Well at least it got the band back together.
:-D
To be sure, I knew there would not be agreement about this.
You are talking about changing the fundamental dynamics of the game and taking it farther away from its historical basis. It becomes less about WWII and more like a world conquering game set in the 1940s.
Basically, sure.
:evil:
But I’ll readily admit, I think that’s what A&A already is, and the reason many people play it is not so much to satisfy a desire to re-live history per se, but rather to play out exactly those sort of wild fantasy world-conquering nightmare scenarios. You know the sort that were presented in the propaganda reels, that would probably make a more grounded historical realist pull their hair out, but which nevertheless make for an interesting game narrative.
The promise of the game is that you can take control and reshape world history. It’s pretty brazen in that regard, and relies heavily on a suspension of disbelief, whether we’re talking about a 1940 or 1942 start date.
We’ve discussed at length the improbablity or outright impossibility of Japan doing several things in reality, which occur as a matter of course in the OOB game. My thought there is that, if Japan can sack Moscow in game and people just shrug, then its at least as reasonable to allow them a North American campaign isn’t it? Of course I’m not unhinged enough to suggest that this was a likely outcome in WW2, I’m just trying to be equitable. If the game allows for one historical delusion, and is basically built around it, why not the other?
I just think back to Classic, if people were content with a game where the spectre of Axis world domination was dismissed outright on historical realism grounds, then you wouldn’t have seen a bid process invented to restore exactly that.
In part we can put this issue on Larry for not really giving the Japanese a way to win initially that didn’t involve total domination. The German play certainly feels a bit more realistic. More recently we were given the VC win as a structure to work with. But it still feels grafted on top of the game, rather than as a foundation for it. Probably because that’s exactly the way it was introduced, as an add on to an existing game without changing much in the gameplay, rather than as the basis for all the gameplay mechanics.
Probably my invasion USA push was a stretch here, the argument in its favor is maybe too hyperbolic, since it assumes the acceptance of some historical curves that are already pretty crazy in the OOB game.
:-D
Perhaps as Argothair suggests, KBF is an easier way to go for a secondary alternative to the Center crush. But I still think we’re missing out a bit on some fun potential gameplay, by putting invasion USA totally off the table for Japan.
But I’ll readily admit, I think that’s what A&A already is, and the reason many people play it is not so much to satisfy a desire to re-live history per se, but rather to play out exactly those sort of wild fantasy world-conquering nightmare scenarios. You know the sort that were presented in the propaganda reels, that would probably make a more grounded historical realist pull their hair out, but which nevertheless make for an interesting game narrative.
The kind of thing shown in the two pictures below from the first of Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” films. The accompanying narration said, “There you have it, gents: all they left us was Shangri-La. And they’d claim that too if they knew where it was.”
@CWO:
But I’ll readily admit, I think that’s what A&A already is, and the reason many people play it is not so much to satisfy a desire to re-live history per se, but rather to play out exactly those sort of wild fantasy world-conquering nightmare scenarios. You know the sort that were presented in the propaganda reels, that would probably make a more grounded historical realist pull their hair out, but which nevertheless make for an interesting game narrative.
The kind of thing shown in the two pictures below from the first of Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” films. The accompanying narration said, “There you have it, gents: all they left us was Shangri-La. And they’d claim that too if they knew where it was.”
Some Yamamoto’s adversaries within IJN had make believe he said this one:
Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. We would have to march into Washington and sign the treaty in the White House.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/search_results.html?q=Yamamoto+
I also read a long time ago about the 30 IPCs US War-time boost from Pacific, it was necessary because some japan’s player found a way to make a gambit raid over San Francisco on J2 or J3.
In fact, it was a kind of an incredible Japanese Sea-Lion.
It was allowed to Germany on UK, but a game broken for Japan.
Is there any way to make it possible.
@Argothair, if Transport and Cruiser are allowed M3-4 from Naval Base, you totally increase troop mobility in game.
And maybe make this San Francisco invasion more feasible.
I cannot talk about KAF because it seems totally bad playing as USA to loose Washington to Japan.
And historically not very acceptable objective.
But, a USA conditional surrender might occurs if Japan grabs San Francisco 2 complete rounds in a row.
The best Japan could hope in WWII was a peace treaty leaving Japan doing as he wishes in Asia.
If San Francisco is firmly held, you can see it as USA is making peace treaty in exchange of recovering Western US.
Because half the country being traumatized by japanese invasion, the people of USA making pressure to find an agreement with Japan.
And Japan then get what he wanted.
That would make a plausible scenario IMO.
So this one below can be tried out someway then:
Japan needs a way to get into North America. I think this would benefit the gameplay, and be more satisfying historically (or at least as satisfying for an alternate history as the Center Crush is.) Invasion USA, it’s always the Axis players dream hehe. To do that Japan needs 2 things… Income from the island territories that are along the route into N. America, and a credible threat against W. US Production (ie. A way to get Japanese production closer to the continental US.)
In 1942.2 this would I think require that the factory be given +2 bonus, and built anywhere, including valueless islands. Conceived as an abstract land base. Maybe just +2 for the purposes of spawning infantry, but they need something to match the US in hitpoints.
In G40 it probably requires that the minor factory (or some extra land base outpost type unit) provide a similar option to expand production anywhere on the map. Again, so that Japan has at least some way to spawn hitpoints closer to North American target territories.
Or you go M3 with transports.
Or all these ideas at the same time.Then Japan would have a real alternative to the Center crush, a strategy that would have the same kind of impact as taking Moscow and putting Russia out of play.
@CWO:
But I’ll readily admit, I think that’s what A&A already is, and the reason many people play it is not so much to satisfy a desire to re-live history per se, but rather to play out exactly those sort of wild fantasy world-conquering nightmare scenarios. You know the sort that were presented in the propaganda reels, that would probably make a more grounded historical realist pull their hair out, but which nevertheless make for an interesting game narrative.
The kind of thing shown in the two pictures below from the first of Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” films. The accompanying narration said, “There you have it, gents: all they left us was Shangri-La. And they’d claim that too if they knew where it was.”
Haha yeah, I guess that’s where I was going with it.
:-D
I suppose as a thought experiment, we could imagine how WW2 might have looked, if the American response to initial Japanese aggression played out as it often does in the actual game… Like “Screw Hawaii! Lets recall the Pacific fleet and send it through the Panama canal. Close all the shipyards on the west coast, we’re going to go 100% Atlantic and make no effort to deal with Japan at all until Berlin is ours!”
It’s laughable, but this is how things go in most A&A games. If the IJN was totally uncontested in the Pacific, either by the USN or the Royal Navy, then they probably would have had a lot more options.
I take all L. Hoffmans points to heart. I know this invasion USA suggestion is kind of ridiculous, but then again, it’s kind of a ridiculous game. I love it, but I still know what I’m in for when I play.
If I say Japan needs a way into North America, I’m mainly talking about under these sort of all-or-nothing KGF conditions. It doesn’t need to be a shoe-in every game, just possible. Essentially as a deterrent against the kind of magnified KGF play by the US that we often see, and as an enticement to the dual theater war. Something similar should be possible if the US totally ignores Germany in favor of a KJF. In such situations Germany should have a more realistic option on London, or even North America itself. If Japan goes after America full force, and the Allies respond in kind, the Pacific should stalemate, but then Russia should be stronger to do something in Europe. If Russia throws in on the Pacific too, for a full KJF, then Germany should be stronger to do something vs UK.
Right now the seesaw of pacific power is weighted in such a way, that one kid can jump off and run to the other side of the playground while the other just stays aloft, defying gravity and whatnot.
:-D
Perhaps I’m conflating the G40 experience a bit too much with 1942.2, and the other previous editions, but it does seem to come up quite a bit in A&A. I agree that the G40 play pattern is somewhat more satisfying than what we see on the smaller board, but it still feels rather one dimensional on Japan’s part.
OK so if invasion USA is unlikely to please anyone who cares for realism, and considering that even the designers were willing to throw 30 ipcs at USA out of nowhere to prevent it from happening on the Pacific board, I’ll probably have to settle for second best… :-D
But how do you give Japan a way to mess with UK directly, when the Pacific economy is separated off like it is OOB? India tends to suck resources from UK, rather than providing resources, and whether Anzac lives or dies doesn’t really have much impact on the what the UK can do in Europe. All these things come as a consequence of the Pacific being set up as a separate stand alone game, such that what happens in the PTO doesn’t have much bearing on how the UK itself performs in the ATO.
Perhaps what is needed is more movement away from the separate Pacific game effect? Like providing a clearer connection between the UK economy, and that of India/Anzac?
Right now the way the objectives are worded, UK only gets a bonus for things that happen in the ATO, and India/Anzac only get bonuses for things that happen in the PTO.
What if this was reversed?
UK gets bonuses for things that happen in the Pacific, and India/Anzac get bonuses for things that happen in Europe? Or what if all the objectives were reworded, so that the bonuses apply to the team as a whole (or the other members of the team), rather than the individual nation? Instead of accomplishing the goals for yourself, you accomplish them for your teammates. Maybe that would create a more integrated global dynamic, and tie the two theaters together in a more satisfying way, with more variety for the gameplay?
Well at least it got the band back together.
:-D
Haha, yes it did! I love the chance to argue about something intelligently with other smart people.
To be sure, I knew there would not be agreement about this.
You are talking about changing the fundamental dynamics of the game and taking it farther away from its historical basis. It becomes less about WWII and more like a world conquering game set in the 1940s.
Basically, sure.
:evil:But I’ll readily admit, I think that’s what A&A already is, and the reason many people play it is not so much to satisfy a desire to re-live history per se, but rather to play out exactly those sort of wild fantasy world-conquering nightmare scenarios. You know the sort that were presented in the propaganda reels, that would probably make a more grounded historical realist pull their hair out, but which nevertheless make for an interesting game narrative.
The promise of the game is that you can take control and reshape world history. It’s pretty brazen in that regard, and relies heavily on a suspension of disbelief, whether we’re talking about a 1940 or 1942 start date.
We’ve discussed at length the improbablity or outright impossibility of Japan doing several things in reality, which occur as a matter of course in the OOB game. My thought there is that, if Japan can sack Moscow in game and people just shrug, then its at least as reasonable to allow them a North American campaign isn’t it? Of course I’m not unhinged enough to suggest that this was a likely outcome in WW2, I’m just trying to be equitable. If the game allows for one historical delusion, and is basically built around it, why not the other?
Agreed. A&A is just a boardgame with the premise of creating your own history, so we need to acknowledge that. I didn’t mean for my comments to imply that I was against Japan ever being able to invade the US or do anything that would have been historically implausible. If I am playing Japan and have the opportunity to take the Western US or Moscow or whatever else, I am definitely going to do it. It’s part of the game and that is completely fine.
What I was trying to emphasize is that taking the Western US/Washington DC is very difficult for Japan to do for some very natural reasons. To reduce that difficulty arbitrarily, just because we want to see some new strategies, is probably not helpful to the game and certainly doesn’t reflect the subtext of reality that the game is built on. It ceases to be about WWII (and the objectives for the nations involved) and more about some made up scenario with disproportionately exaggerated territory values and fictitious production centers/bases being part of the starting setup.
Probably my invasion USA push was a stretch here, the argument in its favor is maybe too hyperbolic, since it assumes the acceptance of some historical curves that are already pretty crazy in the OOB game.
:-DPerhaps as Argothair suggests, KBF is an easier way to go for a secondary alternative to the Center crush. But I still think we’re missing out a bit on some fun potential gameplay, by putting invasion USA totally off the table for Japan.
KBF is something I considered very briefly as an alternative. Yes, it does still involve Japan moving into Asia or maybe swinging around to Africa, but this is something that could actually be done given the current motivations in the OOB game. It wouldn’t require altering territory values, production centers or offering other incentives to make it work, like you would need for a KAF strategy. Again, it’s not that an Axis KAF strategy is wrong to have period, because you can engineer one OOB. It’s when you feel the need to manipulate elements of the game to allow for it that it is an indication maybe KAF just doesn’t work well for a reason, and that is okay. Not every path can or should be equally plausible to victory. Unfortunately, that does limit Japan’s viable options, but you can’t help that if you want to stay true to the basis of the game.
I suppose as a thought experiment, we could imagine how WW2 might have looked, if the American response to initial Japanese aggression played out as it often does in the actual game… Like “Screw Hawaii! Lets recall the Pacific fleet and send it through the Panama canal. Close all the shipyards on the west coast, we’re going to go 100% Atlantic and make no effort to deal with Japan at all until Berlin is ours!”
It’s laughable, but this is how things go in most A&A games. If the IJN was totally uncontested in the Pacific, either by the USN or the Royal Navy, then they probably would have had a lot more options.
True. Certainly this course of action would never have gone over in reality. Japan attacked the US, so fighting them back was a far more important emotional matter for the American public than fighting Germany was. The game does not model historical politics well at all. The level of cooperation among the Axis and the Allies to achieve their side’s in game objectives is ridiculous. It is after all a boardgame played among friends, often sitting across the table from one another. There are no unknowns, no ulterior political machinations, ideological motivations and no moral concerns (or morale concerns). Abandoning soldiers on the board or sending them on missions of certain annihilation are not even given a second thought. So this isn’t a computer model for the plausible outcomes of World War II.
If we really want a more representative function of how the war was fought, I think the first thing that must be done is to somehow separate the Allies. Their level of cooperation in-game is nothing like it was in reality. Even though the UK, USA and USSR were political allies, their operating relationship was often strained or confused. This was due a little to distance, but more so to Communism vs Capitalism. Axis & Allies and the Second World War should truly be framed as a tri-sided conflict: Capitalist Powers (USA, UK, ANZAC) vs Communist Powers (USSR, China) vs Fascist Powers (GER, ITA, JPN). The Capitalists and Communists would team up to fight the Fascists, but their scope of interaction would be curtailed and they would have competing objectives. You could break this out further to the point where Japan is on its own leg of the ‘Fascists’ and GER/ITA would be the other. But since they don’t often interact in G40 as-is, leaving them all together may work out alright and would be simpler.
I take all L. Hoffmans points to heart. I know this invasion USA suggestion is kind of ridiculous, but then again, it’s kind of a ridiculous game. I love it, but I still know what I’m in for when I play.
If I say Japan needs a way into North America, I’m mainly talking about under these sort of all-or-nothing KGF conditions. It doesn’t need to be a shoe-in every game, just possible. Essentially as a deterrent against the kind of magnified KGF play by the US that we often see, and as an enticement to the dual theater war. Something similar should be possible if the US totally ignores Germany in favor of a KJF. In such situations Germany should have a more realistic option on London, or even North America itself. If Japan goes after America full force, and the Allies respond in kind, the Pacific should stalemate, but then Russia should be stronger to do something in Europe. If Russia throws in on the Pacific too, for a full KJF, then Germany should be stronger to do something vs UK.
Right now the seesaw of pacific power is weighted in such a way, that one kid can jump off and run to the other side of the playground while the other just stays aloft, defying gravity and whatnot.
:-DPerhaps I’m conflating the G40 experience a bit too much with 1942.2, and the other previous editions, but it does seem to come up quite a bit in A&A. I agree that the G40 play pattern is somewhat more satisfying than what we see on the smaller board, but it still feels rather one dimensional on Japan’s part.
You are getting into the balance aspect here, which seems to be one of your overall goals in making modifications. That is admirable and on the whole I think it is what we should strive for: a fairness in the mechanics which gives players of similar skill level a roughly equal shot at winning the game. However, I don’t think that level of fairness should extend to everyone having equal (viable) options with the same implied results. Just because the USA can go either Pacific or Atlantic doesn’t mean that Japan should also be able to go Asia or Pacific and have the same effect that the USA has in their choice.
I can see that what you are getting at is: Japan’s strategic decision should impact the game as much as the USA’s strategic decision, thus making one have to react to the other. Currently, if Japan goes Pacific, it is the USA’s choice to either fight them or ignore them for the most part. That is simply a function of a geographic advantage that the US has. I personally think it is wrong to change that, just because we want Japan to have more influence over the game.
Much of what you point out above about responding in kind and one side going all in on another and the resultant balancing effect already happens in the game, IMO. If Germany goes all KBF, let alone if they went KAF, Russia will get bigger and threaten them. This already happens. (EDIT: Similar if US were to go all KJF and ignore Germany. It depends on the individual game, but generally Germany/Italy can fight and win against just UK/USSR, so the US already has that compelling them to balance their efforts.) However there are multiple exceptions to this effect, all due to geography. UK can’t really do either KJF or KGF because they have a split economy and are all over the world rather than in just one spot. The USSR can, and usually does, go all KGF and can ignore Japan completely. In both cases, geography of the world is what dictates these ‘strategies’. There is either a tremendous amount of buffer space and an undeveloped threat (Russia vs Japan) or your production is split up around the world in hot spots of combat, forcing you to spread out and fight everywhere (UK vs JPN/GER/ITA).
The one you are concerned about is Japan, because they appear to have very little power against the USA and only one option for strategy (JCC). If the USA goes all Europe, Japan can run wild in the Pacific and gobble up everything. Yet Japan is still mostly unable to threaten the continental US; there is no balancing factor. Your assertion is that (to keep the USA honest), the game needs to be altered to allow Japan to have more power and thus force the USA into playing along. Fair enough, but I submit that we should try to alter the US player’s incentives to fight Japan, rather than beef up Japan’s ability to fight the US. I think the Hawaii rule I presented earlier will achieve this more simply and accurately than artificially providing Japan more money to bust down the door to the USA with brute force.
The USA is a unique Power in that its significant geographic isolation and large production capacity make it something of a Kingmaker in this game. They can control the flow and focus of the game more than any other Power because they have options in their time, space and money. No other Powers have that luxury. Just because the US does have it, doesn’t mean it is wrong or that Japan or anyone else should also have that influence.
FWIW. Although it has been a group effort, I consider the G40 revision thread and SF Rules to be a Black_Elk property of sorts. Thanks for the great conversation though! 8-)
Perhaps what is needed is more movement away from the separate Pacific game effect? Like providing a clearer connection between the UK economy, and that of India/Anzac?
Right now the way the objectives are worded, UK only gets a bonus for things that happen in the ATO, and India/Anzac only get bonuses for things that happen in the PTO.
What if this was reversed?
UK gets bonuses for things that happen in the Pacific, and India/Anzac get bonuses for things that happen in Europe? Or what if all the objectives were reworded, so that the bonuses apply to the team as a whole (or the other members of the team), rather than the individual nation? Instead of accomplishing the goals for yourself, you accomplish them for your teammates. Maybe that would create a more integrated global dynamic, and tie the two theaters together in a more satisfying way, with more variety for the gameplay?
Couldn’t agree more! Either unite the UK economy and limit gamey “I spend my entire UK income in Singapore” builds with more intelligent production caps that are baked into the definition of how a factory works, or reverse the NOs so that Anzac / Indian goals feed money to London and vice versa.
Perhaps what is needed is more movement away from the separate Pacific game effect? Like providing a clearer connection between the UK economy, and that of India/Anzac?
Right now the way the objectives are worded, UK only gets a bonus for things that happen in the ATO, and India/Anzac only get bonuses for things that happen in the PTO.
What if this was reversed?
UK gets bonuses for things that happen in the Pacific, and India/Anzac get bonuses for things that happen in Europe? Or what if all the objectives were reworded, so that the bonuses apply to the team as a whole (or the other members of the team), rather than the individual nation? Instead of accomplishing the goals for yourself, you accomplish them for your teammates. Maybe that would create a more integrated global dynamic, and tie the two theaters together in a more satisfying way, with more variety for the gameplay?
Couldn’t agree more! Either unite the UK economy and limit gamey “I spend my entire UK income in Singapore” builds with more intelligent production caps that are baked into the definition of how a factory works, or reverse the NOs so that Anzac / Indian goals feed money to London and vice versa.
I find both KEF and “KAF” quite interesting options to discuss.
For my part, a plausible “what if” scenario would apply differently to USA case than others.
I can imagine Japan holding India and Australia while Germany launching Sea-Lion. So it is a real KEF.
However, USA captured capitol and San Francisco VC is mere fantasy and usually bad rolls and bad plays.
I know Barney increased action for all Pacific Islands with at least 1 IPC each.
Assuming more an Industrial and Progress Credit than Industrial Production Certificate.
Assuming there can be more challenge via NOs and increase values in PTO, what do you think of this special San Francisco conquest rule:
If Japan can conquered San Francisco two times or hold it for 2 game rounds in a row, then USA is considered broken morale and signed up a peace treaty with Japan.
Washington can no longer produce units to go forward but act in war against other Axis belligerents as Washington was taken and can no longer collect income. US Citizens riots and anti-war party arises so no new conscript to fight in WWII. (Think of it as similar to Viet Nam War.) North Viet Nam didn’t win the war against US. US citizen simply convinced the US government to cut dry army resources for this far away foreign war. Then Chinese supported North Viet Nam overwhelmed South Viet Nam.
Let’s suppose something similar would have happen and Isolationism begun to take precedence in local politic once Japan kill USWestern Coasters and Emperor demand for peace.
What do you think?
After all, politics was part of G40.
OK hows this for an idea? Instead of awarding objective bonuses on a per turn basis, what if it happened all at once, at the end of each game round?
For specific objectives I would run down the list OOB, determine how many are active in any given game, and use that to determine what the total economic boost needs to be for each nation to make them functional. Then get rid off all OOB objectives. Replace the national objectives with Team objectives and a more integrated (bonus/penalty) system that does something similar in terms of economic weight, but which is more “international” in theme. I would have no more than a dozen total for each side, and award them all at the same time, during the end of the game round.
Create a new special group phase at the end of each round called the “Victory Phase.”
During this phase, all objectives are tallied up, and the bonus cash distributed to the teams. Teams can then use a simplified War Bonds/Lend-Lease mechanic, where this international objective money can be pooled and distributed as needed for the following round. During the Victory Phase, you can also include any bonuses based on VC/Capital control.
The idea here is to make the end of each game round a time to pause, confer with the team, assess overall progress, and determine where both sides are along the path to victory.
This way you get a natural break every round, instead of trying to pack all this stuff into every nations normal turn, and the war bonds/lend lease/material aid idea provides a gameplay element to cap the round, something which is currently lacking.
Right now the money from objectives is pretty lopsided OOB. UK/Russia basically receive nothing, while the USA receives a huge boost. ANZAC AND China are pretty middling. On the Axis side it’s rather similar, Japan gets comparatively little, while Germany and Italy are majorly affected by the objective cash. There are a lot of wasted lines in the rules, for objectives that rarely come into play. I’d streamline all of this stuff, and put it into a single phase at the end of the round. The Victory Phase. Something more engaging and team oriented than what we currently have OOB.
That’s extremely interesting, Black Elk. I agree with you that the turns need some kind of “capstone” that gives you a sense that you’ve reached the end of the chapter, as well as a ritual opportunity for the team as a whole to check in with its members and discuss overall strategy goals.
There’s an opportunity for elegance in tying the national objectives to the lend-lease mechanic: let each team distribute its national objectives to any/all members as it sees fit, and that’s the only lend/lease you can do. The more you achieve your objectives, the more you can engage in lend-lease; each nation is guaranteed to collect and required to spend whatever income it generates by virtue of occupying territory, but each nation may share (or receive) the additional income generated by fulfilling national objectives.
The lingering question is whether players will really be incentivized to distribute their cash in ways that strike us as historically plausible and/or dramatically compelling. Like, let’s say ANZAC chalks up a few solid victories in the opening, and so Britain is now achieving the ANZAC-related objectives. Meanwhile, Germany is kicking butt in the North Atlantic, so the Axis are now achieving the Scandinavia-based national objectives. Where will each team invest the resulting cash? Is there any force tending to prevent 100% of that cash from going directly toward a center crush in every single game? E.g., can’t the Allies just decide to give the cash earned by ANZAC to Russia so it can drop more infantry in the Caucasus? And can’t the Axis just decide to give the cash earned by northern Germany to Italy, so that Italy can ferry more tanks to Trans-Jordan?
How does letting players freely determine where to assign cash from National Objectives lead to the interesting strategic “fork” where the Axis can choose between KBF and KRF while the Allies choose between KGF and KJF?
Is KJF ever a winning strategy?
Just trying to imagine further how such a system might look. Lets say that OOB in a given round, something on the order of 30-40 ipcs enter play each round via objective bonuses. Pre-DoW you can Ballpark it at around 15 ipcs reliably to each team, with the Lion’s share going to US/Japan at peace. After the DoW, a bigger slice of the pie is going to the US consistently per round.
So starting pretty small, lets say that one of the most basic team objectives is control of Victory Cities (since these are what is supposed to win the game for either side.) That would be 19 ipcs per round, distributed between the two teams. There are 19 across the map, 14 starting under Allied control, 5 under Axis control. With total war conditions, the Axis will pick up 3 more in fairly short order. So lets just say 8 to Axis on average, vs 11 to Allies, during the early game.
With a very modest bonus +1 ipc per VC under team’s control, you’d have a fairly even split for most of the game.
I’d say the VC cash for each team can be distributed however the team chooses. For example, if the Allies want to send it all to Russia or Anzac, fine. If Axis want to send it all to Italy no problem. If they want to give it to the team member who is currently running the board instead of the little guys, no prob. If the teams want to split it up more evenly between each nation, again that’s their prerogative.
The VC warchest then allows each team a way to focus their spending for whatever strategy they’re trying to pursue. But the total amount is necessarily limited by the total number of VCs on the map, so it’s not too over powered. Once the decision is made at the end of each round, the team has to stick to it, at least until the next round concludes (so no revising where the money goes mid-round, based on the results of individual turns.) I think +1 per VC would be enough to be pretty interesting, though I suppose you could go higher if you wanted. Perhaps +1 for normal VCs and +2 just for Capital VC, or something along those lines. This VC Warchest money during the Victory Phase, would be a way to reinforce the overall victory conditions for each side.
Definitely ditch the OOB Victory Conditions, which are painful right now anyway. Currently they read like this (tripleA wording)…
To win with the following victory conditions, a side must maintain it for a complete round of play and must also control at least one of its own capital cities.
Axis Victory: 8 European Victory Cities OR 6 Pacific Victory Cities where at least one is Rome/Berlin/Japan.
Allied Victory: Berlin and Rome and Japan are under allied control and allies maintain control of one of their own capitals.
Those have to go. At least the second one has to go. We want a way for Allies to win too right?
Giving the VC’s a +1 and turning that cash into a lend-lease type situation for the team, you would still have room to do national stuff as well, to balance the individual nations/theater, but at least you’d have the VC win and the material aid concept built into the gameplay for a change.
Ps. If you don’t like sudden death VC wins, then perhaps you could have a doubling mechanism for the VC warchest? Like after you pass a certain threshold, each VC is worth +5 instead of +1 or something major. Then maybe it could replace the capital capture dynamic somewhat in significance for the team?
Going still further. The VC war chest distribution in FtF could conceivably be revealed simultaneously, but that would not work for tripleA or play by forums or email. So I would suggest that “the reveal” during the Victory Phase should alternate each round. Starting first with the Axis (for initiaive), then the Allies.
At the close of each odd round, Axis declare their bonus income distribution first.
At the close of each even round, Allies declare their bonus distribution first.
That way the response/initiative advantage is equitable for both sides over the course of the game. This would also create thematic round breaks, Axis vs Allies, where the teams alternate position in the warchest driver’s seat.
I rather like the idea of keeping the VC warchest at the +1 scale at least until the endgame, since it seems more manageable. But during the endgame (let’s say past the threshold of 15 VCs for either side) then you might kick off a doubling mechanic, or something which makes the VC warchest income swing more dramatic. Under such a scheme taking Manila or Cairo or Paris etc might start to look on par with Capital capture, so you could have climaxes that don’t necessitate sudden death, but which nevertheless start to put one side seriously ahead in the overall economic advantage.
Whatever the optimal number is for a VC balance, then you could have that be the number beyond which it doubles from +1 per VC, to +2 per VC for that side. So perhaps Axis doubling occurs at 12 VCs, Allies at 15 VCs, or whatever numbers makes sense on balance. Or you could have it so that the Allies start out doubling, and the Axis knock them down below their threshold in the opening rounds. Something like that. But the idea is to make the last VC on the threshold something truly significant to the gameplay, on par with Capital Capture. Such that any VC could be like a mini capital under this scheme, once the threshold is crossed.
If you wanted to retain the current national objectives scheme on a per turn basis, then you could do so. Though I would reword many of these, to create a more desireable balance with the VC War chest/Victory Phase considered. And also just to simplify the NOs and make them more international in scope.
It definitely worth to explore.
I wonder about how you would pay for NOs.
Taking notes a certain situation occurs during round of specific owner or just the last picture of
Last power to play.
Well right now perhaps we should explore how the Victory Phase might work in isolation. Because the same concept could then be used in 1942.2 as well (a game which doesn’t have NOs.)
Let’s say that in 1942.2 the VC warchest doubles at 9 VCS?
I think this could actually work pretty well on that board as a stand alone. 13 ipcs would enter play at the close of each round, split pretty much down the middle.
In Global you might have to have a separate number for Axis vs Allies, but it could work much the same. Then you could still have normal NOs in G40 if desired, but you’d have an actual gameplay mechanic to compliment the ultimate Victory conditions, something beyond just capital capture or sudden death, which uses all these VCs scattered across the map.
:-D
This would be a very simple edit in tripleA.
At the end of each game round, the game master edits “Change PU” and awards the bonus +1 per VC to each side.
Axis first in Odd rounds, then Allies.
Allies first in Even rounds, then Axis.
Then all that remains, is to determine what the appropriate win number is for each team. When they achieve control of that many VCs, the number for the bonus jumps from +1 per VC to +2 per VC. This allows for an endgame economic driver, based on VCs, but which would allow players to opt out of sudden death if desired, and go by concession instead. I think it would prove a popular hybrid for many players. Gets the VCs into the gameplay on an ongoing basis (not just at the very end), but they become considerably more important as one team or the other approaches/surpasses their Victory threshold.
Alright so for 1942.2…
On the map are twelve victory cities crucial to the war effort. The
Allies begin the game controlling Washington, London, Leningrad, Moscow, Calcutta, Honolulu, and San Francisco. The Axis powers
begin the game controlling Berlin, Paris, Rome, Shanghai, Manila, and Tokyo.
:-D
For each victory city controlled at the end of the game round, +1 ipc will be awarded to the team’s War Chest. This income may be distributed however the players on the team choose, and may be interpreted as war bonds, lend-lease, material aid etc. for the broader war effort.
At the close of each round both teams will declare how they wish their VC War Chest to be distributed for the following round. Once declared the income is added to the national incomes for the team. At the close of odd rounds the Axis will declare first. At the close of even rounds the Allies will declare first.
The first victory condition is if your side controls nine (9) victory cities at the end of a complete round of play (after the completion of the U.S. turn), your War Chest bonus is doubled from +1 to +2 ipcs per victory city controlled.
At this point the team controlling 9 VCs may declare a major victory. The opponent is then offered the choice to concede or play on. If they choose to continue the next levels of resolution are:
Decisive Game at 10 VCs.
Glorious Game at 11 VCs.
Historic Game at 12 VCs.
Last Man Standing 13 VCs.
At each game level, the underdog may receive a one time bonus to their team War Chest “Final Defense”, if they choose to play on. [Amount to be determined?] If they convert their defense into a major victory, the War Chest resets.
This way we have some kind of built in way to both call the game, and allow it to continue. The War Chest could also be used as a tracker if desired, as a way to tally overall game scores. It could also be made progressive if desired (+1 ipc per round, or +1 ipc every other round, +1 ipc every 5 rounds etc). Could see several options here.
For Global 1940…
You could do much the same, while still preserving NO’s, Capital Capture etc, or using new NO’s or other victory mechanics (like the R&D methods proposed elsewhere.) So its more of an all purpose HR, that might be used with other ideas.
There are some brilliant ideas in here, and then there are some less fully-developed ones. I’ll stick to 1942.2 since that’s what I know best.
I think a +1 IPC bonus per VC per full game turn in “flexdollars” (as we used to call them at the college dining halls) that can be assigned to any nation is great. It’s a great way to keep players interested in the victory cities during the game, and it helps cushion Russia against an early knockout. I also love the idea of a major, ongoing cash bonus triggering when one side has achieved a critical threshold of victory cities – as you say, a big cash bonus to the leading team encourages and accelerates the end of the game without requiring an immediate surrender, which is exactly the effect we’re looking for.
Let’s see how this plays out in practice.
In most games, Germany will quickly take Leningrad, and no other VCs will change hands for the first few turns. Eventually Calcutta will fall to the Japanese, but around that time, America should be able to start trading Paris. So, for most of the game, the Axis will have 7 VCs and the Allies will have 6 VCs. Russia will be getting +6 IPCs on just about every turn in most games, which will help their defense more than an extra +7 IPCs placed in Berlin or Kwangtung, because defense is cheaper, and because the extra Russian infantry can be dropped directly into Moscow/Stalingrad, without having to march anywhere. That’s all fine with me; should keep things interesting.
The problem comes in the endgame. Let’s say the Allies start to get the drop on the Germans, and they liberate first Paris (turn 5?), then Rome (turn 7?), and finally Leningrad (turn 9?). If India has fallen to Japan without direct compensation, then that still puts the Allies at only 8 VCs – not enough to collect the big cash bonus. The Allies have to either take Berlin, hold India out to at least turn 9, or take a VC away from the Japanese in order to get to 9 VCs. If you take Berlin, that’s a major capital capture, so you’re not really adding anything to the de facto standard victory conditions. If you hold India to turn 9 in a KGF game while seizing most of western Europe and protecting Moscow, then Japan has probably screwed something up somewhere pretty heavily. Ditto if you manage to take Manila or Shanghai away from Japan while also seizing western Europe – the Allies really shouldn’t have enough cash in the first ten turns of the game to win control of the western Pacific Ocean while also landing enough loaded transports in France/Rome to actually beat back the German garrisons there.
Let’s flip things around, and say that Germany has the edge in the endgame. They win the Battle of the Bulge, push the Americans back into the sea, and hold Paris, Rome, and Leningrad. Meanwhile, the Japanese take Calcutta. That still only puts the Axis at 8 VCs. To get to 9 VCs, the Axis have to take Moscow, Honolulu, or London. If they take Moscow, that’s a capital capture, so, again, you’re not really changing the de facto standard victory conditions. If Japan takes both Honolulu and Calcutta in the first ten turns while also putting enough pressure on Russia to let Germany hold western Europe, then America probably screwed up – it’s not that hard for America to deadzone Pearl Harbor. You build a couple of subs and a couple of fighters in San Diego as needed, and Japan really shouldn’t be able to spare the cash to build a large enough fleet to take and hold Honolulu; it’s a non-trivial expense. And London is just silly – London never falls in a 1942.2 game. I had a game last week where Russia failed to capture any territories on R1, and I had Germany build a Baltic fleet with 3 transports and position the entire Luftwaffe in range of London, in a full-dice game, and London still wasn’t seriously threatened.
The point of all these details is that it’s absurdly hard to get to 9 VP in a game of 1942.2 without capturing a capital or being in such a crushingly dominant position that any sane player will acknowledge that you’ve won the game. If anything, by the time you get up to 9 VP, the losing team is often already bored and demoralized.
I’m not sure that 8 VP would work any better, though. 8 VP is too easy! The Germans seize Leningrad, the Japanese steal Honolulu for a turn, and BOOM! instant cash bonus. The British grab France for one turn, the Americans suicide a transport to take Manila for a turn, and BOOM! instant cash bonus. It’s too easy for one side or the other to get a ‘cheap’ infusion of cash by unsustainably grazing the 8 VP threshold.
Maybe you could interpret that as the “morale boost” from making major progress on your campaigns, but then when you get pushed back away from your “gains”, shouldn’t you have to refund the money to represent your now-sagging morale? It seems artificial and game-y to me. Yes, I know we’re discussing a game. Grrrr.
Anyway, I think to make this idea work in 1942.2 you’d need more victory cities on the map. It’s a really cool idea, but there’s no useful place to draw the line where your VC cash would suddenly double.
Also, if you give a cash bonus to the losing team to reward their decision not to surrender, then you’re pulling on the rope from both ends, and I think you wind up wasting your efforts and getting sweaty without moving the rope anywhere. If Germany is losing and you want to put pressure on Germany to accelerate the end of the game, fine, give the Allies more cash. If Germany is losing and you want to give Germany a boost to help it sustain the resistance, fine, give Germany more cash. But don’t do both at once; that’s just a way to prolong an already long game by giving both sides more cash at a time when the game should be winding down, and forcing both sides to do some fresh thinking about how to spend that extra cash. You’re also giving the losing player false hope – if I get a one-time defensive bonus, and you get an every-turn offensive bonus, then it’s just a matter of time before you crush me. Even if I can momentarily knock you down to 8 VPs with my “Final Defense” cash, you’ll go right back up to 9 VPs once the purchases you made with your “Major Victory” cash catch up to the front lines, and then you’ll get even more Major Victory cash that you can use to take my capital.
Yeah it’s pretty hard to work in the 13 VC spread. Would have been easier if we had 18 VCs like AA50. Probably a shot in the dark there, trying to find a way to keep the underdog in it till the bitter end, lets shelve that for now and just keep to the basics.
If 9 VCs is too high for 1942.2 to accomplish what we want, and the main thrust of the game is already decided at that point, then maybe 8 VCs is still workable?… if the bonus doesn’t double, but just scales up/down for the two teams in some other more moderate way?
Like when you cross the 8 VC threshold, you get a one time bonus? Or perhaps deny the War Chest to the enemy, but just for that round? Ideally you’d have a situation where the second tier of VCs (Rome and Honolulu in particular) come into the War Chest equation with more significance, something that gives a better swing to indicate a launch from the mid-game into the end-game.
ps. Perhaps another option would be not to count the Capitals in the spread for 1942.2? So only the 8 Victory cities that aren’t capitals count for the Warchest. Then you’ve got 4 vs 4 at the outset. in 1942.2 that might recommend just a flat bonus for the non-capital VCs at whatever level seems best for that map, maybe +2 per VC to the Warchest? For G40 the situation is different though, since you’d want to bring Sydney and Rome and Paris into it for sure, and they are all Capital VCs on that map.
I’m not gonna lie, trying to make VCs actually work well as a victory mechanic, has been a source of consistent frustration for me hehe.
I’d probably settle for a War Chest mechanic that just makes them relevant to the gameplay, even if they still aren’t particularly useful for their stated purpose of determining who wins.
Main goals for 1942.2 would be to encourage players to conquer/defend the VCs that are actually in contention with more vigor and commitment, Rome, Paris, Honolulu, Leningrad, Manila esp. instead of just ignoring them in favor of Capitals exclusively. Taking Paris or Rome as an example, the Axis should really want to hold this territory till the end of the game round, every round for as long as possible, not trade it endlessly with UK/US until it starts to matter for sudden death. Similarly for Honolulu and Manila, you’d want the US to really fight to defend/recover these, so the Pacific VCs matter more economically (on an ongoing basis) relative the VCs at the Center or in Europe.
I think by putting this income into team Warchests, you get more gameplay interest out of a smaller amount of total IPCs, because these can be focused where they’re most needed. Creates a special class of separate VC income, that is more strategically valuable than normal income, on account of the way it can be distributed however the team wishes. I also like the idea that the VC territory has to be held till the end of the round, to count towards the team bonus.
Even if we didn’t change from the stated OOB victory conditions, at least this would make those little red dots more meaningful to the gameplay, while the game is actually still going on.
:-D
Cool idea. I assume this is all based on keeping the VCs shown on the OOB boards for 42.2 and G40.
If the board was at all to be changed or added to, you could have tiers of VCs denoted by different colors, maybe not counting capitals which would be in a category by themselves. You would have minor VCs (Warsaw, Nanking?, Kiev) worth +1 and major VCs (Stalingrad, Singapore, Cairo) worth +2. That would necessitate some changes to the board and probably addition of cities.
