Capitol Victory condition.

The determining factor is what round the other side surrenders on. (We play until one side surrenders.) Since we play 3 nations vs. 3, when one side loses 2/3 capitals, they HAVE to surrender. But usually they voluntarily surrender before that.

I have found that some people are frustrated with the split UK income, and also of course, the Allies’ victory conditions, you never really see them occur in real life. So I propose the following changes.

SINGLE UNITED KINGDOM: The United Kingdom will now be a single income power, starting with 45 IPCs, they will still have two capitals, one in Calcutta, the other being London. In a scenario in which a capital is captured, the United Kingdom’s income is rewarded to the Axis power that has taken the capital, however as long as they have the other capital, the United Kingdom may still produce income. The national objectives for the UK will be the same ones from the separate economies design, they are just simply awarded to the now singular UK entity.

SETUP CHANGES IN RESPONSE: Remove the Major Factories in India and United Kingdom, replace them with Minor Factories. This is to prevent the UK from over-stacking London and making Sea Lion a pipe dream, and to also to prevent the balance of power in Southeast Asia from getting out of control.

NEW VICTORY CONDITIONS FOR THE ALLIES:
Europe Victory: The Allies control 1 original European Axis Victory City; 2 of Calcutta, Sydney, and Hong Kong still under Allies Control. This must be done for a full round of play following the objectives being achieved.
Pacific Victory: Japan controls no originally Pacific Allies Victory Cities; 2 of Moscow, London, and Cairo still under Allies Control. This must be done for a full round of play following the objectives being achieved.

Also, I wonder if having an 8 VC count makes the Axis advantage overbearing? May have to play with a bid for something like this

The interseting thing with the Supreme Excellence card is what it brings in for strategy, not so much about the numbers. If you attack and concentrate a force into one zone or territory, just to deplete an enemy on a stack of strategically interesting units, you might end up in trouble. What would happen if the defending player plays the Entrenchment or Signals Intelligence card! As you see, it will bring a second level thought to the strategy that we have never seen before. Make it more of a strategy game, and less luck, which is the opposite to what most people think at first sight. If you try these rules you will discover new insights about this second level thought in many other situations of the game play. Enjoy!

Mr. Andersson

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

You could argue for secondary capitals i.e. use victory cities as such. If the major capital is capture as long as a nation holds it’s own VC it can collect 1/2 it’s income. Just a thought.

Good idea!

However, I think that simply the face number of IPCs income from territory will already be very reduce for a capital in exile. I wouldn’t cut in half this meagre resource.

Actually Baron you are right. I think a country should collect all it’s income until ALL it’s originally owned VCs are captured. The US if invaded by a foreign power would not give up. USSR is also a good example.

I would only do this types of thing like they had in AAE.

Adding resource centers and if the enemy takes it he rolls out or you assign X as additional IPC lost to simulate strategic resources no longer available.

other way is you assign Victory points to each city ( based on historical model) and create a national morale chart where your units cost more if you are lower than a specific threshold.

Example: Germany has say 40 total starting VP and if during the game they lose spaces and hit below 20, all units cost +1 each till they get back to 20 or greater.

Ok let me clarify my thoughts on that… They wouldn’t necessarily have to pursue a historic goal, but rather go for completing a certain amount of techs (3 for example)…

GG