but in the game this happens as a matter of course. I feel the same way about operation Impala; its just way to easy to pull off. Unless the Russians give away the whole allied game plan, and start sending troops to back the Brits immediatly, its almost impossible to hold an India factory in Revised. Even if you do, then there’s always the question of whether it was even worth it, since the UK has to keep filling the IC with tanks in order to make the buy effective. A starting factory would at least give the allies a stake in south asia, so they don’t just abandon it in favor of an all out KGF.

    I never thought I’d move in this direction, but now that we have Italy as a full faction (something I never expected to see in A&A) I think we should make China a full faction too.

    Then we could have Chungking as a VC and the seventh capital, and maybe start to fix this seemingly intractable problem with the Japs/Russians.



  • Agreed with China stuff. The issue is even greater, because Japan can toast literally ALL chinese forces in the very first turn, thus giving China 1 inf  😮 at deploy units phase, and no more. Ridiculous  😛

    China should be more than free IPCs for Japan. Options:

    1. The picture we see in Boardgamegeek is not the deploy. Someone wants framing us or simply someone said to Larry “Hi, Larry, put some pieces on board, we must take a photo”, Larry said “sure, I’ll put some random forces”.
      Thus, in fact, China probably will have about 5-6 inf, 2-3 of them out of reach from Japan and the fricking fighter will also stay out of range from Japan (the best option)

    2. KGF is so badass option in Anniversary that Japan really needs free China IPCs. A very bad option, I don’t want 99/100 games KGF as in Revised  😛

    3. In no time we’ll mod China to a true playable power or at least a true playable minor (moving units to inland China and such), or maybe bidding a fig and some infs for China. Not optimal but affordable.



  • @Black_Elk:

    I wish we’d just pony up and give the Brits a starting IC in India already.

    The game always works better that way, but no serious Revised player is going to buy one unless the Allies are going all out against Japan. Even then its usually just for a few rounds until the the tanks have to be backed out to Caucasus to save Russia from impending doom.

    I don’t know how its going to play out here, but in Revised the southern route to Caucasus via India is how most people get the job done, though a good player will also take China and the Soviet Far east at the same time, without missing a beat. I don’t expect much to change from the old pattern, except that now the Japs will have more money to throw at the Russians. I think the problem stems from the fact that we keep building China as a place to just get totally stepped on by the Japs. During the real war the fighting in mainland China was intense and constant. All told almost 5 million people died in this theater of the War, closer to 20 if you include civilians.

    The Japanese never penetrated the interior of China, even if they did manage to cut it off from the West for a time, but in the game this happens as a matter of course. I feel the same way about operation Impala; its just way to easy to pull off. Unless the Russians give away the whole allied game plan, and start sending troops to back the Brits immediatly, its almost impossible to hold an India factory in Revised. Even if you do, then there’s always the question of whether it was even worth it, since the UK has to keep filling the IC with tanks in order to make the buy effective. A starting factory would at least give the allies a stake in south asia, so they don’t just abandon it in favor of an all out KGF.

    I never thought I’d move in this direction, but now that we have Italy as a full faction (something I never expected to see in A&A) I think we should make China a full faction too.

    Then we could have Chungking as a VC and the seventh capital, and maybe start to fix this seemingly intractable problem with the Japs/Russians.

    That could be good.  I think that even just having an IC in China, Australia, and India at the start of the game would be enough to keep the Allies from letting it fall… otherwise, Japan takes it and has a free IC to strike Russia with.

    @Funcioneta:

    Agreed with China stuff. The issue is even greater, because Japan can toast literally ALL chinese forces in the very first turn, thus giving China 1 inf  😮 at deploy units phase, and no more. Ridiculous  😛

    China should be more than free IPCs for Japan. Options:

    1. The picture we see in Boardgamegeek is not the deploy. Someone wants framing us or simply someone said to Larry “Hi, Larry, put some pieces on board, we must take a photo”, Larry said “sure, I’ll put some random forces”.
      Thus, in fact, China probably will have about 5-6 inf, 2-3 of them out of reach from Japan and the fricking fighter will also stay out of range from Japan (the best option)

    2. KGF is so badass option in Anniversary that Japan really needs free China IPCs. A very bad option, I don’t want 99/100 games KGF as in Revised  😛

    3. In no time we’ll mod China to a true playable power or at least a true playable minor (moving units to inland China and such), or maybe bidding a fig and some infs for China. Not optimal but affordable.

    All Chinese forces round 1?  Yup, I looked it over, that’s how it looks… let us hope this isn’t the case, or this game may play EXACTLY like Revised/Classic (japan overruns China/India/Soviet Far East, moves on to Moscow, as the Allies don’t even touch the Pacific)  :x



  • @Rakeman:

    All Chinese forces round 1?  Yup, I looked it over, that’s how it looks… let us hope this isn’t the case, or this game may play EXACTLY like Revised/Classic (japan overruns China/India/Soviet Far East, moves on to Moscow, as the Allies don’t even touch the Pacific)  :x

    In fact, it’s even worst than in Revised. In Revised, in a KGF, you had 2 inf surviving, not zero plus 1 reinforce. In a KJF, you could put a IC and give a serious fight to Japan if done correctly. You cannot in anniv. edition.

    And in revised/Classic, China gave 4 ipcs to Japan. Now gives 7 + 5 from bonus = 12 ipcs  😮



  • Well, in Revised, the standard victory condition in tournament play became 9 VC out of 12, which is 75%. With the actual 18 VC, 75% would mean 13,5 CV.

    It may depend on what you play for. With the standard 15 VC you could ignore the Pacific as allies. But can you really afford to ignore the Pacific, if you play to 13? This “minor victory” basically means 7 VC for Japan in Asia-Pacific, Germany-Italy must hold it starting 4 VC in Central Europe and the axis powers must conquer both Stalingrad and Leningrad. So the axis could win without taking a single capital. Nevertheless, this is quite an impressive goal to hold all continental european VCs besides Moscow if all three allies go for Germany and Italy.

    Imho it is more likely that Japan will conquer Caucasus if you ignore them in the Pacific, so the question is wheater the western allies are quicker taking Italy (or even Germany) out of the game than the Japs taking Moscow.

    Ignoring Pacfic in a 13 VC game may be the wrong strategy as besically Germany-Italy only have to defend their 4 VC in Central Europe and let Japan do all the rest. And if they take all Pacific and all Asia, they accumulate to about 70 IPC in total (with 15 IPC bonus) and this really is a lot!



  • All this strat talk on a game that is not released…, but it’s fun anyway. I look forward to play AA50 (in TripleA)  :mrgreen:

    As for the KGF in revised, the single most important reason why exp. players use KGF is because there is not enough $ in pacific. US will be wasting 3-4 turns building stuff that is wasted. And this again leads Japan to the task of capturing Moscow, while Germany holds…defending WE+SE etc. Between exp. players regardless of ADS or LL, the winning team is usually the one who captures a capital first. And the capitals are always Berlin or Moscow. This is revised in a nutshell. There are many different tactics that can be used within the basic mechanics of the game, but the few important factors are well known and will not change.

    I’m not gonna bet on what strats will be most used in AA50, but if there’s more $ in mainland Asia than in the Asian pacific, then it’s gonna be the same exercise again, with some minor changes and some new units.



  • About China I tried to ask Larry about why China couldn’t be allowed to have the possibility of getting an IC build on www.harrisgamedesign.com and I just got an answer from Krieghund about China not being an industrial power etc.

    I guess it all comes down to play-balance, which will be clear pretty quickly once the game comes out. Hopefully they have play-tested the game and China is needed to be this weak to not out-balance the game in Allied favour. For example, USA has 10 IPCs of bonuses now that can be held and two bombers at-start so a Pacific campaign can now jump-start quicker. Also, as I’ve written in '41 strats, Russia might be able to shield India with infantry until UK production starts up and then Japan will be busy fending off UK attacks and China might survive.

    The simplest change would be to give the Chinese one inf/turn PER AREA rather than per two areas. If the game is unbalanced and you have a Chinese collapse in every game, I will propose this to my playing group, but we still haven’t got the game so its too early for that.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 1
  • 31
  • 2
  • 11
  • 9
  • 4
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

61
Online

14.2k
Users

34.6k
Topics

1.4m
Posts