• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Okay, so Rhine and I have been communicating in PM about how bogus the VC rules are in AAR.

    The thought occurred to me that VC rules are as broken in favor of the allies as M84 was in favor of the Axis in Classic.

    In classic, if you’ll remember, it was a common practice for the Axis, when losing, to blitz up all the land they could possibly take in hopes of having 84 or more IPC (in territory value) combined at the end of America’s turn and save the game from utter, humiliating defeat through a cheap win.

    In revised, you’ll notice, the same is true for the allies.  The Axis are forced to over commit defensively to prevent the allies from getting that 9’th VC resulting in their forces being pounded to death mercilessly by the allies OR allowing the Allies a cheap win by sniping that VC in S. Europe, W. Europe or Philippines when everyone KNOWS there is not a prayer in hell of the allies keeping it, surviving the merciless pounding or even winning the game in MOST circumstances.

    So I came up with a couple of decent fixes:

    1. As always, you could use the AARe map which has more victory cities and a harder limit on the number needed to win for BOTH sides.

    2. You could just require 11 VC to win the game.  Obviously if you have 11 VC then the game is over.  It would take such a massive undertaking of manpower, air power and naval power to even GET 11 VC that your opponent is almost certainly out of the game anyway, except for the circumstance of a large fortress on England or Japan that could take literally dozens of rounds to knock down. (In this case, the 11 VC rule would be to avoid the drudgery of attacking an island fortress every blasted round for an hour straight when your opponent has no chance to even attack anything because all he has is infantry on an island!)

    3. You could, and this is my favorite because it doesn’t change the map or add difficulty to achievement but also makes sense, require that you actually hold all 9 victory cities for a full game turn.  After all, if the game is SO OVER when you get 9 VC, then you can obviously hold all 9 indefinitely right?  So holding it for a game turn, that should be a breeze, right???

    Basically, 3 is the best, IMHO, because it prevents VC sniping for a cheap win.  America cannot just float a transport with 1 dude on it and grab Philippines and bammo, Allies win.  Japan cannot suicide the entire army and air force taking Caucasus resulting in 500 IPC in army units lost and only one tank remaining (when Moscow still has 100 IPC in units or something) and winning because Russia doesn’t get a chance to liberate before VCs are counted.

    It’s just a safety net to prevent cheap wins.  Gives both sides a chance to stave off defeat when they are in a superior position tactically, and it forces opponents to play for the long term goal of real victory instead of the cheap VC.

    (Note, VC victories in AARe are harder to get.  Still possible, but you have to take 10 for the Axis and 11 for the Allies.  And the VC are more spread out, so it’s a bit harder to actually accomplish.  Losing Germany or Russia is not end of the game necessarily!)


  • For allies win in a KJF with 9 VCs, you need the initial ones plus Shangai, Manila and Paris (or Rome). While a IC strat prevents fall of Calcutta, Leningrad is easy to axis take and hold, and still, you should not be trading weu anyway. If you defend Paris and Rome in force, allies have no much chances of taking them.

    Anyway, no matter if Germans hold or not Paris/Rome. If you build the japanese IC in Kwantung (opposite the usual in FIC), there is virtually no chance of allies taking Shangai by a slim margin unless Japan’s navy is sunk (and then is game over anyway). Manila is also pretty easy to defend, I think. Shangai can be taken in force by land, by combined indian and chinese efforts (oh, those glorious days are ended in AA50  :cry: ), and that’s end game for Japan also unless Moscow is fallen.
    VCs add another  reason to allies to fight for Pacific. I like them

    For axis, they would need kar, ind and wusa to win without capitals. If you don’t retake LA, you are screwed anyway, probably even if Berlin is about to fall

    Still, if you know you are playing for VCs, defend them. If you got careless and decided trade Paris when Mc Arthur is near to Manila and uncle Chiang near to Shangai … well, allies got a deserved victory. Victory condition is VCs, not capital cities. I’d say keep the rule as it is. I like that sudden death effect

    By the way, I’m still wondering why Shangai and not Nankin. Nankin was former capital of Kuomingtan goverment

    VCs in AA50 is another different thing and we need more gameplay

    Another thing: I’d wish they kept the economic victory for Revised and AA50. It would prevent many KGF strategies, I think (I could be wrong here, I never played Classic against a human)

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Sometimes it makes no tactical sense to defend your VCs.

    For instance.  Why would Germany place 20 Infantry, 10 Tanks and 3 Planes in W. Europe when England has 12 Destroyers and a Battleship with Shore Bombardments and America has 12 Destroyers and a Battleship for Shore Bombardments.

    Then, for the price of two infantry (6 IPC) the Allies can do a maximum of 28 hits, or 100 IPC in damage with a realistic result of 7 hits each for a total of 14 hits or 42 IPC in damage to Germany.

    How many rounds can Germany sustain such losses and still be able to win the game?  And don’t tell me those naval numbers are unrealistic, they’re as realistic as Germany having 20 infantry, 10 armor and 3 planes to put in w. Europe (in other words, just about any game where you have tech allowed, you’ll see the allies with such a fleet.)

    Isn’t it better to GIVE the allies W. Europe and then counter attack?  You lose 3 IPC for the man and the allies only get 3 IPC for the territory.  VS, you losing 42-100 IPC and keeping the territory and the allies losing 6 IPC.

    That’s just ONE circumstance.  The other is Japan dumping everything it has on Caucasus for that 9th VC resulting in absolute devastation of their army and air force reducing them to a handful of units and no air power left, but it doesn’t matter, they snuck in the 9th VC and America, who has a large army in E. Europe but not quite large enough, YET, to take Berlin, is blocked from liberating Caucasus by an infantry in Ukraine.

    meanwhile, if Russia just had another turn, it would easily liberate Caucasus and maybe even be able to take out India the round afterwards, if it was just given a chance.



    In other words, if you can get 9 VCs and this is supposed to be demonstrable of your superiority on the game board, then you should have NO PROBLEM with adjusting the rule so that you have to hold it for one full game turn.  After all, you are in such a STRONG and MIGHTY position that there is no way that the allies/axis could ever liberate one of these Victory Cities.

    And if you know you have to hold them for a round, then you, how did you put it, “if you know you are playing for VCs, defend them.  If you got careless” and decided to waste all your pieces in a last ditch effort to get the 9th, then you don’t deserve to win.


  • no, because that’s not the point of using VC conditions, particularly the 8 or 9 point ones.

    VC’s are meant to represent political considerations beyond military or economic factors as modeled in the game.  if you play to 10 VC’s or more, you can pretty much just see them as a way to end the game in a reasonable amount of time against someone who’s losing but won’t quit.  but at 8 or 9 the whole point is to have an element other than “who’s clearly winning and could no longer lose this game”

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I could see that in a game like AAR:enhanced because in AARe the Victory Cities are placed strategically to encourage players to use the entire board.  Also, in AARe you need significantly more power to get all the Victory cities.

    I can think of one game very recently in AARe where Germany fell, all of it, everything.  However, the allies STILL did not have enough Victory Cities to win because they completely ignored Japan.  The Axis also did not have enough Victory Cities to win, but that wasn’t the point.  Eventually Japan was able to take London, forever denying the Allies a chance to get enough Victory Cities to win. (19 Submarines, 5 Battleships, Destroyer and some Air power successfully prevented any attempt by the allies to put ships in the water.  Of course, in AARe fighters/bomber cannot just attack Submarines, so they are a bit more effective.)

    However, in AAR, there is no tactical/strategic sense to how the VCs are placed.  It would be very simple for either side to get the 9th Victory City with a hail mary (easier for America than Japan, but still easy for Japan.)  It’s got very little to do with defending all your Victory Cities and much more to do with luck.  Sometimes, it makes better sense to NOT defend your victory cities, like when the allies can count on destroying at least 14 infantry a round if you DO try and defend them.  It does not mean you are losing, it means you are conserving your forces and maintaining your position of military dominance over your opponent.


  • are we talking about the same game?  AAR = axis and allies revised, i believe.  if so, the presence of such a volume of ships would represent strategic investment in and control of access to a region like western europe.

    but anyway, the point of VC’s, placed however they are placed, is exactly that.  you have to do “dumb” stuff to defend them because they matter politically.  Maybe the liberation of paris would do nothing to the real german war effort but the propoganda benefit is represented in game terms by the over-emphasis germany has to put into defending it.

    they would have to be placed pretty badly for me to agree with your point.  only leningrad, of all the vc cities, is truly indefensible outside the bounds of luck.  and in any 9 VC game, enough are always going to be outside of the bounds of luck that there’s no lack of strategy – only careful defense and focused offense, over multipe turns of planning.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    In AAR it is almost routine, when you are allowed technology anyway, to see 20 or so destroyers on the board for the allies.

    It’s not really that big of an investment in a 10-15 round game if you think about it.  Since America starts with 2 destroyers, that means you only need to build 18 (and I’m assuming the two England starts with are destroyed, the first in SZ 15 by Germany, the second in SZ 59 by Japan.)

    That means 9 rounds of 1 destroyer a round. (both sides should have 1 battleship from their starting units, so I’m not including it as a purchased unit.)

    1 Destroyer a round, on average, is NOT an unrealistic amount.  Not when you realize that each destroyer will pay for itself over the first few rounds of it’s life through off shore bombardments.

    Now, if the VC in France was moved to say the Balkans and the VC in Caucasus was moved to Karelia and the VC in W. USA was moved to Hawaii, then we’d be talking a more realistic move.  Those are territories that SHOULD be defended anyway and if they do fall, then it is not likely they fell because of a suicidal hail mary so much as out witting your opponent.

    So the real question is:

    Do you A) Like 9 Victory Cities and play a game of luck instead of skill and strategy or B) Like a game where you have to actually win the game and Victory Cities are just those cute little stars on the map?

    I honestly want to play the strategy part.  If I want to play luck, I’ll shoot craps at the casino.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    In AAR it is almost routine, when you are allowed technology anyway, to see 20 or so destroyers on the board for the allies.

    I never buy destroyers in Revised.  :-D

    Even with the technology advance, it still seems like a poor purchasing decision to me. Espcially with 2 trans or a Carriers at a cost of just 4 more ipcs. Plus, anytime you design a strategy around technology you are taking a huge gamble already. What if you fail to achieve the bombardment tech? And all that money on DDs, is money you’re not investing in transports or boots on the ground, which has gotta be giving the Axis some openings. Bedsides, if its a tech game, then what’s to stop someone from rolling Heavy Bombers, or LRA and screwing up the game out of the first round? Tech is too volatile in OOB Revised. The game is just better without it. Even in LHTR, it totally throws things off balance, and reduces everything to the craps game you mentioned above.

    Do you A) Like 9 Victory Cities and play a game of luck instead of skill and strategy or B) Like a game where you have to actually win the game and Victory Cities are just those cute little stars on the map?

    I really think the problem with VCs in Revised, is that they have no influence on the game other than the stated victory conditions. It just makes them too easy to ignore. They need to actually do something for you (in real gameplay terms) and then people might start to take VC wins more seriously. Tweaking the numbers or the locations alone won’t fix the problem.


  • Fun look at my game with Morden.

    I did not defend the victory city because I could easy counter attacked anything that he did. Becuase in my house games we play with VC but they are not a hard rule just an I have 9 do you conceed thing? If the person has a chance they do not. Plus why are the allies given the chance of making a stupid attack without any defence where as the axis are not. Its just a glitch in the game. Espically if the axis own the game and you can only win using this then its a cheap out.

    So the axis should make horrible strategic moves becuase they are only to lose one more city? It makes no sense unless the game has no game left. I thinkn at worst the next axis should be given a chance like the allies are becuase of the turn order.  Another bad rule just like the 84 rule in classic whcih I hated as well. Made the allies defend things that shouldn’t be defended as does any hard VC limit.

    P.S. Mr. Morden this is not surpose to be a slap in the face to you. Just a hatred at the stupid rules.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Transport + 2 Infantry = 14 IPC
    Destroyer = 12 IPC

    Destroyers are cheaper.  Especially when their cost is compounded over subsequent rounds!

    9 Destroyers = 108 IPC (barely 4 rounds pay for England, less than 3 rounds pay for America - hardly a burden when spread over 10 rounds)

    Cost of shore assaults: 3 IPC (infantry)

    Meanwhile, Transports cost minimum of 32 IPC for England and require 8 units to maximize their efficiency per round (minimum 24 IPC, but realistically at least 30 IPC probably 32 IPC.)

    30 IPC over 10 rounds = 300 IPC.  Not 108 IPC.  That’s almost three times the cost!

    Technology should cost about 17-18 IPC to achieve on average. (1 in 6 chance at 5 IPC per chance.)

    So your choice:

    Shore Bombardment + Destroyers for (rounding) 170 IPC (1 ground unit + existing transport + 9 destroyers + technology for 10 rounds)

    or

    Standard amphibious assaults for (rounding) 340 IPC (4 transports + 8 ground units per round for 10 rounds)


    Bear in mind, for 30 IPC you are getting 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 armor each round.  That means, with the battleship bombardment you are expecting 3 hits each assault doing about 9 IPC in damage each round. (Punch=20 with the BB added in.)

    Versus:

    9 Destroyers + Battleship (this assumes all your starting destroyers were magically destroyed and you only bought the 9) + technology + an infantry would do: 5 hits each assault for about 15 IPC in damage each round. (Punch=32 with the BB and DDs added in.)



    So destroyers + technology is cheaper, it’s safer (what idiot is attacking 9 destroyers, battleship, transport with 5 fighters and a bomber?), it does more damage to the enemy, has significantly less risk to you and allows you to build up more men and units in reserve for massive hits later down the road (or just to land in friendly territory to bolster defenses.)

    So, given that it’s overwhelmingly smarter to go the tech/destroyer route, why should we force Germany to stack gobs of men in France?  At least S. Europe and Germany can only be attacked from one sea zone and you can put a submarine in it to stop shore bombardments from at least England.  France would require you to build a complex AND build two submarines a round to stop England from bombarding you. (Note, America would never be stopped from bombardment.  England would always be able to clear the Sea Zone allowing America to bombard.)

    And when you give up after routinely losing 10-14 infantry a round trying to defend France from 2 attacking infantry, you will have given the Allies a primo Industrial Complex in W. Europe!  Not to mention a blasted Victory City and probably the game.



    Anyway, the funny thing is, all the supporters of Victory Cities seem appalled at the idea of actually having to HOLD 9 Victory Cities giving the other side a chance to liberate before the end of the game.

    So I have to ask:  Are your strategies so bad and your moves so dependent on luck of the dice that you need to be able to snipe a victory city or two in order to win your games?  Obviously you have no faith in your ability to hold them, which tells me you want to be able to land one unit in a victory city to steal a victory out of the jaws of utter defeat.

    It’s a cruel way to put it, but honestly speaking, the rule should have always been take the cities AND HOLD THEM denying any liberation attempts for a full turn.  Then you have proven you are in a superior tactical position.  Otherwise, you are just proving that your opponent is better than you are and you cannot hold your own, so you’ll use tricks to steal a victory.


  • @Cmdr:

    It’s a cruel way to put it, but honestly speaking, the rule should have always been take the cities AND HOLD THEM denying any liberation attempts for a full turn.  Then you have proven you are in a superior tactical position.  Otherwise, you are just proving that your opponent is better than you are and you cannot hold your own, so you’ll use tricks to steal a victory.

    Either this or just remove VC’s entirely from the game. Usually game ends with concession.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Subotai:

    @Cmdr:

    It’s a cruel way to put it, but honestly speaking, the rule should have always been take the cities AND HOLD THEM denying any liberation attempts for a full turn.  Then you have proven you are in a superior tactical position.  Otherwise, you are just proving that your opponent is better than you are and you cannot hold your own, so you’ll use tricks to steal a victory.

    Either this or just remove VC’s entirely from the game. Usually game ends with concession.

    Are you agreeing that you should have to hold them for a turn, giving your opponent at least a chance to liberate one or are you advocating the allowance of letting someone make a bone-headed, stupid move to win the game through luck instead of skill?

    Honestly, if you had to hold them for a round, would Germany care if you got W.Europe for 9 VC with one dude in it?  Nope.  They could easily liberate.  Therefore, that cheap victory would be gone.

    If you had to hold them for a round, then would Japan and Germany waste all their manpower attacking Caucasus ending with maybe one tank left after losing all their fighters and bombers to get that 9th VC, even though Russia could easily liberate with the couple of infantry and tanks in Russia?  Of course not!  So that cheap victory would also be gone.

    But you could still win with 9 VCs if you really had the superior position to hold them.  It wouldn’t be hard.  It would require taking W. Europe with enough to defend it or Caucasus with enough to defend it.  That’s all I’m saying.  If you have enough to actually HOLD IT, then you won legitimately.  If you do not, then it’s a cheap victory and you’re an inferior player to your opponent.


  • If you do not, then it’s a cheap victory and you’re an inferior player to your opponent.

    I think this statement is not interally true but the premise is very valid. It removes making shitty strategic moves for tratical purposes. The ONLY reason I can see this was the game testers were like SHITTa Germany can turttle and stil defend there content and get significant money. This really lengths the game so lets just add in allied win after end of AMerica turn. The thing is it is a horrible rule. Works for most of the world that only plays this game a couple time and then it sits on their shelf the rest of the time.

    Just Hold it for a turn and if you could and have the game then the other side will win. Or for the League have 2 mods review the game or something.


  • I think one side must hold VC’s for one complete rnd, not only end of US turn, or use 10 or 11 VC’s.
    Most players know if they won’t win, but in f2f casual games some ppl might not think as (time) effective as we do, we concede when opponents TUV is too much to fight.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I agree, Subo.  In a f2f game you do not have the access to all the dice calculators and literally days to think about your move and play with the pieces on the board in privacy. (I don’t know about you guys, but I write down my moves then physically move the pieces around to see what it looks like before posting them.  In f2f games this can give away the entire strategy!)

    Honestly, if you are a superior player (this is not an indictment on your character or personality, just your game play) then holding your victory cities for the win shouldn’t pose a challenge to you.  It may delay the game an extra turn, maybe two, so you can line up the extra units you’ll need.

    However, if you are an inferior player (again, not an indictment on your character or personality, just your ability to play that specific game) then you won’t be able to steal a victory by suiciding your entire army and air force for all your powers on one territory to get that one unit there to win and preventing the other side from even getting a chance to kick you back out.

    In real terms, did France surrender everything the instant Hitler rolled into Paris?  No.  They had a resistance that kept fighting.  Same with Norway and some other states.  Should Germany have been declared the winner of the world just because France fell for a brief time and the allies didn’t immediately liberate it on America’s “turn” to move?  Of course not!  That’s just silly!

    Now, I realize this is a game, and as such, there needs to be a way to declare a winner without taking both enemy capitols just for the sheer reason that some players are so pig headed they’ll refuse to concede defeat even when reduced to one island nation with no navy.

    That, in my humble opinion, is why there are Victory Cities.  (The reduced numbers were probably added after the fact for those who want to play Axis and Allies in 30 minutes or so.)  The idea was, if you get a significant amount of Victory Cities, say 9, then you should be in such a position that you are almost certainly going to win.  I do not think the idea ever was:

    “Oh crap, we’re getting our butts handed to us.  Quick, America, if you attack S. Europe with everything in range, and kill all your fighters and bombers before that last tank, you have a 70% chance to win the game before Germany can move to kick you out!”

    or

    “Oh crap, America and England have a HUGE frakking army in E. Europe.  But England failed to take W. Europe this time and we have barely enough firepower, if we suicide EVERYTHING Germany has except those few units that cannot reach and everything except that last tank from Japan to take Caucasus and get the 9th VC for a win, assuming the dice fall with average to above average results!  Quick, Germany suicide your airforce, you need 4 hits so that I have a chance to take Caucasus with Japan!!!”

    I cannot believe that was EVER the intent of Victory Cities.  Not ever, never.  They were NEVER intended to be used as get out of losing free cards.  They were only intended to give a player with almost insurmountable odds of victory a way to say “game over, you’re losing, and it’s 1 am.  If I don’t get home by 1:30 am, I won’t get sex and then I’ll really be pis*ed.”


  • … and that’s where you’re totally wrong, IMO.  VC’s are an alternate victory condition for those who like the complexity of playing to more than one potential game-winning objective.  They serve that purpose by potentially being different from a typical winning objective of destroying your opponent.

    The argument about dice calculators makes no sense, as the same is true when judging how carefully to defend your capital in the face of an unlikely attack.  Odds judgements and walking a fine line are just a central part of this game whatever the victory conditions.  Some of us like to have more things to consider rather than fewer.

    The 10, 11, and 12 VC victory conditions are all sufficient alternatives if one wants to be sure of being completely ahead in the game before winning.

    … and don’t get me started on building destroyers in AAR, but feel free to try it against me should we ever play a game :)


  • Well put Jen. The system has a hole and people are exploiting it when it is played as a hard set rule. If the game takes 8-10 tursn to win whats the h-a-r-m in letting it another round when the turns are very short. I’m all for 9 VC just not as a hard fast rule. The rules should not matter the order of the turns but collect position on the map. Its the principle of the rule that matters not the letter of the law!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Sounds similar to AARe there, Craig.  But yes, I agree, that’s a much better way of handling it.

    Honestly, I have no problem with the concept of victory cities.  AARe fixed the over all problem of sniping a victory city to steal a win from the jaws of certain defeat by just adding 3 more victory cities to the game and requiring the allies to get 11 and the axis 10.

    That means you can still win without taking a capitol city, but you have to basically control the entire board to do so.  In other words, you are in such a strong position that it’s virtually impossible for your opponent to recover.  Or, basically, the original intend of victory cities in the first place.

    However, there are some who prefer to make the absolute minimum changes to the game to correct an unbalanced situation. (This is Caspian Sub’s basic premise I believe.)  The absolute MINIMUM to fix this problem is not to add more cities (which would necessitate making new maps, figuring out balanced places to put them, adjusting units to compensate, etc.) and would not add more cities to win (which would require significantly more time and effort since you have to maneuver to more places.)  No the absolute MINIMUM fix is to just require that you hold all 9 victory cities for a game turn.  If you get the 9th on Japan’s turn, then you wait until Japan’s next turn, if you still have all 9, then you win.

    This does not take any new units, new maps, no tactics, or anything to accomplish.  The only thing it would do is stop the snipers from stealing undeserved wins due to luck and return the game to it’s strategy core.


  • This does not take any new units, new maps, no tactics, or anything to accomplish.  The only thing it would do is stop the snipers from stealing undeserved wins due to luck and return the game to it’s strategy core.

    \

    Again well said. The point is to make the game end when it does and ahve everyone happy with that. Instead of taking a place with retard atack knowing it losses the game for your straticalyl but you because of a X rule. Why play a long long game for such a shitty ending.


  • Obviously we have people here talking from different perspectives. In the league and tournaments here, VC’s are a win condition eumaies. And yes some people take forever to go off and analyze their moves with dice calculators and all that.

    Personally I agree with Jenn VC,s should have to be held for a full game turn to decide a win. If you are actually winning that should not be a problem.

Suggested Topics

  • 13
  • 43
  • 6
  • 8
  • 21
  • 4
  • 18
  • 4
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

43

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts