@SuperbattleshipYamato I like the ideas/rules you mentioned. I will follow through on triple a.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
So just in case it is possible to add VCs via a tech edit, what is the optimal number/victory spread for both boards?
For 1942.2 I think at the very least the AA50 VCs should be available. That gives us 18 total… Adds Stalingrad, Warsaw, Hong Kong, Sydney, Ottawa (this last always struck me as a poor choice, more for a Canadian nod than gameplay interest, but what can you do hehe). Again though, this just doesn’t seem terribly exciting, doing a rehash of the same thing that’s been done already in AA50. The next progression would be to backload all 19 Global VCs into 1942.2, throwing Cairo as well. Still feels like it doesn’t add a whole lot that we haven’t already seen.
What if we went more extreme?
25 total VCs?
Is it even really even necessary to have a different number of VCs in 1942.2 and Global?
I mean we could conceivably use the same total number of cities, and the same victory spread for both maps, and make this be a point of consistency between the two boards. VCs aren’t that complicated of a concept, reducing the number involved doesn’t really make the game any simpler, increasing the number doesn’t really make it more difficult.
If the tech toggle works, you could just call it “25 VCs” and make the option available for either map.That would give us 6 new cities to work with (beyond what we see in global), so we could distribute these across the map in ways that provide the maximum amount of gameplay interest.
Top contenders?
IDK if we need that much VC.
Here is what I suggested earlier:
For 1942.2 Victory conditions can also be considered per each Theatre or for the whole map (20 VCs):
Instead of 9 VCs for Axis, it needs 7 VCs to win but per theatre or 12 VCs as a whole:Axis European 1942.2 VCs: Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw
Allies Western VCs: Rio of Janeiro (Brazil), Washington, Ottawa (Canada), London, Cape Town (South Africa), Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.
Axis Asian 1942.2 VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai, Manila,
Allies Eastern VCs: Calcutta, Sydney, Wellington (New Zealand), Honolulu, San Francisco.
Axis: 7 VCs
Allies: 13 VCsKeeping the end of game round phase, it is possible to give for each VC 1 IPC and 2 IPCs for each conquered VC.
Germany would get 4 IPCs
Japan 3 IPCs
Russia 3 IPCs
UK 6 IPCs
USA 4 IPCsWhile Allies Victory conditions might simply be capturing either Germany or Japan or 4 more Axis VCs from whole map (17 VCs out of 20).
I tried to add Singapore (for Strait importance, as Argothair and CWO Marc emphasized).
But it makes 21 VCs, I like 20 because it is a well-rounded number.I didn’t add Cairo but it is a stranglehold to access Cape Town.
So, Moscow, Stalingrad and Cape Town can be battled coordinated between Axis powers.Wellington should be part of VCs with Sydney to let US more time to prepare counter-strike before Japan secures his victory conditions.
So, southwest or southeast strategy would be available for Japan: Calcutta or San Francisco, if Honolulu, Sydney and Wellington are captured.Germany have to capture 3 more VCs amongst Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, London, Ottawa, Rio of Janeiro or Cape Town. Probably, besides all 3 russian VCs, it can be Rio or Cape Town instead of Moscow.
Also, it gives a cooperative victory if Japan takes two amongst Calcutta, Sydney, Wellington or Honolulu and gets either Moscow or Cape Town (total: 6 VCs).
(while Germany grabs Leningrad and Stalingrad, total: 6 VCs)Allies may also captured 4 amongst Paris, Rome, Warsaw, Hong Kong or Manila reaching 17 VCs. So, no need to take Tokyo or Berlin. But, it will not be easy because usually, one Axis power is growing monster.
It is still possible to add Cairo and Singapore into the mix of 22 VCs:
needs 8 VCs to win per theatre or 14 VCs as a whole:Axis European 1942.2 VCs: Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw
Allies Western VCs: Rio of Janeiro (Brazil), Washington, Ottawa (Canada), London, Cairo, Cape Town (South Africa), Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.
Axis Asian 1942.2 VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai, Manila, Singapore
Allies Eastern VCs: Calcutta, Sydney, Wellington (New Zealand), Honolulu, San Francisco.
Axis: 8 VCs
Allies: 14 VCsAt 1 IPC per VC,
Germany would get 4 IPCs
Japan 4 IPCs
Russia 3 IPCs
UK 7 IPCs
USA 4 IPCsIn that VCs configuration, both Axis power start with 4 VCs and have to capture 4 others to win.
Besides Leningrad, Stalingrad and Cairo, Germany must then either grasp Moscow or Cape Town or London. -
But territories like New Zealand, and Brazil are so far afield.
Isn’t that just like adding more Ottawas?
-
Regarding Victory Conditions, I want to pose a couple questions. There is no right or wrong answer, I just want to see what people think or how they play the game.
Is an Axis victory acceptable or legitimate if they do not take at least one of the 3 major Allied Capitals? (Do you think your Allied opponent would feel cheated in that he was not truly defeated and still had the ability to continue fighting and/or eventually win the game?)
OOB rules state that the Allies win by taking all 3 Axis Capitals. If the Allies took either Berlin or Tokyo (not both) and held the big 3 Allied Capitals, is that enough to declare Allied victory?
Should the Allies have have a victory condition in which they do not have to take either Berlin or Tokyo to win the game?
At this point I am just putting stream-of-consciousness into words. I don’t know the answers to these questions, but they are the core of the game. I can tell you what I think and how people I know normally play.
There is no such thing as a minor victory. The only victory cities that really matter are Tokyo, Berlin, Washington, Moscow and London. Maybe that is a holdover from starting out on Revised. If the the Allies take either Berlin or Tokyo, and retain their own capitals, the Allies win. If the Axis take any of the Allied capitals (and hold it more than one turn, while keeping their own), game over; Axis win. Most times victory is projected via the eye test.
This doesn’t go along with the rule book exactly, but it works for person-to-person play. You can examine the board, unit placements, turns, income and at a certain point see who is going to win. We all can do that, in everything but the tightest of games.
I asked the questions above because I think I may need to let go of some habits and defaulting to historical accuracy in order to allow the game to be more dynamic. I think the root cause of sameness among games is that victory is only considered legitimate if one of the enemy capitals are taken. This necessarily focuses efforts toward those goals. Most often this devolves into a Germany (and Japan) vs USSR game decision, principally because they already border each other. If a type of minor victory can be thought of as legitimate by all parties (not taking capitals to win), then I think it will open a lot of strategic possibilities and alternate ‘theaters of operation’ within the game.
-
But territories like New Zealand, and Brazil are so far afield.
Isn’t that just like adding more Ottawas?
Sydney and Wellington are both 1 SZ away from Guadalcanal and 2 SZs from Carolines Islands or Hawaii.
ANZAC can only have these two main VCs.
Conquering them incarnate the Japanese crushing 1 PTO enemy (minor) power.That one is a way to compel Japan to mainly fight in PTO.
Brazil in 1942.2 is a 3 IPCs TTy which is not that far from Gibraltar and had a lot of natural resources.
I agree Brazil is still far.
So what can be an other which is not in Germany TTy?P.S.
I tried to answered you Hoffmann but my Pad froze and I lost every words when I was upon to send it. :xIn too short: 1942.2 Allies mostly win by conquering 1 Capital while Axis win with economic like win via VCs captured.
Otherwise, it will remain a Center Crush on Russia.This necessarily focuses efforts toward those goals. Most often this devolves into a Germany (and Japan) vs USSR game decision, principally because they already border each other. If a type of minor victory can be thought of as legitimate by all parties (not taking capitals to win), then I think it will open a lot of strategic possibilities and alternate ‘theaters of operation’ within the game.
I agree on that one.
-
Yeah I can see how Wellington and Cape Town might be fun.
Rio still seems a little bit problematic, difficult to contest. I think the more VCs you have the less either of those would stand out. But there are many cities that would seem to jump ahead of it in line.
If it has to be Allied maybe Chunking or Vladivostok? Putting more VCs on the Center route, or Eastern front seems a bit counterproductive, though again if there were more total, it might make Athens or even Kiev or Minsk worth considering.
There are also territories on the German periphery that might work, like Oslo or Algiers or even something like Amsterdam. Provided the Allies can trade one of these on balance early on, until one of the others VCs comes into contention.
To me it seems like G40 at least could support an upscale over 20. I was willing to go over 20 even for the smaller board, just to add more flavor haha.
To LHoffman’s Q, I think I would accept game resolution that didn’t involve a capital if VCs had the economic bonus attached. Some may not call the game until Capital collapse, in which case it probably doesn’t matter how many we add, though again I think an economic bonus might make it more palatable for those who still prefer a game played to concession.
-
@Baron:
P.S.
I tried to answered you Hoffmann but my Pad froze and I lost every words when I was upon to send it. :xIn too short: 1942.2 Allies mostly win by conquering 1 Capital while Axis win with economic like win via VCs captured.
Otherwise, it will remain a Center Crush on Russia.This necessarily focuses efforts toward those goals. Most often this devolves into a Germany (and Japan) vs USSR game decision, principally because they already border each other. If a type of minor victory can be thought of as legitimate by all parties (not taking capitals to win), then I think it will open a lot of strategic possibilities and alternate ‘theaters of operation’ within the game.
I agree on that one.
Hate it when that happens!
To LHoffman’s Q, I think I would accept game resolution that didn’t involve a capital if VCs had the economic bonus attached. Some may not call the game until Capital collapse, in which case it probably doesn’t matter how many we add, though again I think an economic bonus might make it more palatable for those who still prefer a game played to concession.
Economic bonus for VCs would definitely help.
I was just admitting that I will need to change my perspective on how the game is played to be satisfied with a non-capital victory. I think a lot of people would feel the same way. If that perception can be changed or at least suspended, I think it opens up alternate avenues of play like you would really like to see Black_Elk. I think it would be kinda fun and new myself. It’s just that if an Allied capital always needs to fall, then I fear it will be the USSR (JCC/German USSR crush) 99% of the time, as usual.
-
So one of the things that happens in tripleA which I like, is that you can set the victory conditions beforehand in the game file options tab.
When a Victory is achieved a little prompt comes up at the end of the round saying ‘Allies/Axis Achieve victory (Major/Minor) with X number of VCs.’ A little audio clip plays with cheering fanfare hehe.
And then, perhaps more importantly, it asks If you want to end the game or play on.
Sometimes you can scan the digital board, and it’s pretty easy to say, “well yup, looks like they won.” Other times its like “Hell no! Let’s not throw in the towel just yet. There’s still beer, and no work tomorrow!” And then you play longer till unconditional surrender.
But at least up until that point, there is a bit more incentive to pay attention to the VC’s.
Even still, sometimes it jumps out at you, like wait a minute, when did they get another VC?!?
Which is where the bonus would really help.Especially if it occurred at the end of the game round.
I’m really hoping this may be possible, and not too difficult to include. Because then you have some advanced warning. Like “Uh oh, how are they raking in so much dough!? Come on team, we need to focus on VCs next round! So we don’t lose!”
:-DFor that I think having the message delivered to all players at once, with cash, will go a long way towards encouraging closer tracking.
I still think we could go higher on total count to 24 or 25 or whatever.
Or just have 2 options, one with a lower VC total and one with a higher VC total. -
Yeah I can see how Wellington and Cape Town might be fun.
Rio still seems a little bit problematic, difficult to contest. I think the more VCs you have the less either of those would stand out. But there are many cities that would seem to jump ahead of it in line.
If it has to be Allied maybe Chunking or Vladivostok? Putting more VCs on the Center route, or Eastern front seems a bit counterproductive, though again if there were more total, it might make Athens or even Kiev or Minsk worth considering.
There are also territories on the German periphery that might work, like Oslo or Algiers or even something like Amsterdam. Provided the Allies can trade one of these on balance early on, until one of the others VCs comes into contention.
To me it seems like G40 at least could support an upscale over 20. I was willing to go over 20 even for the smaller board, just to add more flavor haha.
To LHoffman’s Q, I think I would accept game resolution that didn’t involve a capital if VCs had the economic bonus attached. Some may not call the game until Capital collapse, in which case it probably doesn’t matter how many we add, though again I think an economic bonus might make it more palatable for those who still prefer a game played to concession.
That why I believed a 3 IPCs swing (1 IPC owned and 2 IPCs conquered) into Warchest per VCs conquered is an avenue to investigate.
The Warchest is an interesting feature because it allows to put money where it is most needed.
Whether it is a center crush (Russia) or more peripheral expansions (UK).If an Alliance conquered a few VCs in short time it allows to add more pressure to finish off the opponents.
Usually in 1942.2, if not Russia which is conquered, it is rather UK which is craving for IPCs.
That way, with NAP and VCs swing, UK can becomes the prime target of both Germany in Africa and IJN into SouthEast Asia. And Japan can gives all his Warchest to Germany to finish off UK and keeping at bay Russia.USA is more difficult to strangle economically: China, Hawaii and Alaska can be targeted but, after this, it is no piece of cake.
Brazil and Rio as VCs was an M3 TP and Cruiser distortion effect. So, forget about it.
I don’t want to give too much VCs on Axis side at start, but if we take Cairo and Cape Town and still require 4 VCs per Theatre, maybe this can work.
But all this is probably linked to set-up ICs put in South Africa, same for Australia and New Zealand.
So UK can make war on the fringe of the map. -
Sounds pretty cool. I guess in 1942.2 I’m fine with 22 (though I still think 24 might be cool.)
But just to push the crazy idea a little further… Keeping with Global (since that’s the file we got going at the moment) I’ve heard the following suggested at various points for additional VCs over the standard 19…
Chungking (Szech)
Singapore (Malaya)
Jakarta (East Indies)
Cape Town (South Africa)
Oslo (Norway)
Kiev (Ukraine)
Vladivostok (Buryatia)
Wellington (New Zealand)
Bucharest (Romania)
Amsterdam (Northwest Europe)
Edinburgh (Scotland)
Minsk (Belo)
Tripoli (Libya)Algiers (Algeria)
Athens (Greece)
Victoria (W. Canada)
Rio (Brazil)Is it possible to give a High VC count game option that just does like all of them?
Probably more have been mentioned in the past, and maybe there are better cities than those listed, but they seem fairly well distributed across the board, such that everyone gets a couple.If you went with all of those you’d have 36 total. Which might allow for an even split somewhere in the midgame, like 18/18.
At +1 ipc per VC, that’s still only 18 a round in extra warchest cash to either side, if they manage to develop an even split. Doesn’t seem too terribly crazy to me.
It basically almost doubles the total number of VCs in contention. Sure it means every third or fourth territory is likely a VC contender, but would that really be so bad?
For the bean counting, it doesn’t seem too intense. 36 territory tiles, out of a couple hundred total territories and sea zones on the map, still seems pretty manageable in G40. -
To keep things in perspective, 24 IPCs is 1942.2 Russia income.
If Allies give all to Russia, it is around +16 IPCs to help. Making 40 IPCs.
Which, BTW, is a pretty interesting depiction of Lend-lease help.
Germany might be around 46+ 10 giving 56 IPCs.
Or 58 IPCs if Cairo and Leningrad worth double upon conquest.I hope Triple A might allows a double count for conquered VCs, simply because I believe the TUV swing is a simple mechanics which helps those which are moving toward victory and the more you get the more it will appear in hard money.
G40 maybe another beast with all NOs, Convoy disruption, and VCs may count 1 IPCs but get a lot.
Nonetheless, Italy may get a major boost from warchest if given 18 IPCs.If worth double, 18-18 becomes 9-36 if a side captured 8 VCs.
36 IPCs is almost double money than minor Power economy.In both games, it is still possible to make it on agreement and edit mode after a complete round.
Counting all VCs per side and rise total money in hand for a given power via edit mode. -
Something about 24 VCs for 1942.2 and 36 VCs for G40 just has a nice feel to me.
Revised had exactly 12 VCs when the Victory City concept was first introduced. So it kind of makes a little pattern here, scaling up by a dozen hehe.
:-DJust going with the crazier number first. In G40 that would give you…
Axis starting:
Berlin (Germany)
Warsaw (Poland)
Rome (Italy)
Tokyo (Japan)
Oslo (Norway)
Amsterdam (Holland)
Bucharest (Romania)
Tripoli (Libya)
Shanghai (Kwang)+9 to start
Allies OOB starting Cities 14 plus… :
Chungking (Szech)
Singapore (Malaya)
Jakarta (East Indies)
Cape Town (South Africa)
Vladivostok (Buryatia)
Wellington (New Zealand)
Edinburgh (Scotland)
Minsk (Belo)
Algiers (Algeria)
Victoria (W. Canada)That gives +24 to the Allies to start, but many of these will fall in the first round.
So as long as you said that Victory can’t be declared in the first game round, or until US/Japan are at war, it will likely even out to be a lot more manageable once the Axis open. In G40 at least, the Warchest shouldn’t be collected until the nation is at war, so likewise the Allies/Axis team really should not be able to claim a Victory until they are at war. Basically their VC control doesn’t count until they are a belligerent.
Then you’d also have more than a single neutral VC, so it wouldn’t stand out like a sore thumb.
Athens (Greece)
Rio (Brazil)+2 in the neutral pot haha.
Guess you could switch out some of the Allied VCs listed above for Sofia or Helsinki, Baghdad or Tehran, or similar, if you wanted fewer Allied VCs to start, and more of the VCs in the spread allotted to neutrals.
If the cash is too high with this many VCs, you could go from 1:1, to 1:2.
Like +1 ipc to the warchest for every 2 VCs controlled by the team (round down.)
And still have a doubling mechanism for that for the endgame if desired.
*edit. Think I got the above numbers correct now. Forgot Shanghai there for a minute on the Axis side.
:-D -
Can you explain again why the Warchest is collective for both the Axis and the Allies, and why they get to distribute as they want? As opposed to each country getting the bonus $ for the VCs it controls by itself?
I like more VCs and more money in circulation because of them, means we get to buy more stuff. :evil:
However, if both sides can choose to dump all their bonus VC cash into one power, I am getting an uncomfortable feeling that it will just heighten the Germany-USSR clash. Germany is easily the most vulnerable and important of the Axis and can always use more cash. Pretty much the same can be said of the USSR. And if one side chooses to dump in either of those areas, the other side is almost certainly going to have to follow suit, or otherwise risk being outbuilt and overmatched.
I think ^ situation is only exacerbated if VCs are worth more than $1 each. Not saying that more than $1 per is bad itself, the distribution of the total is the problem.
-
Well just seemed like it would provide some degree of strategic flexibility, where you could pool resources to stretch the value of the ipcs.
If it’s overpowered, you could put a ceiling on the total amount that any one nation could receive from the warchest.
I liked the idea, because it made coordination between teammates more of a once a round type decision, instead of an every turn type decision. (Avoiding somewhat the more extreme versions of the latter, where one teammate is pleading with his teammates to send fighters or hitpoints etc, because they’re getting beat up on, and the game starts dragging into team arguments.) Here you’d have a way to give that guy some direct economic aid, and then let them decide how to use it for their needs.
I think the concern that it all just gets dumped into the same place every game (German/Soviet front) is legitimate. But if you capped the total aid that could be recived, maybe you could get around that problem, while still providing the same essential economic coordination flavor to the gameplay?
-
Well just seemed like it would provide some degree of strategic flexibility, where you could pool resources to stretch the value of the ipcs.
If it’s overpowered, you could put a ceiling on the total amount that any one nation could receive from the warchest.
I liked the idea, because it made coordination between teammates more of a once a round type decision, instead of an every turn type decision. (Avoiding somewhat of the more extreme versions of the latter, where one teammate is pleading with his teammates to send fighters or hitpoints etc, because they’re getting beat up on, and the game starts dragging into team arguments. Here you’d have a way to give that guy some direct economic aid, and then let them decide how to use it for their needs.
I think the concern that it all just gets dumped into the same place every game (German/Soviet front) is legitimate. But if you capped the total aid that could be recived, maybe you could get around that problem, while still providing the same essential economic coordination flavor to the gameplay?
I think a cap of some sort would be beneficial to prevent the overpower aspect. The question is what kind of cap; percentage, set dollar amount (would be hard to do), even split not counting remainders, minimums that need to be given to certain countries… In any event it is a little more complicated that simply you get what you own, because calculations will need to be made or ratios remembered.
I personally have never seen an issue with cooperation among sides during gameplay. It would be nice to limit that strategic conferencing to once a round rather than letting the deliberation occur on every person’s turn. Warchest may actually just end up adding an economic round of strategizing as opposed to removing some of the tactical nature (sending fighters here or ships there). The way the game is set up now, if the USSR is in danger and I can send my UK fighters over to help, I am definitely going to do so whether USSR asks for it or not. So for me, it wouldn’t eliminate that aspect of the game. After all, it is group survival… It’s bad for the UK if the USSR is struggling, or vice versa. Means Germany is winning.
-
If going that route, probably a flat rate would be easiest. I don’t know, say no more than 10 ipcs to a single nation on a given turn?
It depends on how much total cash we’re looking at on average per team. But 10 doesn’t seem too insane.
Sure, chances are the team will frequently try to max out Russia/Germany, but there might also come rounds where UK needs the cash more. Or maybe Italy has a chance at a breakout, if they just had enough for a carrier or extra fighter. Or maybe the game starts flipping Pacific and suddenly it’s Japan or US/Anzac that could really use the money. Here you have an option to take it one round at a time.
But all the decision making occurs during the end of the round, when the team has their powwow, to figure where the money goes for the following round.
The more I look at it the more I think 36 total VCs in G40 could really work.
You get a cap in there, or perhaps a 2 to 1 type scheme to limit the overall warchest impact, but have a lot of interesting target territories and team decisions suddenly enter the equation.
Just to spit ball, if you had to pick 36 for G40, and top 24 for 1942.2 what would they be?
-
All those VCs proposed so far sound pretty good. We need somebody to tally them all side by side. Adding them to a map would help too.
Unfortunately I can’t quite do that part at the moment, but I can try later on.
-
All those VCs proposed so far sound pretty good. We need somebody to tally them all side by side. Adding them to a map would help too.
Unfortunately I can’t quite do that part at the moment, but I can try later on.
Here is general guidelines I tried to answer or aim at with 1942.2
It needs to put Victory conditions by theatre in perspective too. How many is needed to win?Is it possible both theaters have same or similar number of Axis owned VCs while Allies can have way more.
Assuming Axis will capture some fast.Is it possible there an all Axis collective number of ICs from both theaters which can be provide Victory condition?
-
I’ll go by Territory since its probably easier. Just kicking it off with Axis G40 what about something a bit like this?
Germans:
Eastern Germany (Berlin)
Poland (Warsaw)
Holland (Antwerp/Amsterdam)
Norway (Oslo)
Romania (Bucharest)Italians:
Southern Italy (Rome)
Libya (Tripoli)Japanese:
Japan (Tokyo)
Kwangtung (Shanghai)
Siam (Bangkok)Pro-Axis:
Bulgaria (Sofia)
Finland (Helsinki)
Iraq (Baghdad)That would give the Axis 10 VCs to start and another 3 in their sphere of influence (nods to the pro-side).
For the Allies or Pro-Allied side that would give you 9 more cities to play around with, on top of the 14 they have OOB. Say you assigned 3 Allied Pro-Side VCs, to match the Pro-Side Axis.
Greece (Athens)
Yugoslavia (Belgrade)
Brazil (Rio)Then pick the top 6 spots for extra Allied VCs.
This would give you…
AXIS 10 VC vs ALLIES 20 VC
With 6 Pro-Side Neutral VCs up for grabs (3 for each side.)
Which 6 Cities would you add to the Allies?
The Axis and Pro-side VCs should activate most major theaters already, since they’d each have a couple VCs in striking distance. North Africa, Mid-East, Balkans, Scandinavia, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, South East Asia.
So maybe focus the extra Allied VCs on Sub-Saharan Africa, South Pacific, North Pacific, Central China?
South Africa (Cape Town)
New Zealand (Wellington)
Amur (Vladivostok)
Western Canada (Victoria)
Szech (Chonqing)Still leaves one spot left. I like Algeria (Algiers) so basically every nation gets an extra VC.
Or maybe Scotland (Edinburgh) instead of Victoria for the second British VC? Not sure which I like better.
Under this scheme, when you go down to 1942.2 you axe all the Pro-Side neutral VCs, and then remove another 6 (ditching whichever ones make sense, for the gameplay needs of 1942.2, to have as many theaters active and contested as possible on the smaller board.)
-
Something like this maybe?
Quick draft below…
I blew out the locations with neon green, so it would show the spread. Just slapped some dots down in paint over a screen cap with tripleA zoomed way out hehe.
But gives the gist.I suppose the argument for G40 goes, if you’re willing to add some VCs anyway, might as well just go all the way, so that each region of the globe can be contested. Gives a nod to the neutral-pro side, and allow every player nation to have some more skin in the game. Makes for more interesting connection between the warchest and the entire gamemap.
:-Dps. Or guess if you don’t like Victoria or Edinburgh, there’s always Sierra Leone (Freetown) heheh
-
Based on what I try with 1942.2, you have to find the number of VCs required in PTO for Japan to win.
This number will determine what kind of expansion/growth Japan need to get.
Then, you have to look at how many inland Asia and ETO are within Japan grasp and make sure it is not enough in itself to gain Victory. That way, Japan would have to conquer some other VCs in Pacific (like Honolulu, Wellington, Victoria, Sydney, Singapore, Manila, Shanghai, Vladivostok, etc.) to reach a winning turning point somehow.
Not always, San Francisco or Calcutta have to be the missing VCs to win war.
Suggested Topics
