Cmdr Jen/Noll vs jim/Stirling AAG40 A3+ bid 13 VCs

[corriganbp]

we’re also allowing for trades, and that’s what has allowed us to pretty much get to the same sides as before on the axis side, with the exception of Axisplaya taking Italy, and on the allied side we’ve just juggled them up, but I’ve offered to trade with Jen - so why break out of our comfortable ruts when we just stay in them?

[jim010]

@ghr2:

Jim,
I know you put all your eggs in one basket, that is what I was complaining about.  One of these days, I’m gonna make you continue playing till the end if something like that happens so early again. :)

Um, no.  If I know I’ve lost after a decisive battle, I surrender.

As I am Germany, you will all need to wait until I get back before I can start.

[ghr2]

k

[jim010]

Are we playing total VCs or regular victory?

And if total VCs, 12?

[Jennifer]

@corriganbp:

Jen - if you want the UK, I’ll trade you for Russia.

Fine with me.  I’ll go with either England + France and Commonwealth or Russia, Corrigan.  Just tell me which you prefer, because to be honest, as Stalin’s wife it’s not like I cannot go behind Stalin’s back and get some input from my allied friends.  You know, gossip on the red phone?

[Jennifer]

IMHO, I have to talk to my allied Komrads, but 12 is too low, 13 if we need global victory, regular if we are regular.  But the question is, would the 3 players have to switch sides then if we bid too high for the Axis???

[jim010]

I wasn’t bidding, just asking.  13 without Sealion seemed high.  12 wouldake things exciting.

Otherwise regular.

[Jennifer]

12 with Sea Lion is going to be darn near impossible for the allies to survive long enough to get rolling, I feel.

12 Victory Cities and a restriction that no capitol can fall before round 4 would be doable, as long as we’re honest players (ie we don’t abuse the restriction, for instance Japan leaving Tokyo undefended with an Indian transport in SZ 19 for instance.)

But that may be too restrictive, could say normal victory but the Axis must control at least 3 Victory Cities on the other board in addition to having their victory cities on the first board.  That would give you the global feel while not being too restrictive. (8 for Germany + 3 for Japan, or 6 for Japan + 3 for Germany.)  After all, if you cannot keep 3 Victory Cities on one board or the other, then the Axis are about to lose anyway.  (Poland, Germany, S. Italy or Japan, Kiangsu, Kwangtung for instance.)

[jim010]

All right, let,s try regular +3 then.

I’ll start in a few days.

[Jennifer]

@jim010:

All right, let,s try regular +3 then.

I’ll start in a few days.

Okay.  I am assuming I am the power behind Stalin as originally assigned.  Jim, post a link in here when you start the next game (assuming you dont just use this thread again).

[corriganbp]

are we giving them a reduced global VC standard instead of the split map standards?

if not, I don’t believe it’s possible to meet the 13 VCs without getting the split map.

they could get 7 VCs in Europe and 5 in the Pacific and meet the 12, but that seems way too easy to me.

the idea that the Axis needs to have things be even easier on them in alpha 3 is ridiculous, in my totally candid opinion, even WITHOUT sea lion.

[Noll]

I agree with Corrigan.

13 is too hard, 12 is too easy.

The regular winning condition should be kept. (8 euro OR 6 pacific)

[jim010]

I would argue in favour of 12.  It would ensure a proper splitting of US $.  We would be quite agressive to get those while you would be just as agressive to stop it.  It may create more medium battles, which we are not seeing now.  A split I always see as one side sacrificing itself for the other side - and US massing unevenly.

[corriganbp]

the moscow rush will tend to produce one decisive battle with everyone but Russia and Germany largely irrelevant - except to the extent that other powers can marginally impact that one decisive battle on R6 or R7.  that may be a function of the strategy that you are choosing rather than the game itself.

[corriganbp]

I think that I speak for Jen, Ryan and myself when I say that we would gladly take the Axis for the current official VCs, or 13 VCs, or frankly, speaking for myself, more than the standard VCs.

[jim010]

Look.  Sides need to be settled.

What are the sides then?

[corriganbp]

If all the axis has to do to win is to have Japan grab one of hawaii, sydney or india plus the really easy 4 in the Japanese core after R4,
plus hold Europe, Italy takes Egypt, Germany grabs Novogorod, and then Germany can lock Russia into Moscow with a rush and run for Volgograd, yes, absolutely, way too easy.

[jim010]

Regular plus 3 was agreed to.  That is more than required in Alpha 3.

What are you proposing then?

[corriganbp]

split map plus other side holds min of 3 seems reasonable to me.

[Jennifer]

My personal feelings?

7 Victory Cities (one of which must be Moscow, London or Washington DC) on the Europe map

or

6 Victory Cities on the Pacific map. (getting the capitols on that map are sufficiently hard already.)

And corrigan is correct, he and I would do well under a 13 victory city or Alpha 3 victory conditions as the Axis.  wicked evil grin  But that’s okay, if you guys want the Axis we can go with the above.  It’s almost what Larry gave us for Alpha 3 anyway, I know he SERIOUSLY looked at 7 with Moscow as one for the win (this is 7 with any major Allied capitol.)

And yes, regular +3 on the other map is fine with me as well.