Victory Cities

I don’t understand why people still have discussions about VCs. Its not what this game is about. It’s about conquering the world. Global victory. I cannot remember any opponent who started to talk about VCs during games, and I have never done this myself.
VCs is only a minor issue, and only for new players. After getting some fundamental experience in the AAR/AA50, games are ended when one player concedes.

AA Pacific is designed differently then AAR and AA50. Pacific is tactical game in which time, like in number of moves and rnds are determining the winning factors of the game. If VCs was meant to be important in global games like Classic, revised and AA50, all these games had to be designed radically different. The premise for A&A Pacific is different than AAR/AA50, b/c AAP is not mainly about resources. AAR + AA50 is about resources and economy, as well as strategy. If A&A Pacific was to be designed the same way as A&A global games, then Japan would loose every single game.

It would be very unhistorical and bad for game play if Larry Harris changed one of the basic premises for the A&A game series of global conflict. WW2 was a struggle of raw materials and resources, technology and manpower.

The game is won by VCs, that is the target and there is not other. If rival concedes, OK. If not, you must continue until someone reaches the target of the game (the VCs). If someone chooses ignore VCs (the goal of the game) and only keep the eye on capitals (they are not the goal of the game), it’s not so strange that the player(s) who chosen go after the game goal (the VCs) win the game. Complaining about a rival wining because has enough VCs is like playing chess, losing the king, and complaining because you had still the queen, the rooks and many other pieces.

And there are many, many things more unhistorical than VCs: Japan attacking soviets all games, the ignore Japan strat, a lone fighter or sub auto-killing infinite trannies without chance of escape and China falling round 1  :-P

In AAR we can choose from 8-12 VCs. In AA50 it’s 13, 15 or 18.

The standard number of VCs in AAR is 10, and in AA50 it’s 15. So AAR and AA50 is about global domination. Thats how these games are designed, and if the number of VCs are reduced, then it’s not the same games anymore. There are some similarities with chess and A&A. And there are more differences. Chess is not about economy and resources like A&A.

With standard number of VC’s A&A is about killing your opponents units, not putting opponent check mate by taking VCs. In chess attrition can be useful, but only for the aim of killing the king of your opponent.

In chess it’s not crucial to have more valuable pieces on the board, but its useful, and only useful for protecting own king, and killing the opponents king. In A&A the crucial factor of the game is money/resources/economy b/c you buy units each rnd, and the way to  win a game of A&A is to kill more units relative to the damage that your opponent can do to you.  This is the big difference between chess and A&A.

I have played many games of A&A since classic, and VCs have never been mentioned once, it’s always I or my opponent who concedes.
Most games that I played, I played in the triplea community, and some players use dice, some LL, some use tech, others prefers no tech. Every setup option of the player who are hosting games in the lobby can be seen by others, also w/o joining the game. It’s often 10-20 games hosted continuously at any time during the day, I can only remember once in 10000? hosted games, that the player who was hosting stated 9VCs as a game option.

I can hardly recall that any game I played or watched, have been close to reach 15 VCs in AA50, or 10 VCs in Revised. Players concede long before it comes this far. Also players concedes quite often even before any capital is even threatened.

@Funcioneta:

Complaining about a rival wining because has enough VCs

Thrust me, I will definitely surrender long before you accomplish 15 VCs if you played against me in AA50, and my position was not very strong…  :roll:

And if I had the upper hand, I could possibly play until I kill the last single enemy unit on the board, if the opponent thought he could still have a chance. I don’t think I got close to 13 VCs yet in AA50.

I have won 3 games in Revised league taking 9 VCs as allies without taking a capital (and one as axis taking Moscow). And I ever keep an eye on VCs. Just in case

Sure, there are big differences with chess, but the point was that, in both cases (check-mate and VCs) we are talking about the target of the game.

A funny coincidence–I just played a game today where I lost due to VCs, even though I was close to taking Moscow.  But ultimately I lost fair and square—I set the game to 9 VCs and the USA had a successful Pacific offensive followed by taking Western (the Brits snagged Karelia).  I was down to 3 VCs and lost.

Of course, this kind of thing rarely happens.

I don’t know if I would have lost if the game was at 10 VCs, but that wasn’t the game I was playing.

I think if you really want to avoid these problems go with 10 VCs–if one side has 10 at the end of a turn the game is over.

And yes, 8 VCs is slanted to Axis unless you use a rule like Japan can’t take India for 3 turns.  I’m not saying a good Allies can never win it–but between equal players Axis will win 80% of the time.

My point is that AAR/AA50 are ipc driven games, money is the most important factor, and represents also materials and such.

If VCs had a NO system of some kind, like France is worth 5 ipc more b/c its a NO for both sides, then the VC system could be as important as it perhaps should be. Then all VCs had to be worth much more than they are today. As it is now, players go for the money not for the VCs. This is logically right imo, although one might think that when VCs are in the game in the first place, they should matter. We don’t even need a NO system to make the VCs worth more, but within the current game design philosophy, this is the only way to make VCs viable, so it could mean that all VCs should be worth 5-10 ipc.

@Subotai:

My point is that AAR/AA50 are ipc driven games, money is the most important factor, and represents also materials and such.

That it’s totally true: you need the money to conquer enemy VCs, so good players will go for money. But since VCs are the goal of the game, the best strat is go for money AND defend your VCs. Usually is enough keeping the eye at your VCs and being sure they are not taken, without great economical effort, because you cannot sneak that 9th VC unless the opponent don’t watch it

I’ve never played a game that got to the VC conditions (9 in AAR or 13 in AA50).  The group I play with knows when they’ve lost and concedes at that point.

9 is all that you really need to know who won in A&AR. Very rarely will someone still have a chance if a side holds 9 after the USA turn and that is usually when one side made some silly mistake. But to be absolutely sure, 10 would be needed.

I play with 9 becuase that’s all all I really think is needed. I play at GTO so the game will end when I have the 9th, whether my opponent wants it over or not. It keeps track of stats and some will drag their loss out to the bitter end. If I played with 10, then many games would drag out for no reason, even though it’s clear the game is over.

I always quit if i’m sure I lost. The ones that don’t, I feel are mini-stallers. Even in a 9 vic game, some will stack that 9th vic, just to prolong the end. A waste of time, imo. I refuse to ever play with 8. That is not a game based on conquering the other side and it isn’t that hard for the axis to get 8 and win, even though the game is far from over.