I know one of the worst things about axis and allies is when, during a close game, the axis lose a significant battle near one of there final victory cities, and the game is turned on them. The reason I hate this is because the rest of the game is just the axis player sitting around, playing a pointless game, now that the combined economic power of the allies is significantly greater than the axis. In essence, the game ends there.
I propose the option of a “draw” more or less. Anytime the axis player feels he has no chance of winning he can declare he is going on the “defensive.” At this point he can no longer attack territories, fulfill any national objectives, and have any chance of winning the game. He also only receives half of his regular income. He can however, still make it a tie. If the Europe axis can control Berlin, Warsaw, Rome and Paris for X amount of turns, the game ends with a draw. The Japanese player, must control Tokyo, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Shanghai for the same amount of turns.
That way, the axis player still has a reason to continue playing the game. I guess this is a house rule but I already wrote it here :-P
That’s a pretty lame rule. I guess the fact that losing sucks so much proves how good this game is
If the game ever seems to be going towards an inevitable conclusion (for several consecutive turns) we often just call it there unless it can be completely won in only a few turns.
If you can’t win and don’t want to continue the game toward an eventual loss, than you should surrender honorably and give your opponent the win they deserve.
@Young:
If you can’t win and don’t want to continue the game toward an eventual loss, than you should surrender honorably and give your opponent the win they deserve.
Much agreed.
My adversaries/friends and I tend to call it a draw only when it is 4am and we see that winning the game, for either side would take another 6-7 turns at least. Basically, when both armies have been able to build such stacks of units, that no one wants to attack and that it would take a great number of turns, before anyone’s advantage is gets clear.
We’ve rarely had the allies consent to defeat, but the Axis has somewhat frequently admitted eventual defeat and we begin a new game and switch sides. We would never allow a “draw” unless we simply ran out of time to play. Man up and lose with honor.
@Young:
If you can’t win and don’t want to continue the game toward an eventual loss, than you should surrender honorably and give your opponent the win they deserve.
Much agreed.
My adversaries/friends and I tend to call it a draw only when it is 4am and we see that winning the game, for either side would take another 6-7 turns at least. Basically, when both armies have been able to build such stacks of units, that no one wants to attack and that it would take a great number of turns, before anyone’s advantage is gets clear.
I once played with a group of friends that did this quite often (including myself). Everyone would have huge stacks and no one wanted to risk it, but eventually someone would attack with bad odds because it was 4am and everyone was exhausted. Once that someone surrendered, he would complain that he only lost because he was forced to risk his stack due to the time. Years later playing with a much more aggressive group, I had realized that my old friends were all just passive strategists ( including myself). Games with my new group are much more intense with the situations constantly changing and our games end a lot sooner with a mix of victories for both the axis and the allies. If your group is stuck in this passive mind set, you can through them off with small attacks early and often, or maybe you should just start your games earlier.
I only use something like this when I want my defeated opponent to keep playing.
They have conceeded defeat, and are ready to walk from the table, but then I’ll say, if you hold out for 5 rounds or whatever, I’ll give you a win.
You change the Victory Conditions, so it’s a “new” game, of your current game really, accepting your win in the first phase, and fighting for the second.
I think the Axis goals are fun to achieve, but the allied goals are rather boring. Taking three capitals is nice, but at some point you know it’s just inevitable. Inevitability makes for a dull game. It seems that most people enjoy the challenge and fun of playing the Axis more than the Allies.
I think the Axis goals are fun to achieve, but the allied goals are rather boring. Taking three capitals is nice, but at some point you know it’s just inevitable. Inevitability makes for a dull game. It seems that most people enjoy the challenge and fun of playing the Axis more than the Allies.
Personally I never feel like taking 3 capitals is inevitable, and I believe that it’s much more challenging than taking enough victory cities on 1 of 2 boards. Perhaps instead of saying inevitability, you ment to say perdictability is boring, or flexibility is fun.
@Young:
If you can’t win and don’t want to continue the game toward an eventual loss, than you should surrender honorably and give your opponent the win they deserve.
If the game ever seems to be going towards an inevitable conclusion (for several consecutive turns) we often just call it there unless it can be completely won in only a few turns.
The only reason I propose this rule is because after playing the game many times, I would much rather continue playing than quit if the Axis can’t win. I agree that the allies deserve to win, but for people who are looking for more fun in their games, and not just the axis player quitting. Everyone knows that If the allies can contain the Germans to Europe or pin Japan to their one Island the game is over. I only give this rule so that the game can sometimes continue.
I only use something like this when I want my defeated opponent to keep playing.
This is the exact reason this idea exists. It’s for the Allies benefit, because they actually get a chance to take Berlin and/or Tokyo instead of cause a surrender. IMO the game is far more fun.
@Young:
If your group is stuck in this passive mind set, you can through them off with small attacks early and often, or maybe you should just start your games earlier.
Well that doesn’t happen that often any more, now that we have played quite a bunch of games. But you always have your odd one out, where all the american fleet is in the pacific, the Germans have a massive defensive capability, and the russians are turtling. Normally, in these situations, I tend to think that the allies are going to win, but it takes just too long.
@Young:
If your group is stuck in this passive mind set, you can through them off with small attacks early and often, or maybe you should just start your games earlier.
Well that doesn’t happen that often any more, now that we have played quite a bunch of games. But you always have your odd one out, where all the american fleet is in the pacific, the Germans have a massive defensive capability, and the russians are turtling. Normally, in these situations, I tend to think that the allies are going to win, but it takes just too long.
Hopefully alfa+3 will solve some of this. Remember that if you do sealion and hold London, you won’t need to go all the way to Moscow. If the entire US income is spent in the Pacific, Germany and Italy will probaly need to deal with a turtling Russia as the Japs will be contained to much to win the Pacific. Like I said, let’s pray for alfa +3. Anyways, I recomend playing a side game with a different group. It’s like banging stones together to make fire, and than you come across a tribe who strike matches.
Looks like Win, Lose, or Draw finally got moved to house rules where it belongs.
@Piet:
That’s a pretty lame rule. I guess the fact that losing sucks so much proves how good this game is
hear hear!
