Victory Conditions

@Navymule:

If there are 241 IPC’s worth of territories (before NO’s), that would mean the Allies would be earning well over 200 IPC’s a turn.  No way the Axis could recover from that deficit.  That would mean another 50-70 IPC’s worth of NO’s as well.

I wouldn’t think the Axis could recover, either, but I also wouldn’t say it’s impossible. The Allies begin the game with a 175-66 IPC advantage, but seem to lose more than half the time. Why does this happen?

The short answer is that the Axis victory conditions are easier to achieve, in part because Axis income is concentrated in Germany and Japan. This allows the two main aggressors to develop strategy, purchase units needed to implement that strategy and get them to the front rapidly. Put another way, in the hands of an experienced player, the Axis have a very efficient military-industrial complex.

On the other hand, the Allied IPC advantage, at least for the first 5-6 turns, is negated by the dispersal of those IPCs to every corner of the globe…and the Allies’ powerhouse must cross two oceans to join the fight. Until the US is fully engaged in battle, the Allied IPC advantage is virtually nonexistent.

I could talk/write at length on the economics of G40, but I’ll jump to the key question: If the goal is to improve game balance by creating a new victory condition, wherein the Allies win if the number of Axis-controlled Victory Cities falls below X and the combined IPC value of Axis-controlled territories falls below Y, what are X and Y? In other words, what is the Axis’ “point of no return?”

So all the votes are currently for Egypt. Given recent topics posted and posts made in this thread attacking Eygpt after securing the Middle Easr and moscow just makes sense. It’s where your units are and building a sea lion fleet late game is off the table. Landing in London against a skilled opponent at any point in the game seems to actively harm efforts in the East and makes your units more vulnerable to US counterattack.

Therefore I would say that sea lion is a purely opportunistic move.

The main allied strategies still hold up. The one that becomes more dominant would be shuffling 20 units a round into Spain from USA… But even this has its flaws.

Right, that’s what I meant.

Not to mention the capture of the Persian Gulf oil fields by the axis.

That is why I prefer to incorporate the “no more than one unit per territory or seazone” rule.

I think the great variation that bids provide allow for great replayability. Who wants a game that always depends on what kind of dice Germany got G1? Pick sides, set up the board, roll a couple dice, quit. Blech.

To your point about a 12 being too much, though - only 1 game has been finished in the league this year with a bid over 11, and the axis(-15) won.

Most good players are not going to give their opponent more than 10, is what we’ve been seeing in the league results. And among what appear to be opponents of close skill level, the Allies have won at +9, +10, +8, +10, +9, and +8. And the Axis have won at -9, -15, -7, -9, and -11. Yes, that’s a small sample size, but it seems to be pretty even.

I think the best judges of when a game is fair and balanced are the players. As you can see, over half the games have been run at an 8 or 9. And 2/3 of those games have been won by the Allies. You have people that don’t want to give bids too big, people that acknowledge the Axis has an advantage, people that don’t really want to play the Allies - it’s an interesting and fluid dynamic that always seems to find its own level.

One UK global economy would be very cool, although I’d limit it like this:

London can spend money from both economy,
Calcutta can spend only the money from the pacific territory.

Otherwise Japan will be unplayable.

In your mind, what would one look like?