What is the Point of Short Games?

the simplest fix is for axis to hold 8 cities THROUGH the next round, giving allies a full round to retake one.  i think the idea of VC’s is to change the point of attack from moscow to ANYTHING different.  the OOB rules don’t accomplish this and neither does 9 VC games because moscow is the 9th city 99% of the time.

@dakgoalie38:

@squirecam:

@dakgoalie38:

It’s a guaranteed win for the Axis.  All you have to do is for the Germans send all troops in Norway, Eastern Europe, Belorussia, and West Russia as well as any tanks/planes that can make it into Karelia S.S.R. while moving all troops in Southern Europe and Germany into Western Europe and sending all the troops from the Balkans into Germany.  Also, purchase all infantry and place them all in Germany.  This should leave you with four victory cities, Berlin, Paris, Rome, and Leningrad, all of which would require extreme luck from the allies to take back any of these cities, and Rome should be impossible for the allies to take back because there are no ground troops in range of Southern Europe.  For the Japanese, destroy the British navy at India and then send all of your troops from French Indochina as well as any transport and plane that can make it into India.  Also send all troops from Manchuria and Kwangtung into China.  Even if you left Japan, Philippine Islands, and Kwangtung empty now, they should all be impossible for the allies to take back because they are out of range of any allied ground troop, and it should be nearly impossible for the allies to take back India which gives the Japanese the cities of Tokyo, Manilla, Shanghai, and Calcutta.  The four Japanese cities plus the four German cities should make eight cities, which is all you need to win in  a short game.  So there you have it, a 99.9999999…% guaranteed win strategy for the axis in a short game in only one turn.

P.S. - Yay for first post!!!  :mrgreen:

Which is why in an 8 VC game, you go KJF, and take japanese VC from them instead.

There are no victory cities within range of any American ground forces in round one besides Shanghai, but if the Japanese take China, even Shanghai city will become out of range for the Americans.

(sigh)

If you use Russian forces to aid India, it will not fall early, which allows a Western USA fleet, which allows for taking of the Phills.

Which is why I said do a KJF…

In s test game with a very specific element that allowed it to happen, Allies were able to prevent 8 VC for 2 turns.

However, they effectively sacrificed Moscow in doing so, so had it not been a 2 turn limit test game, Moscow would have fallen to make the 8th VC for the Axis in Turn 3.

The point of short games is to give the Axis a fighting chance without a bid.

My assessment is that if both players are skilled, the Allies MUST do KJF, and that the battle will center on India.

The Allies do NOT have to sacrifice Moscow by turn 3 to prevent 8 VCs.  It should be an extremely close game, but Moscow should not have been in position to be obviously taken next turn.

with equal skill levels i don’t see an allied victory unless the axis must hold india and karelia through the following round (ala d-day) which is how are groups has played since the first few games

@ncscswitch:

In s test game with a very specific element that allowed it to happen, Allies were able to prevent 8 VC for 2 turns.

However, they effectively sacrificed Moscow in doing so, so had it not been a 2 turn limit test game, Moscow would have fallen to make the 8th VC for the Axis in Turn 3.

No offense…

Barring unbelievably bad dice, if you KJF, but cannot prevent an 8VC loss in round THREE, then you are simply not very good at a KJF.

I would not cite that “test” as proof of anything.

USSR should be able to last 5 rounds on its own. If not there is some poor strategy being used.

KJF can take 5 rounds to set up properly, meanwhile India and Karelia have already fallen.  However, Japan can be limited to 30-40 IPC income and be out numbered navally and militarily but you lost the game because it’s a mere 8 VCs.

@Jennifer:

KJF can take 5 rounds to set up properly, meanwhile India and Karelia have already fallen.  However, Japan can be limited to 30-40 IPC income and be out numbered navally and militarily but you lost the game because it’s a mere 8 VCs.

Karelia, yes.

India, no.

If you lose India in 3 rounds, IN A KJF, you are doing something horribly wrong.

Also, looking back on that “test” game, I saw many errors which would skew the results. But the initial one is most egregious.

You gave the axis a bid ???

The Axis had an advantage in an 8 VC game. Why do they get units too??

An 8 VC game will have an ALLIED bid.

This alone eliminates any “worth” that test game allegedly showed.

I have the strong impression that some groups of players are not used to encountering effective strategies other than the ones they already employ.

I debate the objective validity of just about EVERY post on this board.

Except MY posts, of course, which as any discriminating poster will know, are the very quintessence of objectivity, wit, brevity, and modesty.

@newpaintbrush:

I have the strong impression that some groups of players are not used to encountering effective strategies other than the ones they already employ.

I debate the objective validity of just about EVERY post on this board.

Except MY posts, of course, which as any discriminating poster will know, are the very quintessence of objectivity, wit, brevity, and modesty.

Your greatness is already well known. :)

My only point is to prevent people from believing things “cannot be done” just because someone says so, or because a “test game” is used (with flawed bid and strategy) in it.

8VC games, using KJF are not over in 2-3 turns, and are a good learning tool for new players.

yes i agree.

i would like to see hawaii and australia and caucases having vc’s

i still think hold 'em for a full round eleminates alot of the imbalance of an 8vc game
but i do admit it still tends to force a race to moscow

@critmonster:

i would like to see hawaii and australia and caucases having vc’s

i still think hold 'em for a full round eleminates alot of the imbalance of an 8vc game
but i do admit it still tends to force a race to moscow

then you would have to give the axis 1.5 vcs(each). to keep it balcenced

I do think the shift of two Allied VC’s would make an 8 VC game far more playable…

Move Lenningrad to Stalingrad (Karelia to Caucuses) and Calcutta to Sydney (India to Australia)

I DO like those VT’s that Craig posted though.  I may give those SERIOUS thought for our next Tournament.

Well to go off on a tangent one thing that makes games shorter is to play faster. Does anyone use some kind of clock to limit “thinking time” before actually moving pieces?

@frimmel:

Well to go off on a tangent one thing that makes games shorter is to play faster. Does anyone use some kind of clock to limit “thinking time” before actually moving pieces?

The Hasbroken CD used to have this feature. I used it alot back then.

Squirecam

would you really have to give the axis additional vc’s?  i don’t think so, 3 per country and capture three of the enemies (while holding your own) or i guess eastern europe or ukraine and what, okinawa?

@Craig:

@ncscswitch:

…I DO like those VT’s that Craig posted though.  I may give those SERIOUS thought for our next Tournament.

You are a man of wisdom! :wink:

I am glad that someone has seen the light. :-D

Craig

Although I sort of like Craig Yoper’s territory idea, I would like it a d*** sight more if it were officially recognized and accepted by Avalon Hill as the tournament standard.

Actually, I would like ANYTHING to be accepted by Avalon Hill as the tournament standard.

As it is, there are different tournaments, but no OFFICIAL tournament standard.  LHTR is close, but it is not the Official Deal.