Victory Cites in Europe40

@democratic:

Post here how many VCs there will be, how many you need to win (Global and Europe) and which ones they will be?

Definite (7)

Berlin
Moscow
Washington
London
Rome
Paris
Cairo (LH said so)

Probable (3)

I think all these will be in the game.

Stalingrad
Leningrad
Warsaw

Possible (3)
Tripoli (or something else in North Africa)
Something in Canada
Kyiv (or something mid-way between Russia and Germany)

Unlikely (5)

Something in Scandinavia
Something on the Atlantic cost of France
Something in SA
Something in the Middle East
Something in South America

13-15 would be a better division of voting. otherwise someone with 12 could pick either. (Which happens to be what I think).

I agree with your definite 7 and your probable 3 because they were all included in AA50 with the exception of Cairo, but since you say LH said so there can be no arguing that. So I will go with 10. I don’t believe any more on your list will make it.

UK
London
Ottawa/Quebec
Cape Town/Johannesburg
Cairo

France
Paris

Germany
Berlin
Warsaw

Italy
Rome

USSR
Moscow
Leningrad
Stalingrad

USA
Washington

I think these all are definites, the Europe side of the map has more VCs due to greater concentration of military powers and strategic battles, so Europe will have more VCs than Pacific.  This assumes all VCs from AA50 get carried over (as all 8 VCs in Pacific are the same as those in AA50) and would follow the precedent from AA50 that every territory with an IC has a VC present also (Canada is now getting an IC, as is France), so I think it’s safe to assume a VC in South Africa in addition to all those from AA50.

VCs have also represented key strategic locations, such as Warsaw in AA50 and Cairo is apparently confirmed as well, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they added Oslo or Helsinki or Jerusalem as well.

I’m going to say at least the 12 VCs above for Europe, probably 13 VCs or maybe 14 VCs; with probably 8-10 VCs for the win.  Global would then be 10-22 VCs total, making for 14-16 VCs for the win.

@democratic:

I don’t think Canada should make the list. I would like to see all VCs (other than capitals) an area of fighting that both teams can achieve.

In Pacific they all are. San Franscio is like a capital, and so is Tokyo. All other are areas of fighting that are either a challenge for a team to both hold or capture.

It would be rigged to win if Germany would be expected to capture Canada when the allies only need France or something. We need most of the VCs to be on the Russian front (Germany will be able to reach anything there), North Africa (that will be a great UK/Italy battle) or France.

That means there will be lots of fighting and a quicker game, rather than waiting for Germany to capture Canada

PS-I am sure LH said Cairo will be one, either here or on HGD.

I don’t disagree with you, I think the Axis should be able to win without taking a capital in order to make VCs actually worth putting them in the game.  Right now most of us play until one side capitulates, which is usually after one country has been completely taken over.  In 1940, we have smaller powers like ANZAC that if the Axis takes them over should not matter enough to cause the Allies to surrender, but the goal of the Axis all along was to capture enough key territories to become entrenched and then to sue for peace; NOT world domination or knocking out the Allied powers.  Sea Lion was a plan, but it was never undertaken because Germany knew it was too risky, and Moscow was the only capital they made a real effort to try to take.  In order for VCs to be useful to the game, there needs to be enough of them in strategic and (like you say) accessible locations for the Axis to be able to take the winning number probably without taking Moscow.

I like that they seem to be moving in this direction at least as far as Pacific 1940 is an indicator since Japan starts with only 2 VCs and wins by gaining 4 more (which, admittedly, does mean Japan has to capture at least 1 capital), while the Allies have to take Tokyo.

I included Ottawa/Quebec because historically in AA50 we had a VC there and there will now be an IC there as well, besides that Canada was the oldest member of the UK Commonwealth, so if SA, India, and Egypt have VCs (with Sydney for ANZAC too), I’m sure Canada will continue to have one.  It is not a truly viable VC to be captured, so I think the Canada VC should not be a necessity for Axis victory since it was never really in the historic Axis plan for victory (or a real concern to the Allies that the Axis would invade Canada), though it does stand to reason if the Axis goes for a non-historical playout (with Japan going KAF through Alaska or the US going all-out Pacific and letting Italy pop through the Atlantic to Canada) and they do manage to take it, it is strategic enough that it should count toward the Axis winning the game.

If we consider that Japan needs to have a total of 6 VCs (plus the assumed 3 VCs the European Axis will start with: Berlin, Rome, and Warsaw), and continue from there for Europe, I think the VCs that the Axis need to win (without taking a capital) should include:

Locations they need to capture like Paris (of course), Cairo, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Port Town/Johannesburg - all of which (besides Cairo) are locations of ICs anyway, so are very strategic in and of themselves.  Adding these to the 3 we can assume the European Axis start with take us to 8 VCs for Axis victory in the Europe game out of 11 total (assuming those I listed above.

Another strategic location that the Axis needs to defend like Oslo (Norway), Helsinki (Finland), Amsterdam (Netherlands since the Dutch act like a fallen Allied power in the Pacific), or Copenhagen in Europe and somewhere like Tripoli (Libya), Algiers (Algeria), Rabat (Morocco), or Jerusalem (Palestine) in North Africa.  These are locations the Axis may already have at the start of the game or at least will be very close to taking.  This would mean that the Axis would have to have 9 or 10 VCs to win out of 12 or 13 VCs in the Europe game without having to capture the places like Moscow, London, Washington, or Ottawa/Quebec.

All this would mean that the Axis will need 14-16 out of 19-21 VCs total in Global, assuming LH and Co. decide to go this route of letting the Axis win without taking a single capital or needing to touch North America.  They haven’t done this in Spring '42 or in AA50, they have set the minimum VCs high enough that a reasonable Axis win still includes Moscow, so that was the reasoning behind my previous post.  We can be hopeful  :-), but I’m not exactly expectant. :|

We shall see.

I think the capital of Romania will be a VC. I am certain that all old VCs will be here.

Enough with the Canada haters, now you want to strip away its VC. The only thing Canada did was help us (allies) win the war. Larry already alluded to the fact that Canada will keep its VC (which it should), and there will be others added like Cairo. I’m thinking besides the usual suspects, Cape Town and Kiev may be added as well.

I know the Canadian VC would be tough for the axis to get, but not impossible. Taking it away would be limiting the possibilities for an axis win. If they choose to take on N America they should be rewarded for it.

The following is the list of victory cities. But first let me prefix the list with the following: In the Global game the Allies win the game by controlling the territories of Germany (Berlin), southern Italy (Rome), and Japan (Toyko) for a complete round of play, as long as they control an Allied capital (Washington, London, Paris, or Moscow).

The Axis wins by controlling any 14 victory cities for a complete round of play, as long as they control an Axis Capital (Berlin, Rome, or Tokyo).

The victory cities are:
(in alphabetical order)
Berlin
Cairo
Calcutta
Hong Kong
Honolulu
Leningrad
London
Moscow
Ottawa
Paris
Rome
San Francisco
Shanghai
Stalingrad
Sydney
Tokyo
Warsaw
Washington

IL list is correct. it has been confirmed by larry on his website.

Crap. I was really hoping for more VCs between Moscow and Berlin. Well there always house rules.

warsw is in poland…theres one right there.

its out.

Axis have to take most of the map except USA VC to win.

@WILD:

Enough with the Canada haters, now you want to strip away its VC. The only thing Canada did was help us (allies) win the war. Larry already alluded to the fact that Canada will keep its VC (which it should), and there will be others added like Cairo. I’m thinking besides the usual suspects, Cape Town and Kiev may be added as well.

I know the Canadian VC would be tough for the axis to get, but not impossible. Taking it away would be limiting the possibilities for an axis win. If they choose to take on N America they should be rewarded for it.

Exactly.  I agree with you entirely, I just don’t think the number of VCs the Axis should have to capture to win should be so high that they have to either take an Allied capital or invade North America.

@SilverAngelSurfer:

@WILD:

Enough with the Canada haters, now you want to strip away its VC. The only thing Canada did was help us (allies) win the war. Larry already alluded to the fact that Canada will keep its VC (which it should), and there will be others added like Cairo. I’m thinking besides the usual suspects, Cape Town and Kiev may be added as well.

I know the Canadian VC would be tough for the axis to get, but not impossible. Taking it away would be limiting the possibilities for an axis win. If they choose to take on N America they should be rewarded for it.

Exactly.  I agree with you entirely, I just don’t think the number of VCs the Axis should have to capture to win should be so high that they have to either take an Allied capital or invade North America.

There are 19 VC’s. Axis can just win by capturing all but West/East US, Ottawa, London, or Moscow

@calvinhobbesliker:

@SilverAngelSurfer:

@WILD:

Enough with the Canada haters, now you want to strip away its VC. The only thing Canada did was help us (allies) win the war. Larry already alluded to the fact that Canada will keep its VC (which it should), and there will be others added like Cairo. I’m thinking besides the usual suspects, Cape Town and Kiev may be added as well.

I know the Canadian VC would be tough for the axis to get, but not impossible. Taking it away would be limiting the possibilities for an axis win. If they choose to take on N America they should be rewarded for it.

Exactly.  I agree with you entirely, I just don’t think the number of VCs the Axis should have to capture to win should be so high that they have to either take an Allied capital or invade North America.

There are 19 VC’s. Axis can just win by capturing all but West/East US, Ottawa, London, or Moscow

Well, that’s not bad, but I’m interested to see if the Allies can fight on in 1940 without USSR or UK so that the Axis winning by VCs is actually important, then I’ll be happy.  However, if it’s like 1942 or AA50 where since you have to take a capital regardless and once you have a capital and one of the Allies are out, the game is over, then VCs will still be worthless and there is no point to including them or paying attention to them.

I’ll still be happy with the game regardless, I just don’t see the point in having VCs at all if victory is dependent on capitulation regardless.  No one is actually going to keep playing 1940 all the way until the Allies have all 3 Axis capitals anyway, so I guess the point is moot as far as victory conditions go, but whatever…  Just my take on VCs.