Yeah I suppose I was just thinking that it gives the Minor Axis powers some representation. Probably Hungary would make just as much sense as Bulgaria, but I didn’t feel the need to put that in there. I only thought Bulgaria might be cool for Pro-Side parity to have 3 vs 3, so it wouldn’t look so weird to have Rio all by itself. Since that spot has been mentioned a few times as a way to try and make South America more interesting as a potential theater (since its the only TT on that continent hehe.)
Though I guess it could be 2v2 for the pro side VC just as easily, and toss 2 other VCs somewhere else. Like one of those others spots just mentioned.
Sub out the weaker candidates and include some stronger ones. Balkans is already pretty thick hehe, though I like Greece, and Iraq/Finland at least to give the Axis a pair in range.
Thanks Baron, just corrected there. :-)
I think Black Elk’s list of 36 VCs is good. I’m not in love with Sofia – if Belgrade, Athens, and Bucharest don’t motivate you to open a Balkans campaign, then I don’t think a 4th Balkan VC will help – and I agree w/ Baron Munchhausen that one more Pacific Ocean VC would be useful.
Truk?
Mexico City?
Anchorage?
Santiago?
Buenos Aires?
Batavia??
Chelyabinsk???I support Victoria over Edinburgh, and I favor at least 11 Pacific VCs for a solo win. If Allies have Calcutta, ChongQing, Honolulu, San Francisco, Victoria plus one more Pacific VC, then no solo win. If Allies are pushed off of entire Asian coast and entire Pacific Ocean and all of ANZAC with no toe hold between Hawaii and India, then Japan should win.
Anchorage might help launching a North American invasion with Victoria not far away.
If another VC is needed, Truk was a pretty important Island base.
Maybe better to get PTO 16 VCs / ETO 20 VCs
Yeah, I kind of like having anchorage, Victoria, and San Francisco all be VCs– it gives some urgency to usa’s response to a North Pacific invasion!
If Japan had followed Pearl Harbor with a modest raid on the north pacific, that would merely have redoubled usa’s resolve. But if Japan conquered the entire south Pacific, including Sydney, and then sacked Anchorage and started marching down the Pacific Coast, they would have appeared pretty frigging invincible. I think part of why Britain surrendered at Singapore is because Japan looked magically invincible. It’s conceivable that with the Japanese sitting in Sydney, Honolulu, Anchorage, and Victoria, the USA would have also swallowed that mystique and agreed to a separate peace, even if San Francisco still held strong.
Truk?
Mexico City?
Anchorage?
Santiago?
Buenos Aires?
Batavia??
Chelyabinsk???
Astrakhan
Truk
Polesti
Baku
Oslo
Mosul
Dutch oil centers
Making Truk in Carolines Island a VCs with Anchorage VCs in 1942.2 might be more interesting in PTO.
2 VCs from ETO have to disappear, like Brazil and…Warsaw to keep 24 VCs?
Places like Bangkok are worthless historically to anybody
Perhaps add Panama?
Alaska seems cool to me, I say sub out something ETO and put that in. Or ditch Bangkok and do Truk or Jakarta or something more central pacific. Though not sure Truk was so much a City, it would certainly make sense as a Victory Territory if we’re just trying to go that route. You can call them VTs, instead of VCs. Function-wise they’d be essentially the same, just eliminates the need to refer to a major city when referencing them.
I think Pro Side VCs would be find to have, but only if there is more than just one or two, because otherwise it just looks kind of bizarre. In other words I’d want more than just Rio, if we’re going to have Rio.
I’d avoid a true neutral tile like Argentina though, even if it might make Sinkiang. America more interesting. Attacking true neutrals is already crazy enough. Unless you want to make the True neutral VCs the thing, instead of (or in conjunction with) Pro Side VCs. In which case you’d probably have to do Stockholm, Ankara and Madrid. But that could be kind of nutso. I don’t know maybe it works? Like attacking true neutrals activates VCs that wouldn’t otherwise come into play. Does the game need an incentive to violate True neutrality?
Ps. Jakarta might be cool though, because then even the Dutch would seem like they have more reason to exist in the game. Especially if you have Holland (Amsterdam) in the mix.
I also like ILs suggestions, which would fit with a more VT oriented description.
@Imperious:
Places like Bangkok are worthless historically to anybody
Perhaps add Panama?
Jakarta was once suggested does it fill the bill for Dutch Oil Center?
Panama is not on PTO map, but maybe it should be a special VC for both Axis sides…
@Baron:
Making Truk in Carolines Island a VCs with Anchorage VCs in 1942.2 might be more interesting in PTO.
2 VCs from ETO have to disappear, like Brazil and…Warsaw to keep 24 VCs?
1942.2 Victory Cities or TTies
Axis European VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France),
4-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe)
Allies ETO VCs:
5-Washington (EUSA),
6-Ottawa (Eastern Canada),
7-London (UK),
8-Cairo (Egypt),
9-Cape Town (South Africa),
10-Moscow (Russia),
11-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
12- Stalingrad (Caucasus).
Axis PTO VCs:
13-Tokyo (Japan),
14-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
15-Manila (Philippines),
16-Singapore (Malaya),
17-Truk (Carolines Island),
Allies PTO VCs:
18-Calcutta (India),
19-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
20-Wellington (New Zealand),
21-Honolulu (Hawaii),
22-Anchorage (Alaska),
23-Victoria (Western Canada),
24-San Francisco (Western USA).
Axis: 9 VCs
Allies: 15 VCs
At 1 IPC per VC or VT,
Germany would get 4 IPCs
Japan 5 IPCs
Russia 3 IPCs
UK 8 IPCs
USA 4 IPCs
Truk is interesting because it provides a few motives to make a kind of island hopping in PTO for USA.
And there is no Naval or Air Base in 1942.2
Does 10 VTs in PTO (5 more VTs) providing Victory for Japan can work?
While 8 VTs in ETO (4 more VTs) providing victory conditions to Germany work?
The idea is to simply double the set-up VTs.
Allies needs to capture one Capital and have all their own three Capitals.
Or capture both Axis Capital and still have one Allies Capital left.
@Baron:
@Baron:
Making Truk in Carolines Island a VCs with Anchorage VCs in 1942.2 might be more interesting in PTO.
2 VCs from ETO have to disappear, like Brazil and…Warsaw to keep 24 VCs?1942.2
Axis European VCs: Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw
Allies ETO VCs: Washington, Ottawa (Canada), London, Cairo (Egypt), Cape Town (South Africa), Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad.Axis Asian 1942.2 VCs: Tokyo, Shanghai, Manila, Singapore (Malaya), Truk (Carolines Island)
Allies PTO VCs: Calcutta, Sydney, Wellington (New Zealand), Honolulu, Anchorage (Alaska), Victoria (Western Canada), San Francisco.Axis: 9 VCs
Allies: 15 VCsAt 1 IPC per VC,
Germany would get 4 IPCs
Japan 5 IPCs
Russia 3 IPCs
UK 8 IPCs
USA 4 IPCsTruk is interesting because it provides a few motives to make a kind of island hopping in PTO for USA.
Does 10 VTs in PTO (5 more VTs) providing Victory for Japan can work?
While 8 VTs in ETO (4 more VTs) providing victory conditions to Germany work?
Sounds good to me.
@Imperious:
“Truk?
Mexico City?
Anchorage?
Santiago?
Buenos Aires?
Batavia??
Chelyabinsk???”
-ArgothairAstrakhan
Truk
Polesti
Baku
Oslo
Mosul
Dutch oil centers
These seem cool. Lets get the ideal list solution at 36 (with optimal substitutions) for G40.
Do another one at 24 for 1942.2. And get them to Barney so he can toggle us up.
I think VT is probably easier for a draft, just going off the list of basic territory names. Where we end up putting the star or red dot, (like political capital or somewhere else etc) might be better left vague anyway, so some TTs can do double duty in terms of what exactly the VT represents, whether a city, or oilfield, or large network of military bases, whathaveyou.
The list I made (sans pro-side neutrals) is still really only 30 VCs, so I’m not opposed to 30 for a G40 spread if that seems better. Just thought 36 might allow for some cool flexibility with a couple more VCs that might not otherwise make the cut. Aiming high again
:-D
I bumped it into this new page and make a reformat
@Baron:
Making Truk in Carolines Island a VCs with Anchorage VCs in 1942.2 might be more interesting in PTO.
2 VCs from ETO have to disappear, like Brazil and…Warsaw to keep 24 VCs?
1942.2 Victory Cities or TTies
Axis European VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France),
4-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe)
Allies ETO VCs:
5-Washington (EUSA),
6-Ottawa (Eastern Canada),
7-London (UK),
8-Cairo (Egypt),
9-Cape Town (South Africa),
10-Moscow (Russia),
11-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
12- Stalingrad (Caucasus).
Axis PTO VCs:
13-Tokyo (Japan),
14-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
15-Manila (Philippines),
16-Singapore (Malaya),
17-Truk (Carolines Island),
Allies PTO VCs:
18-Calcutta (India),
19-Sydney (Eastern Australia),
20-Wellington (New Zealand),
21-Honolulu (Hawaii),
22-Anchorage (Alaska),
23-Victoria (Western Canada),
24-San Francisco (Western USA).
Axis: 9 VCs
Allies: 15 VCs
At 1 IPC per VC or VT,
Germany would get 4 IPCs
Japan 5 IPCs
Russia 3 IPCs
UK 8 IPCs
USA 4 IPCs
Truk is interesting because it provides a few motives to make a kind of island hopping in PTO for USA.
And there is no Naval or Air Base in 1942.2
Does 10 VTs in PTO (5 more VTs) providing Victory for Japan can work?
While 8 VTs in ETO (4 more VTs) providing victory conditions to Germany work?
The idea is to simply double the set-up VTs.
Allies needs to capture one Capitale and have all their own three Capitals.
Or capture both Axis Capitale and still have one Allies Capital left.
Maybe 5 is too much for Japan, 4 VTs can be enough?
(India, Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii)
(Hawaii, Alaska, Canada, San Francisco)
(Alaska, Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand)
Etc.
Ok here is that G40 list from the other page with Yugoslavia sub’d out for Java (Jakarta). And Siam sub’d out for Carolines (Truk). Sofia sub’d for Szech (Chonqing).
Somehow I forgot that last in the initial count.
Which one should we sub out for Alaska (Anchorage)?
Edit* sub’d out Rio.
Feel free to cross out whatever seems off, and include a better substitution. Just trying to get something to give to Barney.
I just edited the original post while trying to quote it, so hopefully that doesn’t cause confusion in the future. But whatever. We’re just trying to make a good list! If you want to switch others around that’s cool too. Then we can start making maps! ILs Maps are already pretty legit for FtF play with this concept, since they have enlarged territories making a VC/VT marker easier to use without much crowding. But even the OOB board is pretty simple to put a small easy-lift sticker on.
In tripleA it will just be a button you activate in the tech menu, to drop more stars around the globe!
:-D
Allies OOB:
1 UK (London)
2 Egypt (Cairo)
3 France (Paris)
4 Novgorod (Leningrad)
5 Volgograd (Stalingrad)
6 Russia (Moscow)
7 Ontario (Ottawa)
8 East US (Washington)
9 India (Calcutta)
10 Kwangtung (Hong Kong)
11 Philippines (Manila)
12 New South Wales (Sydney)
13 Hawaii (Honolulu)
14 West US (San Francisco)
Adding…
15 Szech (Chonqing)
16 U. South Africa (Cape Town)
17 Malaya (Singapore)
18 Amur (Vladivostok)
19 New Zealand (Wellington)
20 Western Canada (Victoria)
21 Algeria (Algiers)
22 Alaska (Anchorage)
Axis OOB:
1 East Germany (Berlin)
2 Poland (Warsaw)
3 Southern Italy (Rome)
4 Kiangsu (Shanghai)
5 Japan (Tokyo)
Adding…
6 Norway (Oslo)
7 Holland (Amsterdam)
8 Romania (Bucharest)
9 Libya (Tripoli)
10 Carolines (Truk)
That’s 32 starting VCs, under Player Nation control (22 Allies vs 10 Axis).
Then you have the 4 Pro-Side VCs, that must be claimed.
Adding…
Pro Axis Neutrals:
Finland (Helsinki)
Iraq (Baghdad)
Pro Allies Neutrals:
Java (Jakarta)
Greece (Athens)
For a total of 36 Victory Cities in all
My suggestion for Anchorage (Alaska):
Sub out: Brazil (Rio de Janeiro)
It is too out of the way for Italy or Germany.
And it remains within USA sphere.
Ok ditched 2 neutrals, and made some substitutions above.
Right now we’re at
Allies 22
Axis 10
Neutrals 4
Does this seem agreeable?
I suppose we could ditch 3 more neutrals and just keep Jakarta (since technically the Dutch are Allies.) But if we wanted some pro side VC action, that 4 seemed like an alright number, to get Finland, the Balkans, and Java up in the mix.
Or you don’t like 36, then just eliminate 6 from the list and we’ll go with 30. I’m game. Just really want to see the VC toggle in a gamefile that everyone can get behind hehe.
Ok ditched 2 neutrals, and made some subsituations above.
Right now we’re at
Allies 22
Axis 10
Neutrals 4
Can you format a little more the list by Theater? ETO and PTO?
I count 16 in PTO and 20 in ETO.
ETO
Axis: 7 VTs
Pro-Axis: 2 VTs
Pro-Allies: 1 VT
Allies: 10 VTs
PTO
Axis: 3 VTs
Pro-Allies: 1 VT
Allies: 12 VTs
Allies OOB ETO 8 VTs:
1 UK (London)
2 Egypt (Cairo)
3 France (Paris)
4 Novgorod (Leningrad)
5 Volgograd (Stalingrad)
6 Russia (Moscow)
7 Ontario (Ottawa)
8 East US (Washington)
Allies PTO 6 VTs:
9 India (Calcutta)
10 Kwangtung (Hong Kong)
11 Philippines (Manila)
12 New South Wales (Sydney)
13 Hawaii (Honolulu)
14 West US (San Francisco)
Adding…
PTO Allies 6 VTs:
15 Szech (Chonqing)
16 Alaska (Anchorage)
17 Malaya (Singapore)
18 Amur (Vladivostok)
19 New Zealand (Wellington)
20 Western Canada (Victoria)
ETO Allies 2 VTs:
21 Algeria (Algiers)
22 U. South Africa (Cape Town)
Axis ETO OOB 3 VTs:
1 East Germany (Berlin)
2 Poland (Warsaw)
3 Southern Italy (Rome)
Axis PTO OOB 2 VTs:
4 Kiangsu (Shanghai)
5 Japan (Tokyo)
Adding…
Axis ETO 4 VTs:
6 Norway (Oslo)
7 Holland (Amsterdam)
8 Romania (Bucharest)
9 Libya (Tripoli)
Axis PTO 1 VT:
10 Carolines (Truk)
ETO Neutral 3 VTs:
Pro Axis Neutrals:
1- Finland (Helsinki)
2- Iraq (Baghdad)
Pro Allies Neutrals:
3- Greece (Athens)
Pro Allies Neutrals PTO 1 VT:
4-Java (Jakarta)
Sure I can do that. First gotta grab the Misses from work though.
Meantime, another quick draft up. Nothing pretty to look at, just another blocky compressed screen cap from tripleA all dotted up haha. But least it gives a real quick impression visually.
I think I got em all in there. Trying to fly out the door!
Catch you guys in a few
:-D
Pretty clean. Shinny!!!
:-D
It certainly feels like a more balanced spread, with more options for the ongoing give and take.
Since no one wants a game where Victory can be claimed in the first few rounds, I’d limit the VT count only to Nations at war. Or you could make it even more blanket, and just say that actual Victory cannot be claimed until you enter the fifth round of play (by which point everyone should already be a belligerent.) This preempts any issue of a break out sprint to instant victory, before the game even has a chance to materialize. So by the time everyone is at War, the two teams will have had a chance to settle into a more stable VT equilibrium, on either side of the board.
Oh and I misspelled Algeria. Made an edit correct above.
It’s an improvement! It will be fun to try out. I am a bit sad to see zero VCs in all of Central America and South America, but I don’t see any obvious candidates from your list that should be deleted to make room for Latin American VCs. If true neutral VCs would be a problem, one way to solve that would be to make Argentina a pro-Axis neutral…then you could put one VC in pro-Allied neutral Rio, one VC in pro-Axis neutral Buenos Aires, and you’d still have plenty of symmetry. Meanwhile, you’d make a Japanese push to the southeast that much more credible…take New Zealand, and then push on toward Argentina and then Brazil!
If 38 VCs seems like a weird number, you could add one in central Russia (Chelyabinsk, Omsk, etc.) and one in Yugoslavia (Belgrade) to get up to a nice round 40.
It certainly feels like a more balanced spread, with more options for the ongoing give and take.
Since no one wants a game where Victory can be claimed in the first few rounds, I’d limit the VT count only to Nations at war. Or you could make it even more blanket, and just say that actual Victory cannot be claimed until you enter the fifth round of play (by which point everyone should already be a belligerent.) This preempts any issue of a break out sprint to instant victory, before the game even has a chance to materialize. So by the time everyone is at War, the two teams will have had a chance to settle into a more stable VT equilibrium, on either side of the board.
Oh and I misspelled Algeria. Made an edit correct above.
Iraq (Mosul)
At that time, Baghdad was pro-Axis, Mosul wasn’t the main city in Iraq.
You wrote: “Francsico”
