kaufschtick,
Welcome! Let me guess: long time player, first time poster? A&A:50 seems to be having that effect on people. ;)
Bridger,
Maybe instead of making it more complicated (one side needs fewer VCs than the other) we could change one VC so it’s not a “gimmie” allied VC and is instead more contested? My suggestion would be move ottowa to Cairo and keep it at 12 for both sides.
I like rule changes that don’t involve changing the map. If you want Cario as a VC, I would suggest adding Cario as a VC and not moving it from Ottawa. Forcing the Allies to score 12 VCs without Ottawa just exacerbates the problem.
Black_Elk,
1. VCs are a good idea, but pretty much ineffective so long as the current “capture the Capital, take all the cash” rules are still in place.
I’ve always likened the Capture and Plunder rule to pouring salt on someone’s wounds. You captured the dude’s capital, he can’t produce nothing, he doesn’t earn nothing, and now you take his IPCs too. The besieged power should be allowed to keep his previous turn’s income or at most, that income should be turned over to the bank.
The stated Victory Conditions of Revised and AA50, are not enough to trump the familiar dynamic out of Classic. I think there are a number of reasons for this, not least of which, is the fact that there is not nearly enough consensus as to which number of VCs is best for gameplay. Since the recommended numbers allow for this much variation, it makes a “standard” victory condition even harder to settle on. For example, one player might prefer a 12 VC set up, another 13, and when they meet to play this is a rules point that they can now argue about before the first die is even cast.
That’s why I’m hoping this matter gets sorted out quickly, so that there is an agreed upon number for victory. If the major A&A sites said, “We found X VCs to be optimal number for play,” I think most people would adhere to their suggestion.
12 seems agreeable, but it also makes for a rather short game. I don’t like it that we have to sacrifice game length for a two front War, and I’m still not sure that other players are going to hop on the VC train this time anyway, so it might be a moot point regardless. With Revised, VCs were typically ignored as irrelevant, since the OOB rules were not clear enough initially, and because VCs didn’t have any other in-game associations beyond the Victory thing.
I think 12 VCs makes for a short game only if the opposing player lets you cakewalk your way to victory. He is well aware of how many VCs you own, and he’ll do what he can stop you. To me VCs prevent games from dragging on if one side decides to fight to the bitter end. Personally, I’ve never had fun as the Allies when Japan was hopelessly outmatched, yet continued to stack infantry on the motherland.
With Revised, VCs were typically ignored as irrelevant, since the OOB rules were not clear enough initially, and because VCs didn’t have any other in-game associations beyond the Victory thing. Instead people just reverted to the old concession scheme to determine the Victor, because it was more familiar and less contentious.
Familiar and less contentious does not translate into “better.” Personally, I’ve always hated when my opponent just “gave up” because he thought he couldn’t win. Winning that way just never felt satisfying. Look at our spectator sports. People enjoy watching basketball/football/baseballs games where the outcome is in doubt up until the last shot/throw/pitch. People don’t enjoy watching blowouts where there’s little reason to show up.
I understand some people want to continue playing until they know they have no chance of winning. But I think it’s those really close losses that propel people to want to play even more and try even harder. One of the reasons why Settlers of Catan (perhaps the greatest board game of all time) is so addictive is at the end game, several players had a shot of winning. In that game 10 Victory Points were required for Victory, and the losers often ended with 8 or 9. However, I’ve never encountered a player where he felt he was wronged or complained that the number of Victory Points should be increased to 11.
As long as Victory Conditions are declared at the beginning of the game and defined within the framework of the rules, then I doubt the losers will throw the dice in disgust afterwards. If it’s anything like Settlers of Catan, I’m betting the loser will say, “That was fun. I came so close to winning; let’s play again.”
