I agree with Jen that the ability to have the US sneak in and grab a territory with no response afforded to the Axis
Defend better? It’s not like you can’t see where the Americans will attack. I find it difficult to believe that the Americans can be operating strongly in both theaters to the point where the Axis can’t defend a VC, yet the Axis are winning.
Defend better is a strawman argument.
One attacking infantry has a possibility to kill 100 defending infantry without being killed. Probability is very low, but possible, this allows any ridiculous hail Mary attack to successfully win the game despite bad strategy.
For instance, in the scenario I posted, Germany had S. Europe defended successfully with 97% odds, but America squeeked out that 3% chance of taking it.
What I find curious is your adamant refusal to give the opposing player, whether allied or axis, a turn to liberate that 9th VC. Obviously if you are winning you should be more then capable of defending all 9 of your VCs, right? (To spin your argument back on you.)
I have no objection to someone beating a dead horse.
Someone beating a dead horse on my time, though, is a different matter.
Hence, why I would rather that an extra turn not be required. They’ve already lost; why prolong the game another 30-45 minutes?
There is no problem with domination if players have common sense.
As I said in another thread, if you lose a capital and can’t take it back, and if you can’t take the opponents
capital, then the game is lost.
In few cases, allies may take Berlin 2-3 rnds after Moscow has fallen to Jap, but everyone can see if that is likely, or
possible. When players don’t get it even when the map has changed colour radically to their disadvantage,
and income is much higher for the other side, then it’s bad sportsmanship not to concede.
Decent players know when they can’t win.
I’m not asking for domination. That can take forever. All I’m asking is you give the other team a chance to save themselves. As is the case in the scenario I offered, it’s clear the allies have lost but due to a fluke of the game rules, they are allowed to steal a victory away from the axis. This very slight, very inconsequential change to the rules would prevent a sneaky, underhanded move like this from stealing a hard won victory.
Robbery chess? Never heard of it. Honestly. If it’s your strategy to take pieces with total abandon towards things like value, position, and momentum, go right on ahead. I will play you any day of the week. You are going to lose. It is a losing strategy.
It is also a losing strategy in A&A, so go on ahead… And although the physical idea is somewhat similiar, your analogy is misleading, as you are talking about an end-game scenario in A&A, not the overall strategy over the course of an entire game. You said it yourself, people shouldn’t deserve to ‘win’ that way…
Or should they? A much better analogy is the no-move stalemate in chess. Sure, you might have overwhelming pieces, position, and strategy, but if you are dumb enough to push the king into a corner which denies your opponent any moves, you force a draw. You don’t lose, but you don’t win, either. Any player worth his salt is careful not to do this, and an experienced player will even use this strategy to escape defeat in the face of a more skilled opponent. At least, he can try…
The strategy just adds a whole new level to the endgame approach… It is something you have to keep an eye out for, and I wouldn’t want to get rid of the possibility. It adds challenge, it adds fun. Don’t want to fall victim to this? Then why are you using such a poor strategy that your enemy can blitz thru your lines in one round in the first place? My advice to you is, you had better keep a closer eye on both the points and your frontlines, dear.
Domination could possibly take a long time, but in the lobby I have only once seen a game played with the 9 vc rule.
Most games do not exceed 10 rnds, maybe 30%-40% go 10-15 rnds.
Often players concede even before a single capital is lost. That’s because most players don’t screw up their
game once they got a clear advantage. And they keep gaining TUV and keeping production level above opponent
rnd by rnd, most ppl don’t play it out.
Even if domination rules states all capitals must be captured, or all units killed, you never play until the very end.
I never met someone who wanted to play out, and if I did, I wouldn’t play him/she again,
I wonder how someone can be good players and not see when a game cannot be won.
At this point we may do a distinction. In on line play or pbem games it may be a house rule introduced on wich both teams agree.
However at this point I agree with Lucifer: at this point is better to play dominance.
For face2face play, to which I am interested, I found this rule a problem. It may prolong the game for much turn that are almost useless. So I see no needs for its introductin.
About the scenario discussed I have answered in the preceding posts. They are impossible or higly improbable or unrealistic.
This conversation is crazy. Not that we are for trying to better the game, but I have yet to find anyone who really plays to a set number of VC’s. I always play till someone sues for peace, which is the way it should be and saves long hours of playing when everyone with any experiance can see what is going to happen. Just my opinion. I can always tell who is going to win without the city thing. Sometimes, 9VC doesn’t do it. I kind of depends on what cities and the looks of the board as a whole. We don’t have set conditions we just know when it’s over.
@Cmdr:
I’m not asking for domination.
I’m the one who’s asking for domination…. :wink:
This conversation is crazy. Not that we are for trying to better the game, but I have yet to find anyone who really plays to a set number of VC’s. I always play till someone sues for peace, which is the way it should be and saves long hours of playing when everyone with any experiance can see what is going to happen. Just my opinion. I can always tell who is going to win without the city thing. Sometimes, 9VC doesn’t do it. I kind of depends on what cities and the looks of the board as a whole. We don’t have set conditions we just know when it’s over.
“If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it” – Albert Einstein
Discussing do not cost nothing and helps in sharing the knowledge between us.
Having a vistory condition of 9VC is a aimed at having a shorter game and a game that
may ends without the needing of a victory “assigned”.
Having time, playing for dominance is better. We usually do so when play face2face games, because we “save” the game and continue the next time.
This conversation is crazy. Not that we are for trying to better the game, but I have yet to find anyone who really plays to a set number of VC’s. I always play till someone sues for peace, which is the way it should be and saves long hours of playing when everyone with any experiance can see what is going to happen. Just my opinion. I can always tell who is going to win without the city thing. Sometimes, 9VC doesn’t do it. I kind of depends on what cities and the looks of the board as a whole. We don’t have set conditions we just know when it’s over.
“If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it” – Albert Einstein
Discussing do not cost nothing and helps in sharing the knowledge between us.
Having a vistory condition of 9VC is a aimed at having a shorter game and a game that
may ends without the needing of a victory “assigned”.Having time, playing for dominance is better. We usually do so when play face2face games, because we “save” the game and continue the next time.
also VCs allow you to have a sort of poltical objectives. like the Philippines were a political target and would cause the US to have great desire to attack it. THe VCs basically create targets that were not economically significant in the real war. such as the Philippines.
allow me to clarify. i was not saying that this should not be discussed. There is always value in discussion, but lets be fair VC or no does the US EVER go after the Phillipines? No. I’ve never even seen the US go Island Hopping. So why bother. I understand that it gives some histoical credibility to the game but we all know how history turned out and we all realize (i think) that this is only a loose intrpretation of history. SO, play untill someone wants to admit defeat (which is how the war was determaned in all reality) and set up for the next game. It just make the game simpler and answers Jens question.
Defend better is a strawman argument.
One attacking infantry has a possibility to kill 100 defending infantry without being killed. Probability is very low, but possible, this allows any ridiculous hail Mary attack to successfully win the game despite bad strategy.
I don’t understand. Any hail Mary attack can end the game. It doesn’t have to be on a victory city. Any time that a ridiculous hail Mary attack succeeds, you can win the game despite bad strategy. So why pick on the victory city system?
Why make such a big change for such an inconsequential happening? You want to extend every game by one turn so that in the 1/5000 games are “fair”? There’s nothing “fair” about bad dice, regardless of victory city conditions.
There is nothing fair about war either, which is why I like the dice element in this game. The best laid plans often go astray.
Defend better is a strawman argument.
One attacking infantry has a possibility to kill 100 defending infantry without being killed. Probability is very low, but possible, this allows any ridiculous hail Mary attack to successfully win the game despite bad strategy.
I don’t understand. Any hail Mary attack can end the game. It doesn’t have to be on a victory city. Any time that a ridiculous hail Mary attack succeeds, you can win the game despite bad strategy. So why pick on the victory city system?
Why make such a big change for such an inconsequential happening? You want to extend every game by one turn so that in the 1/5000 games are “fair”? There’s nothing “fair” about bad dice, regardless of victory city conditions.
Really I think that the extension may be more than one turn. If the “winner” has not success in defending the 9 VC then games continues.
9 VC is a victory condition to have games end in shorter time than player surrendering.
So the game is flawless in that. We play 9 VC games when we want a shorter game. Otherwise we play dominance, that have not to be finished because sooner or later one side surrenders.
My interpretation of 9 VC is like a chekmate in chess. Your king is in chekmate, you lose. No matter how many pieces you have or what they are doing. Opponents has been quicker than you, or has applied a more efficient strategies etc.
I have to admit that in A&A there is another point: dice. So it could be possible to lose a game for unlucky results. But this may happen in every phase not only in the final turn. I have lost games that began bad and became worst cause unlucky dice rolling.
I prefer VC. It forces you focus in some cities you would not defend in total conquest. And it’s good have a sudden death effect in game, because it forces you keep an eye on all the table. Anyway, you can say: “let’s play 9 VC, but you can surrender before if you think you lost”.
I have seen USA goning for island hoping more than once. I even seen UK. Manila is an example of good choosed VC, as Leningrad.
Only trouble is i would like more VC, so they would have greater effect in the game. Example:
USSR: Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Vladivostok
Germany: Berlin, Rome, Paris, Helsinki, Varsovia, Tripoli
UK: London, Calcutta, Canberra, Alexandria
Japan: Tokio, Nankin, Manila, Singapur, Seoul, Port Moresby
USA: Whasington, Los Angeles, Chongquin, Honolulu
So each side begins with 12. Fight for 18! :mrgreen:
I will be honest…
A 9 VC game usually comes down to the defeat of Russia. There are other ways to play it, but knocking out one of the Allies completely (Moscow and Leningrad) as well as securing Calcutta, without the Axis losing Paris, Berlin, Rome, Shanghai, Manila or Tokyo; is a pretty impressive situation. The Allies pretty much have no choice but to surrender at that point. IPC’s from JUST the VC’s totals $49. Add in all the territories that it took to get there….
And for the Allies, it means either wiping out Germany completely to get 9, or Japan completely, or having both so severely wounded that that Allies are into their “core territories” and the Axis is seriously reduced in income.
8 VC is not a win.
9 VC is game over.
Yes, and what do you say to the situation I posted, Switch.
The Axis are not severely weakened, they just had a bad round with the dice.
All I’m asking is that you give the other team one opportunity to liberate a VC. If the game is so in the bag, then it won’t hurt to let them try. If the game is so flimsy that you can’t afford to let them try, then maybe you don’t deserve to win?
You’re basically saying the game is flimsy because of bad dice. Play low luck, then. Don’t blame the victory city condition, and don’t increase the game time by 1 round or more for 99% of games for the rest of us. You can play that way with whomever agrees to it, of course.
What would you be saying if the rules had been written with the other way around?
I don’t know, because they weren’t.
What would you be doing then? Playing with your house rule? Or petitioning for a change?
I don’t know, and how does it matter?
Just because the rule set as it stands happens to align with what you like doesn’t mean that it is the right way to do things.
It doesn’t mean it’s not the right way to do things.
The application of the Check for Victory standard at the end of a round of play is a purely arbitrary choice.
If you read carefully, this isn’t at all about victory checks. It’s about bad dice affecting victory check. It is arbitrary to blame it on the victory check condition.
While Jen has presented a highly unlikely scenario, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. One should try to have rules that are able to handle all scenarios and give the player a chance to rectify the problem.
Slippery slope, should we give all bad dice situations a chance to rectify? If Russia lost 9 inf on W. Russia on R1, should we add a rule to help them rectify it? This argument is not at all about victory cities if you think about it, it’s about bad dice.
