Point system to victory in G40

A global victory mean that USA can go 100% Pacific or 100% Atlantic with no remorse.

Sounds ok WildBill.
I hate all this talk of landing a UK fighter or US bomber in Moscow etc.
I just won’t do it. Offends my historical prejudices!

I had an idea like this a while back which was for the Axis only.

They had to earn so many points a turn, or they lose. (couldn’t fall below like 15 I think)
But they won if they ever went above a certain number (like 25 -ish)

Each axis turn you totaled up your VCs and NOs and that was your score.
VCs were worth 1, each NO was worth 1, Captials were worth 2
So if Germany had Paris, Berlin, Warsaw and Lenningrad, and 2 NOs it would get 8 VPs
Japan had Tokyo, Honk Kong, Manilla, Signapore and 2 NOs it would get 7 VPs
And Italy has Rome and an NO it would get 2 VPs

A total of 17 VPs

I never really solidified the idea though….
But food for thought

I’m not sure what the best system is, I just know that we desperately need one. At the end of our close games we get into these arguments about who won, or who would win if we had 5 more hours to play. The truth is, games never reach their technical end objectives, so a side will ether quite to end a game that they have obviously lost, or your looking at another hour debating who the game’s winner is. I’m all in favor of working out a system that will make wins more clear, as long as it’s simple and makes sense, because I have to be able to sell it to my opponents.

I understand the points per victory city concept, however, I think that the difficulty in obtaining some of the city’s should factor into their value. For example: lets say that in a strange game Japan took & held San Francisco, it would suck to achieve such a thing and only get 1 point for it, and Italy won’t spend in the Med if Cairo is only worth 1 point.

I don’t have any solid suggestions right now, but I will think on it. All I would say right now is that, if everyone still owns their capital, there is no winner at that point…. I don’t care how the board looks.
I guess the first thing to do is, find out for sure what the major tournament rules say about winners in unfinished games, and than go from there.

Another point about my system was that the number needed for the Axis to win decreased each turn.
So that the longer the game dragged on, the goals for the axis decreased.
So they could still “stave off defeat” if the allies played super slow.

@oztea:

Another point about my system was that the number needed for the Axis to win decreased each turn.
So that the longer the game dragged on, the goals for the axis decreased.
So they could still “stave off defeat” if the allies played super slow.

Wouldn’t that also allow the Axis to play slow?

Yea, but if they Axis plays slow then the allied economic advantage is going to become insurmountable.
The axis needs to grab and hold.
If they don’t take that initial “grab” then the Allies will box them in, and the victory conditions won’t get low enough for them to win with what they just start with until after turn 10

Imagine for example.
1 VP for each VC you control
1 VP for each NO you accomplish
2 VP for each capital (economic HQ) you control

Axis needs 25 VP to win by turn 10
Or -1 VP for each turn thereafter

At the end of round 1 the axis will probably have Berlin (2), Paris (2), Warsaw (1), 2 German NOs (1+1), Tokyo (2), Shaghai (1), 1 Japanese NO (1), Rome (2), 1 Italian NO (1)

So they would have 14 at then end of round 1 (probably)
Up for grabs within the next 9 turns is Lenningrad (1), Stalingrad (1), Moscow (2), London (2), Cairo (1), Calcutta (2), Manilla (1), Hong Kong (1), Honolulu (1), Sidney (2)
As well as another two German NOs, (but they lose the at peace with USSR one), Two more Japanese NOs, (but they lose the at peace with the West one), and Three more Italian ones I think.

I exclude San Fransisco, Washington and Ottowa from the calculation, but the axis can reach around 33ish
This would need to be worked on from a math perspective, but thats my 2 cents.

Imagine for example.
1 VP for each VC you control
1 VP for each NO you accomplish
2 VP for each capital (economic HQ) you control

Axis needs 25 VP to win by turn 10
Or -1 VP for each turn thereafter

Two obvious problems…

1. a capital is the hardest objective… VP needs to be like 3-5 VP for that

2. Germany or Japan could turtle till like turn 18 and get win…no -1 VP modifier should be awarded. It makes the game longer or get players to play a certain style. In Chess this is called “drawing masters”

Like I said, the numbers aren’t set in stone.

My goal is to somehow replicate the original Pacific victory conditions for Japan, and have a setup and NO situation where the Allies will have an insurmountable advantage after like 25 turns. So the axis has to win before that, or face the economic onslaught.

Also, perhaps when the combined allies/axis is greater than X over the combined allies/axis, they generate one VP?

This would solve the turtle issue forcing whichever side to come out and fight or face defeat.

Example: is axis have 25+ more IPC combined than allies, +1 VP per turn as long as they have this advantage.

Secondly, the axis and allies start with a different number of VC, so you might have to assign different values for every city, rather than blanket the map with fixed values for each city.

The ability to gain objectives matters alot toward balancing…which is one of the main reasons why i don’t like NO’s because they are not equal in terms of capturing/protecting…partly why the OOB setup was imbalanced IMO.