Is it just me (im still not very good at A&A so throw me a bone here) or is the allied victory condition silly?
You must hold Berlin and Rome for a full round of play?
Why on earth would you ever play to that conclusion? If the allies manage to hold either capital for a full round of play then the game is more or less finished anyway.
Has anyone played the game WWII: Barbarossa to Berlin?
In that game the Axis has an auto win condition in that if they capture 20VPS worth of cities they win the game, however if they dont manage it then they have to “hold out” against the allies until a predetermined time limit has expired (a vp clock) and if they keep hold of Berlin they “win” (id call it a draw :P) the game.
A&A Europe badly needs a system such as this in order to replace the unrealistic Allied victory condition. Never in any of my games that resulted in allied victories did we have enough time to follow those conditions out to their conclusion.
Sorry if this question has been asked before or you disagree, nevertheless i’d like to hear your thoughts?
Well I don’t think anyone ever plays until Rome as well as Berlin are captured. We play until we are sure that the axis cannot get their 6 VC’s. As soon as the axis can’t achieve that and are in the defensive. No point in playing against a bleeding beast and probably not fun for the axis player as well.
Yes, I assumed this would be the case.
So then, my question is why were these victory conditions put into the game in the first place? Surely another more pragmatic victory condition could have been implemented. A victory point scoring system, for example.
Another point of note is the +10 IPC bonus for the USSR capture of Berlin? Useless?
Thanks.
GC.
If you’ve ever had a friend who thinks “I’ve still got a chance in this” and won’t stop until game rules are met…then you’ll know the pain :)
But I think it’s just eliminating any possible scenario where the axis might have the ability to come back and win with troops amassed somewhere.
If you’ve ever had a friend who thinks “I’ve still got a chance in this” and won’t stop until game rules are met…then you’ll know the pain :)
But I think it’s just eliminating any possible scenario where the axis might have the ability to come back and win with troops amassed somewhere.
Yea, it’s not a good situation to present new players with either.
Everytime i’ve played with new players the game drags on because of this assumption that, the victory conditions are not met.
IMO the victory conditions are a major downside of the game, a vp system would be a lot better.
no more comments?
Forums dead?
Silly thead title?
I thought it was a good topic for discussion.
allies win VC is not something you will play out to see. no one disagrees with you, but I believe you also need japan as well. :\
I did not post as I usually play Pacific or Europe, not Global. You can see when one side has lost and stop before victory conditions are met. Then play all over again!
Not a bad thread title. Any thoughts on my Anzac one?
