VC House Rules II

Victory Cities

Every nation starts with 7 victory cities (VCs), each worth a certain number of victory city points (VCPs). Of these 7 VCs, 1 is designated as a capital (worth 5 VCPs), 1 other is designated as a major VC (worth 3 VCPs), 2 others are designated as moderate VCs (worth 2 VCPs each), and the last 3 are designated as a minor VCs (worth 1 VCP each).

The following is the list of VCs, the corresponding VCP value for that VC and the territory in which each is located. The VCs are organized by nation.

Russia:
Moscow (5)–Russia
Stalingrad (3)–Caucasus
Leningrad (2)–Karelia
Novosibirsk (2)–Novosibirsk
Archangel (1)–Archangel
Almaty (1)–Kazakh
Vladivostok (1)–Buryatia

Germany:
Berlin (5)–Germany
Rome (3)–S. Europe
Paris (2)–W. Europe
Kiev (2)–Ukraine
Warsaw (1)–E. Europe
Oslo (1)–Norway
Kursk (1)–W. Russia (changed from Tripoli)

UK:
London (5)–UK
Toronto (3)–E. Canada
Calcutta (2)–India
Sydney (2)–Australia
Cairo (1)—Anglo-Egypt
Damascus (1)–Trans-Jordan (opinions?)
Cape Town (1)–South Africa

Japan:
Tokyo (5)—Japan
Changchun (3)–Manchuria
Shanghai (2)–Kwangtung
Singapore (2)–FIC
Manila (1)—Philippines
Guadalcanal (1)–Solomon Islands
Milne Bay (1)–New Guinea (Opinions of this as VC?)

US:
Washington (5)–E. US
Los Angeles (3)–W. US
Chicago (2)–C. US
Chongqing (2)–China
Ãœrümqi (1)–Sinkiang (I know this city is not that relatively important but the VC needs to be in this territory so there can be 1 more Chinese infantry per turn. I don’t know what city to choose.)
Honolulu (1)–Hawaii
Sao Paulo (1)–Brazil

Infantry Unit Placement at VCs

ICs no longer build infantry units. Infantry units are assembled only in territories containing VCs. They are still purchased and mobilized at the same time as non-infantry units. In order to purchase and place any infantry in a VC, that VC must have been in your control at the start of your turn (placing an infantry unit in a VC can be considered the same as placing the infantry in the territory containing that VC).

For each of the 7 VCs that are originally owned by each nation, the maximum number of infantry that may be purchased and placed at the VC per turn is equal to the corresponding value of VCPs except for the following nation-specific exceptions:

Exception for the nations of Russia, Germany and Japan: If the VC is not connected to the capital VC thorugh a continuous line of friendly territories (not including SZs or neutral territories), then the maximum infantry placement is 1 less than the corresponding VCP value.

Exception for the Western Allies (UK and US): The maximum infantry placement for the capital VC is 3.

For each captured VC, the infantry placement limit is half of the VCP value for that captured VC (rounded down). This means that 0 infantry may be purchased and placed at a captured minor VC, 1 infantry at a captured moderate or major VC, and 2 infantry at a captured capital VC.

If any territory containing a VC is attacked before the defender’s first turn, then the defender of that VC gets to immediately purchase any number of infantry not exceeding more than the respective maximums outlined above and place them at that VC. These infantry units are purchased and placed just before the battle takes place. This rule applies only before the defender’s first turn. For example, it can apply to Russia attacking the Ukraine on Russia’s first turn but cannot apply to Germany attacking Karelia on Germany’s first turn (since Russia already had their first turn by the time Germany gets to move).Â

Non-Infantry Unit Placement at ICs

All non-infantry units are still built at ICs, however, unit placement limits at ICs have changed. The total IPC value of all non-infantry units placed per turn at any IC in a given territory may not exceed 4 times the IPC value of that territory. If a certain territory contains both a VC and an IC, then the infantry placement limits for the VC are treated independently from the non-infantry placement limits for the IC.

The cost of purchasing new ICs now depends on the territory in which the IC will be placed. Any player purchasing an IC must declare where the IC will be placed during the ‘Purchase Units’ phase. The IC is still placed during the ‘Mobilize New Units’ phase. To determine the cost of an IC in a given territory, multiply the number of IPCs for that territory by the number of VCPs within that territory and subtract this number from the base IC cost of 15. For example, an IC in India, FIC or Kwangtung now costs 15 - (3 IPCs)(2 VCPs) = 9 IPCs. An IC in W. Europe or C. US now costs only 15 – (6 IPCs)(2 VCPs) = 3 IPCs.  All ICs in territories not containing a VC cost 15 IPCs since 0 VCPs multiplied by any number of IPCs always results in a reduction of no IPCs from the base cost.

An IC can only be placed in a territory that was in your possession at the start of your turn. Furthermore, non-infantry units may only be placed at an IC that was there at the start of your turn. (This means once you take over a territory you have to wait 1 turn to build an IC and yet another turn to build units).

There are 2 types of ICs, initial ICs and purchased ICs. All territories containing either a capital or major VC automatically start with an iniitial IC (note that this just adds ICs to Manchuria and E. Canada). These inital ICs do not have to be represented by an IC piece on the game board since they cannot be moved or destroyed so they are always present in that territory.  All purchased ICs are represented by an IC piece and can be destroyed at the defender’s discretion when the attacker wins the battle over that territory.

Victory Conditions

Just like in the AAR box rules, players agree before the start of the game which set of victory conditions they will use; Total Victory, Major Victory or Minor Victory.

Total Victory: The winning team is the first to control every territory by the end of any US player’s turn.

Major Victory: The Axis win if they control 45 VCPs at the end of any US player’s turn. Likewise, the Allies win if they control 55 VCPs at the end of any US player’s turn.

Minor Victory: Both sides bid the number of turns that they want the game to last if they are the Axis. The team that bids the higher number of turns gets to play as the Axis. The game will automatically end after the US player’s turn on the turn number that won the bid. The team controlling the majority of the VCPs at that time wins the game. Note: This is unlike the major victory conditions or traditional victory city rules in that the winner is not the first side to reach a certain number of VCPs, but the side who maintains control of the majority of the VCPs by a certain turn number agreed upon by both sides. This is intended to better fix the game duration and to allow for quicker games if players are pressured by a time constraint.

Notice that the rules for max inf in captured VCs are the same for all nations.

Notice that now there aren’t special restrictions for Japan mainland territories. There is only one exception that’s the same for Russia, Germany and Japan. I think this flows better into the game than just having that special restriction for Japan.

Notice that now all nations start with 2 ICs (evens out the playing field). I think leaving off initial ICs and only usingthose pieces for purchased ICs will save space on the board.

Here is a big change that I want to introduce… How about instead of using Victory Cites we use Victory Territories? That way we don’t need to draw in new specific cities. Also, saying Guadalcanal is a city isn’t right, but it should be a victory point of some sort. Victory Territories saves a lot of possible confusion. Besides why have cities when you don’t need them? Cities seem to be just one more thing needlessly cluttering the board.

The Baghdad city can be changed to another city around Africa/Middle East. The extra 1 inf/turn in whatever territory we choose will give UK are much more realistic fighting chance in that region. The 3 total VCPs in the Africa/Middle East instead of the 1 VCP greatly improves importance of Africa.

The 2 extra Japanese minor VCs in the Pacific islands now make a US Pacific campaign very appealing. Finally, a reason to see a Pacific war! I like the idea of making the cities in Solomon Islands and New Guinea to add incentive for the US player to take the same island hopping path that was taken in WWII and give incentive for UK to use Austalia to try to help take these VCs.

Now Japan can build 4 mainland inf per turn and China can build 3, and India 2, and Russia 1. Factoring in the initial IC in Manchuria it should be a very interesting and more historically accurate battle in Asia. (4 Axis inf/turn plus initial IC plus air support vs. 6 Allied infantry/turn).

Thanks for the compliments. I try to have all the house rules I propose go through a rigorous set of calculations to make sure that the strategic implications of those rules will drive the game towards actual historical events, while always keeping the effect on game balance in the back of my mind. There’s a ton of computations going on in the background that people never get to see. I honestly feel that that these set of house rules will improve the game tremendously when people actually end up giving them a chance. BTW, did you see that Larry himself took a look at the old VC house rules that I posted in his house rules forum? Larry hasn’t posted in that house rules forum in over a year! Who knows, maybe some of these ideas could even find themself in Axis and Allies Advanced?

I thought about having Kursk as a VC in W. Russia instead of Warsaw. The Battle of Kursk was definitely an important one, but it’s a very small city and doesn’t have much importance outside of that historical battle. I know, so then why include Guadalcanal as a VC? Well, we need to have 2 more minor VC on Pacific islands and I want those 2 VCs to drive the US to follow a similar path to the one they actually used in WWII.

As you already know, the decision to include which VCs isn’t just based on history but also has to be based on its implications on game strategy. Having a VC in the Solomons will be good not only historically but also because US is able to take them on turn 1. It’s position creates an interesting dilemma for both Japan and the US in the Pacific early on. That’s why I think Guadalcanal should be a VC. So what about Kursk? If it’s a VC, then Russia will probably end up trading for it. It will probably end up being the VC most traded throughout the game. What will end up happening is the single Battle of Kursk will be fought over and over in the game (not very realistic). Also, I don’t know if it’s a good idea realistically to ever allow Germany to build another infantry per turn that far into the front. Also, I think we need a VC in E. Europe because if we don’t have one then we have a strange unrealistic gap effect where Germany can build 2 in the Ukraine and 1 in Karelia and 5 in Germany but none in between the Germany and the other two. I want the distribution of Germany infantry to be a little more uniform over Europe and the Warsaw VC does that.

This is what I suggest we could do; when we are done with adding in all the other rules we can playtest it and see what the balance is like. If the Axis are too powerful then we can move the Warsaw VC to Kursk. This will weaken the Axis by making it harder for the Axis to have that city at the end of the game.

A good alternative can always be to substitute the Tripoli VC with Kursk. Germany will never be able to put an infantry in Tripoli anyway since it’s not connected to Germany but the city there gives UK a VCP reward for winning the African front. I’m fine with trading Tripoli for Kursk. What do you think? I’m also thinking about trading Anchorage VC for Sao Paulo. Brazil needs to have 1 infantry/turn present on the board IMO. We also need to figure out if the VC in Egypt is going to be Cairo or El Alamein. Cairo because it’s largest city in all of Africa or El Alamein because of it’s historical significance, just like Kursk?

I like your idea about National Victory Conditions. They will be a good addition for the Optional Rules section. Including London for German victory seems like the Germans got it rough, even with their relative awesome strength. We’ll have to run some numbers on it before we come up with the final draft.

To settle the Paris issue between the UK and US you could say that the UK needs to include either Rome or Paris for victory and say the same for the US. That way 1 nation can take 1 of the cities and the other nation can just take the other and both Western Allies aren’t stepping on each other’s toes.

We could look into having a set of different National Minor Victory Conditions as well. Like, Germany controls the Atlantic, or Germany controls all of the Middle East, or Russia controls the Ukraine for 1 full turn, or the UK kicks the Germans out of Africa, or the US controls Hawaii , China and 2 Japanese minor VCs, etc…

I see your point about not going to Victory Territories. Although cities aren’t needed, I think they do provide a nice history lesson for several people and for some reason do make the game more fun.

About the map your designing… can we also make Midway Island run though the border of SZ 57? This will make it so Midway is actually midway across the Pacific and can be used on both Japan and W. US for bombing, thus increasing it’s strategic value. Can we also make Gibraltar run through the border of SZ 12? This will also increase it’s value and allow for us to call that a strait in which Gibraltar control passage through the Med.

What do you think about combining Belo. and W. Russia to be 1 territory? I never liked the strategic implications in the game of those being separate territories. To keep Germany at 40 IPCs we can make the new Belo. territory worth 3 and make the Balkans worth 4. After all, why are the East Indies worth 4?.. becuase of oil! The same should apply for the Balkans.

What do you think about making Karelia worth 3? This would make an IC purchase there cheap enough to be worth considering as well as giving Russia 25 IPCs to start. This would be incentive for Russia to build an rtl in the first round instead of the boring 8 infantry. It would also make the city more important and strengthen Germany since they will have it for most of the game.

There are other changes that I wanted to make to the map too, but they can only be made if we can get sub interdiction to be very effective. I think I’ve made some really good sub interdiction rules that would allow the following changes without giving the Allies too much advantage:
All nations have income that are multiples of 5…
Russia=25 (Add 1 to Karelia)
Germany=40
UK=35 (Add 1 to Australia, 2 to Burma (new territory), 1 to W. Canada and 1 to either Trans-Jondan or Persia… probably Persia)
Japan=30
USA=45 (Add 1 to China, 1 to Greenland and 1 to Mexico)

I know this adds 9 IPCs to the Allies, but sub interdiction should more than balance this out. I feel that these additoins to the following territories need to be made for both realism and strategic purposes.

How about we keep Germany at 40 IPCs starting out by just combining Belo. and W. Russia into Belo. and still make it worth 2 IPCs, but then making the territory of Germany worth 12 IPCs? This might be useful when changing around techs, if we decide to go with my plan for techs. More on this later.

I think the addition of Burma will make it harder for the India and FIC unit placements to effect each other, which is probably good. We can create starting unit placments be such that Japan can fairly easily take Burma on turn 1 to simulate it falling in early 1942. Also, the territory gives me an interesting idea for a Burma road NA.

Maybe we could make US even worth 50 IPCs, instead of 45. The extra 5 could be 4 more for C. US and 1 more for Panama. Depending on how good sub interdiction is we’ll decide later if we can make US that strong and have it balance out.

What is your impression so far on all the map changes I proposed in the last 2 posts?

I just wanted to add something else about my idea of fighters in combat needing to count the combat as 1 move… Now it makes it a lot harder for Germany to take Egypt in G1. Fighters can’t be used on G1 in Egypt, making the African front even better for UK and thus more realistic. I never liked how Egypt was taken before UK could even strategize what to do there on their first turn.

Don’t worry, the idea of Germany not doing well in Africa shouldn’t cause balance issues once we come up with some other rules that will make the Axis much stronger.

IMO the mult. of 5 IPC thing is just for simplicity in the begininning so fewer bills are needed and they are easier values to remember for players that don’t play very often. It’s not a big deal but it’s one of those things that just makes the game slightly less intimidating for newbies, etc… Why have Russia start out at 24 when they can just start with 25? Russia was stronger historically than they are represented in the game anyway. Same with the US.

There is only one problem I have with postponing these changes to the starting incomes. I think I can come up with a set of interdiction rules that I think balances out the game from the super high Allied economy of 25+35+50=105 or a set of rules to counter a lesser Allied economy of 24+30+42=96, but not both at the same time. If we have phase 1 with the same IPC values (96)then we’ll have to hold off on sub interdiction until phase 2 as well since they have to be introduced together for balance purposes.

Should we have phase 1 without interdiction and without realistic Allied economy and without a new map? That might work out OK for balance purposes if we can come up with a few more additional rules to improve the Axis’ chances. Should we shoot for that?

I know Midway is too far to realistically bomb either IC, but since it can already be used to bomb W. US in the game, it should also be able to bomb Japan in the game. We could change the rules for movement so neither can be bombed, but I don’t know how to do that since it’s the same distance in the game from UK to Germany. If we reduce bomber movement so bombers can’t go from Midway to W. US and back again then the UK/US bombers also won’t be able to bomb Germany. I say just let bombers move 6 so bombers can do the Midway bombing run and call it only a minor sacrifice of realism for the greater good of simplicity.

What do you think of the ‘fighter combat=1 fighter move’ rule and the ‘fighters on carriers have to land on carriers’ rule?

There are a lot of different ways to incorporate interdiction. Let’s settle on all the other rules we’ll use for phase 1 and then come up with a set of interdiction rules that will balance up the game. What other rules are there?
-defender retreats?
-techs?
-NAs?
-strategic bombing?
is there anything else that we need for phase 1? I don’t think we need much else but I want to hear your thoughts.

I went back the the first post of this topic and changed Tripoli to Kursk and Baghdad to Damascus and Anchorage to Sao Paulo. I still don’t know what I’m going to do about a minor VC in western China even though for game purposes there needs to be 1. When we make the new map in phase 2 we can make another territory so there are 3 green (US occupied) territories in China instead of 2. This will allow China to hold out better, prolong the Chinese/Japanese War, allow US to start out with more IPCs (I’m hoping to get them around 55-60 IPCs total), and make it so theminor city doesn’t have to be in Sinkiang.

This is going to be a lot harder making a set of rules to go with the old AAR map and then another set of rules for phase 2 to keep the game just as balanced.

I haven’t given much thought to adding new territories in Europe since bad things might happen if you’re not careful with the territory positions. For example, if the Western Allies can amphibious assault in either the low countries or France then that means Germany has worry about defending both those territories instead of just placing units in the one territory of W. Europe. More territories can make it really hard for Germany and Germany already has it tough defending just W. Europe. We can talk about this more after we settle the other issues.

I don’t think we’ll need special rules helping China out. The 3 inf per turn US can put there should be enough.

What do you think of the fighter ideas from before?

I’m also thinking of changing around the starting IPC values to the following for phase 2 (or phase 3?):
(Based on GDP paper from Mark Harrison so 1 IPC equals approx. 10 billion 1990 International Dollars)

Russia=25 (see above posts)
Germany=45 (IPC distribution of territories decided later)
UK=35 (see above posts)
Japan=20 (FIC, Kwang. and Manchuria only worth 2 each, E. Indies and Philippines only worth 2 each, Borneo worth 1 and Okinawa worth 0)
US=as high as I can get it… probably end up around 60 since I can’t get it around 120 IPCs
Italy=15 (Italy worth 10, Greece/Albania worth 3, Algeria and Libya worth 1 each) … problem with Italy though. Italy can’t have 7 VCs! I don’t even like Italy as capital VC because only 3 inf/per turn should be in Italy. Italy would mean all nations can’t start with 7 VCs. I don’t think Italy can be added for the good of the game. Maybe make Italy as some kind of weird NA for Germany or just some kind of weird optional rule. Maybe make all other map modifications and include Italy in phase 3?

*1 IPC would then equal approx. 10 billion 1990 International Dollars