Playing to 13 VCs gives the Axis the choice of whether to try to take down an Allied capital or to pursue a less central strategy that involves taking only peripheral VCs. The latter strategy spreads the action out around the board more.
krieghund, can you imagine a scenario where a player can hold 13vcs after usa turn and not eventually get 18vcs?
if you can get 13vcs you have dominated the game. there is no reason to play to 15vcs or more. 13vcs is a domination game.
vc amounts do not make for different game playouts.
notice how there are no threads discussing the different strategies of a 13 vc game vs 18vc game, like there is for 1941 vs 1942 scenario or without NOs vs with NOs.
if there was an option for axis to win with 11vcs then the game would have more variability.
i would agree.
i always found larry’s choice of the number of VC’s to be a waste of time since they were all identical
13 vc is the same thing as 15 and 18 in aa50
same thing goes for revised and 1942, etc.
i dont want to get too off topic but revised had 8vcs and this did provide a different play out than 10/12vcs(these two are identical and the same as 9vcs, as 9vcs is the point of no return once a side has them they will eventually have the entire world).
problem is the location of the vcs. assuming g could grab karelia and hold france, then all action revolves around india. allies actually get the bid, and it made for a short game. either japan got india quickly or allies would win economicaly and axis resign.