Playing to 13 VC

@General:

Ok, so I guess what i’m asking is…

Is there a way to stop the usual playout of Japan moving to take russia, and Germany/italy can stand and win on their own without Japan’s help.

yes play to 11vc. this forces the allies to play in the pacific.

like axis roll said a bid helps balance the game but enforces the build up for a capital race of berlin/moscow.

@Subotai:

VCs are irrelevant in AA50, it doesn’t matter if it is 13, 15 or 18 VCs. Decent players concede when they think they can’t win. I have never achieved 13 VCs in AA50, and neither have my opponents.

VCs are only for new players who don’t know how to play, and/or end the game, but it doesn’t take many matches to learn the basic understandings of the game.

if playing to 13, 15, 18 vc then vcs are irrelevant because you are essentially playing a game untill domination.
if playing to 11vc then vcs are relevant

@General:

Ok, so I guess what i’m asking is…

Does a non aggression rule for Japan/Russia imbalance the game?

it will unbalance the game. it will also reduce variation in strategy. it will not encourage usa to fight japan. after japan crushes china in a couple of rounds and has secured all the islands in the pacific, they can only build up for an invasion of usa.

meanwhile the usa will keep up the kill germany first strategy and only place a mass amount of ground units in west usa when japan forces it to.

japan then can only spend all its resources to try the impossible task of taking over the usa which is very cost ineffective compared to usa’s defense.

@allweneedislove:

if playing to 11vc then vcs are relevant

But that is a house rule…

@allweneedislove:

@General:

Ok, so I guess what i’m asking is…

Does a non aggression rule for Japan/Russia imbalance the game?

it will unbalance the game. it will also reduce variation in strategy. it will not encourage usa to fight japan. after japan crushes china in a couple of rounds and has secured all the islands in the pacific, they can only build up for an invasion of usa.

meanwhile the usa will keep up the kill germany first strategy and only place a mass amount of ground units in west usa when japan forces it to.

japan then can only spend all its resources to try the impossible task of taking over the usa which is very cost ineffective compared to usa’s defense.

I disagree. It is not as simple as that.

If you have a non-aggression treaty, you also do not allow soviet and allied troops to share the same space. No more triple teaming. No more march to moscow to jointly defend, then march to poland.

The threat to germany is not as strong when you cant all share the same space. No troops in russian territories. Not unless Moscow falls. This offsets the loss of JTDTM.

Playing to 13 VCs gives the Axis the choice of whether to try to take down an Allied capital or to pursue a less central strategy that involves taking only peripheral VCs.  The latter strategy spreads the action out around the board more.

@Krieghund:

Playing to 13 VCs gives the Axis the choice of whether to try to take down an Allied capital or to pursue a less central strategy that involves taking only peripheral VCs.  The latter strategy spreads the action out around the board more.

If axis got 12 VCs, they most likely have much higher production, and 13 or more VCs does not make any difference about global domination compared to 15 or 18 VCs. That being said, I don’t disagree with the OOB number of VCs.

It means the game is more likely to play out differently because your opponent does not have to capture a capital to win, but that depends on your opponent and whether they’re just going to try for the capitals anyway.

I always play 13. 15 would require a capital or everything but. 11 sounds interesting though.

11 VCs prevents KGF fanmania and also forces Japan take Hong Kong and Manila J1. I like both things

Anyway I’d change the victory conditions:

• Axis wins if Japan has 6 VCs or if Germany+Italia have 6 VCs
• Allies win if USSR has 5 VCs or if USA+UK+China have 11 VCs
• If both cases are true, then the game is a draw

(all of them at end of USA’s turn)

@Krieghund:

Playing to 13 VCs gives the Axis the choice of whether to try to take down an Allied capital or to pursue a less central strategy that involves taking only peripheral VCs.  The latter strategy spreads the action out around the board more.

krieghund, can you imagine a scenario where a player can hold 13vcs after usa turn and not eventually get 18vcs?

if you can get 13vcs you have dominated the game. there is no reason to play to 15vcs or more. 13vcs is a domination game.
vc amounts do not make for different game playouts.

notice how there are no threads discussing the different strategies of a 13 vc game vs 18vc game, like there is for 1941 vs 1942 scenario or without NOs vs with NOs.

if there was an option for axis to win with 11vcs then the game would have more variability.

@allweneedislove:

@Krieghund:

Playing to 13 VCs gives the Axis the choice of whether to try to take down an Allied capital or to pursue a less central strategy that involves taking only peripheral VCs.  The latter strategy spreads the action out around the board more.

krieghund, can you imagine a scenario where a player can hold 13vcs after usa turn and not eventually get 18vcs?

if you can get 13vcs you have dominated the game. there is no reason to play to 15vcs or more. 13vcs is a domination game.
vc amounts do not make for different game playouts.

notice how there are no threads discussing the different strategies of a 13 vc game vs 18vc game, like there is for 1941 vs 1942 scenario or without NOs vs with NOs.

if there was an option for axis to win with 11vcs then the game would have more variability.

i would agree.

i always found larry’s choice of the number of VC’s to be a waste of time since they were all identical

13 vc is the same thing as 15 and 18 in aa50
same thing goes for revised and 1942, etc.

@Veqryn:

@allweneedislove:

@Krieghund:

Playing to 13 VCs gives the Axis the choice of whether to try to take down an Allied capital or to pursue a less central strategy that involves taking only peripheral VCs.  The latter strategy spreads the action out around the board more.

krieghund, can you imagine a scenario where a player can hold 13vcs after usa turn and not eventually get 18vcs?

if you can get 13vcs you have dominated the game. there is no reason to play to 15vcs or more. 13vcs is a domination game.
vc amounts do not make for different game playouts.

notice how there are no threads discussing the different strategies of a 13 vc game vs 18vc game, like there is for 1941 vs 1942 scenario or without NOs vs with NOs.

if there was an option for axis to win with 11vcs then the game would have more variability.

i would agree.

i always found larry’s choice of the number of VC’s to be a waste of time since they were all identical

13 vc is the same thing as 15 and 18 in aa50
same thing goes for revised and 1942, etc.

i dont want to get too off topic but revised had 8vcs and this did provide a different play out than 10/12vcs(these two are identical and the same as 9vcs, as 9vcs is the point of no return once a side has them they will eventually have the entire world).

problem is the location of the vcs. assuming g could grab karelia and hold france, then all action revolves around india. allies actually get the bid, and it made for a short game. either japan got india quickly or allies would win economicaly and axis resign.