[AA50] NOs as Victory Conditions

Yes I agree that more VCs needed in PTO and Japan should have to work to get that 1 more VC in the PTO. I do have a VC Capital in Manchuria for my 40 game but with not having 18 inf in area it doesn�t seem to get pressured much.
Singapore is out of the question due to Japan being so strong by islands from G40 game reports. Got to make Japan earn it. Just some thoughts.

@NilOGrav:

Big thanks for Young Grasshopper,

Played this last weekend in combination with the Halifax rules (option 2, the greater Commonwealth). Fantastic. We have added a ton of luxury materials (NO-cards, scoreboards, country sheets, , IPCs, tokens, etc) to help speed things up and are looking for a year now how to create a one day game w/o losing the characteristics.

This completely answered our questions! Congratulations on a job well done.

chrz Eppo

Thanks for the comments NiIOGrav, glad to help… I honestly think these VOs are a no brainer for those that want to sum things up in a 10 hour day. I will be releasing my new game accessory card deck soon, keep an eye out for my next “essential customizations” video.

Cheers.

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.)

I had an idea to calculate an axis win at the end of each full game turn

Each capital held is worth 3 points (india counts as a capital)
Each other victory city is 2 points
Each completed national objective is 1 point.

Total up on Germany’s turn, on Japans turn and Italy’s turn.
Lets just spitball and say, if the axis number is 31, if they score 31 at any time during rounds 5-10 they win.

For the allies to win, they need to bring the axis down to a certain number, lets say 15

As the game goes on, the numbers get closer to eachother, so lets look at it this way

Turns 5-10
Axis wins with 31 points, lose if they fall below 15 points
Turns 11-15
Axis wins with 27 points, lose if they fall below 19 points
Turns 16-20
Axis wins with 24 points, lose if they fall below 21 points

Thanks.  Will try next game!

@Flashman:

Remember that the USA built up a major bomber base in Chengdu in order to bomb Japan, and this prompted the last major Japanese offensive of the war.  I see no reason to limit the placement of US aircraft on Chinese soil.  Of course they wouldn’t be able to attack in conjunction with Chinese units.

agreed  :-D

Well the map is not accurate in this respect, but Shanghai would be Japanese original. If it was up to me the VC should be in Manchukuo and that other territory held in Chinese control in 1941. Sometimes you have to just do the best of a bad situation.

Lets just say the rules you posted 1,2,3 were basicially similar. AS far as the Chinese placement the idea was to prevent a wall type of atmosphere where the Chinese would stack all the pieces in choke points.

Historically they were quasi military forces which largely came from the various regions of China, and not organized in such a fashion to move around and conduct major campaigns because the logistics were primitive to say the least. Thats why China got passed over as a proper nation, because they were not modernized at all.

So to not include some notion of preventing stacking you can readily see what will happen.

The rule book on China is deliberately over explaining a simple concept. You just cant place new infantry in a territory unless it has lass than 3 infantry total.

The other rule is Chinese cant leave greater china, which includes the 2 Japan controlled territories and Kwangtung as well as original Chinese territories, and in the case of Kwangtung they don’t get money if they take it.

Thats it.  Its like 4 sentences at most the entire rules for China. If you just rewrite the rules i am sure anybody can get the page down to a few sentences.