If they eliminate the VC and just make the game where each axis wins differently:
Japan must capture: Hawaii, Australia, India, China, Alaska. etc plus get to X IPC level for one complete turn
Germany must take : X, Y, and Z, plus get to X IPC level
This is the only way to allow for really dynamic strategy because axis are not dependant necessarily (or they can be) to win.
Allies can just go against one or the other because one axis will win and the other may lose. Allies must prevent both from winning.
This way also Japan does not need top get to Moscow and can just focus on Pacific to win. Japanese in Moscow is fantasyland. AA can do better than this.
You can probably have the Soviets on a special VC as well so they can win alone and compete to a lessor degree with the western allies. That would be consistent with reality and post war politics.
A&A is fantasyland b/c when the game starts, either in 41 or 42, the war was lost for axis, unless allies threw in the towel.
Germany needed extreme and unlikely luck to win this, and Japan would lose with 99,999% certainty against the US.
So why is it a big problem with Japan in Moscow, b/c this can win the game for axis, and Japan in Africa is not a fantasy problem, b/c if allies take and hold both Germany and Italy, then allies will win even against a 70 ipc Japan. Japan taking and holding both India and Australia is also fantasy, b/c the game starts in 41. Or dusins of other fantasy happenings in A&A, like Italy in India, Italy in Brazil, Germany in Brazil etc.etc.etc.
In a game that starts earlier, then many thing could happen, but axis chance of winning the real WW2 from 41 is pure fantasy. Also US should have twice the production it has, US @ 40-50 is also fantasy, reality was more like 80-90?
If you want realism don’t play A&A, for me it’s still fun, rather b/c of the lack of realism then the wage abstractions of semi-realism in A&A.
not enough in my expierence
A&A is fantasyland b/c when the game starts, either in 41 or 42, the war was lost for axis, unless allies threw in the towel.
Regardless it should be as little fantasyland as possible. Fantasyland means the game winning concepts are totally not consistent with the programs of regimes of Japan or Germany.
Germany does not need to take Ottawa to win her war
Japan has no claims against rolling tanks 10,000 miles to attack Moscow from the east. For her she just needed her greater prosperity sphere and this did not involve helping Germany directly or attacking the Russians.
In the real war if USA didn’t do lend lease and just had her war with Japan, its possible that Germany could win by crushing Russia.
Just because it was a slim chance, does not mean the game has to become full of ridiculous objectives that have no meaning. For me if something is not realistic, its best to try to mitigate as much as possible to make it more reasonable, than to allow candyland scenario to exist.
A thing I don’t understand is why Larry made that bunch of totally flawed chinese rules and didn’t do the simpler special rule many of us are asking for: Japan-USSR non-agression pact
Larry made a difficult one instead the easy one. It’s not a surprise it was a mess
/Imperious leader
I like the idea of separate victory conditions. But doesn’t 12 VC fit into the picture you’re describing quite well and with less change to the game?
The speculation about possible scenarios in the actual war need to be tempered by the fact that the Allied condition of “unconditional surrender” could have been forgone by the Russians if they got pressured enough. I’m sure Stalin would have agreed to a peace if Moscow was taken and Caucasus oil wells cut off. And Hitler didn’t have the idea of conquering all of Russia, the goal was Arkhangelsk to the Volga. The war could have temporarily ended there, to be sure only to be taken up again when France would revolt and Russia been bolstered for a new war, but Axis being able to win a peace isn’t a fantasy scenario. Had the Germans armed for a three year campaign in Russia with cautious advances and a strategy of not alienating the Soviet satellites they invaded and instead got Estonian, Ukrainian etc troops to support them, they could have won. Soviet manpower reserves were not endless and were getting exhausted towards the end of the war, and Germany didn’t mobilize for total war until 1944.
The Classic MB 2 ed had individual victory option, and this was the best winning condition of all A&A games. The nation with the highest increase in IPC income was the winner. Since you already keep track of your IPC income, an economic victory is better than to count Victory Cities. IMHO.
An individual economic victory condition will look like “Diplomacy”, wich is my favourite game. The allies must cooperate to bring the enemy down, and then they can start backstabbing each other in order to win individually, just like in “Diplomacy”. And this is just what actually happened in the real war too. UK and USSR was not friends, but they shared some kind of “Community of interrests” in a given time. After Germany was down, they startet the cold war againsts each other.
So bottom line is, the winner is the first nation to reach x IPC income.
It can not be easyer. Also I belive this will promote a Pacific Theater, since the Allies can not let Japan win. They must go after both Germany and Japan, and when one Allies gets to strong, the other two must backstabb him so he dont win the game. Like in Risk, where everybody attack the strongest player to bring him down. Now I must e-mail Larry this new ideas.
@Imperious:
If they eliminate the VC and just make the game where each axis wins differently:
Japan must capture: Hawaii, Australia, India, China, Alaska. etc plus get to X IPC level for one complete turn
Germany must take : X, Y, and Z, plus get to X IPC level
I dont agree that Japan MUST capture Hawaii, India etc. The rule should say, Japan must get to X IPC level for one complete turn. Then it is Japan’s decision if he want to collect his IPC’s in Russia, China or the Pacific.
Also Germany did not neccesarily have to capture Russia. It should be Germany’s decision if he wants to collect his IPC’s in Russia, Africa or somewhere else. I dont like scriptet games.
individual victory conditions are a great idea
I like the idea of separate victory conditions. But doesn’t 12 VC fit into the picture you’re describing quite well and with less change to the game?
Well i look at it like this:
Both axis were after specific territories in order to accomplish goals. Resource rich territories and for various political ends. They were not after cities themselves even though some battles took place in some cities. Id rather see some large outline on the map that traces out what either the Germans or Japanese must capture to win like those old war maps that show the maximum extent of Axis occupation in Europe ans Pacific. That would be even more clear of what you need to do to win ( AKA conquer all territories inside red line). I like the cities to just show where historically important localities were just so people can learn, but to say the Axis started a war over “cities” including localities required and located in weird places like Canada.
Bottom line is each axis player has to capture said CORE territories, plus income basis of X to win. Each axis player would have a different requirement.
Its easier to do this because after all you already add up income each turn.
I think people hate this because it totally repudiates 1 VS 1 player, which was my intention. For me AA must have two teams of players and AA must have the aspect where both axis players are trying to win only not together, but at times will trade favors ( e.g. if i go out of my way and destroy the UK fleet off Persia, you must attack and take back India. Also the Soviets need to be able to win individually as opposed to ‘team allied victory’ IN the war the Soviets won with US coming in second and UK distant third, Japan forth and Germany last.
Why are we having this discussion ?
Larry decided the victory condition a long time ago
AA42 will probably have the same victory conditions as Revised, but we’re discussing what we think it should be…
well in this thread everything is speculation. I too think nothing will be changed except IPC costs and some SBR and sub/transport rules more like AA50
@Imperious:
I like the idea of separate victory conditions. But doesn’t 12 VC fit into the picture you’re describing quite well and with less change to the game?
Well i look at it like this:
Both axis were after specific territories in order to accomplish goals. Resource rich territories and for various political ends. They were not after cities themselves even though some battles took place in some cities. Id rather see some large outline on the map that traces out what either the Germans or Japanese must capture to win like those old war maps that show the maximum extent of Axis occupation in Europe ans Pacific. That would be even more clear of what you need to do to win ( AKA conquer all territories inside red line). I like the cities to just show where historically important localities were just so people can learn, but to say the Axis started a war over “cities” including localities required and located in weird places like Canada.
Bottom line is each axis player has to capture said CORE territories, plus income basis of X to win. Each axis player would have a different requirement.
Its easier to do this because after all you already add up income each turn.
I think people hate this because it totally repudiates 1 VS 1 player, which was my intention. For me AA must have two teams of players and AA must have the aspect where both axis players are trying to win only not together, but at times will trade favors ( e.g. if i go out of my way and destroy the UK fleet off Persia, you must attack and take back India. Also the Soviets need to be able to win individually as opposed to ‘team allied victory’ IN the war the Soviets won with US coming in second and UK distant third, Japan forth and Germany last.
What I wonder is, if you can just set the map up in a way to where there is no need for VC’s so you can have more streamlined open ended play with less “special rules”. For Example: set the map up so in most games if Japan has taken over Hawaii, Aus, India, etc and germany is still in decent shape (whatever that means), it would pretty much be game over in all but name only (the axis would have a tactical/ economic advantage that could only be lost through very bad luck or incredible stupidy/oversights).
While I still don’t like the Idea of VC’s at the moment, I do like the potential they present for balanced multi theater warfare (something I have always wanted in AA) and a more interesting multi player system. I just think they should look into ways that should have one set of rules before going into a VC mentality.
One of the main reasons why I think Japan should have the very real option of threatening the WUSA if left with poor defense by the US is to force multi theater play. The WUSA should be a far easier and more realistic option for Japan to attack than Russia because the way the board would be set up.
I agree about separate victory condition, fore each nations in the factions. A sort of NOs but they should not give money, they should give victory!
Maybe the 1 vs 1 game do not benefits of such approach but it is really a good addition to f2f A&A with more than 2 players.
@Imperious:
I think people hate this because it totally repudiates 1 VS 1 player, which was my intention.
Then it will not be A&A, b/c A&A can be played by 2-5-6 players.
And there are many who prefers 1vs1 rather than multi.
Actually, I started the thread because the number of Victory cities and the victory conditions as well as the IPC value of Pacific territories DID change from AAR to AA50, so I think maybe that will might be possible in AA42 as well. There might not be as many VCs as in AA50, but if Warsaw, Hongkong, Ottawa and Sydney don’t make it into the game that’s not much of a problem. Honolulu and Stalingrad are essential, though, as well as a VC condition where both Leningrad and Stalingrad doesn’t have to be included, since that usually is the same as Moscow.
I get your idea, Imperious leader, and maybe you could have a combination of IPCs and VCs? Something like the A&A 2nd ed IPC increase condition together with a VC condition for your side. Then you do win together but one power can win more than the other, so to speak, creating some interesting tension if you have a multiplayer game.
A sort of NOs but they should not give money, they should give victory!
yea i dont like NO’s I would rather have strategic resource centers that if occupied reduce the enemy IPC by X.
So each player could have some area(s) that if occupied by the enemy would cost additional income like what they did in AAE with the oil fields.
Japan would have theirs on Borneo and Indies
Germany in Romania
Soviets in Caucasus ( need a new territory because Caucasus is too large)
UK would be India and Iran/persia and some sea zones
USA would be some sea zones, possible hawaii or whatnot.
Miss a few days and a thread adds a dozen posts - wow.
I like the idea of a non- aggression pact. Maybe with a time limit? Expire in 4 turns or something. Simple, and makes Japan look elsewhere.
Cheers
Miss a few days and a thread adds a dozen posts - wow.
I like the idea of a non- aggression pact. Maybe with a time limit? Expire in 4 turns or something. Simple, and makes Japan look elsewhere.
Cheers
Once again, I think a special rule could be easily bypassed just by a simple redesigning of the map. Just have Japan have to get through a few literaly worthless Russian territories (0 ipc) and the start hitting up cheap 1 ipc territories that won’t effect Russia’s production that much; add to that a beefed up china, a UK factory, and a US naval presence and I think you will see a Japanese threat to Russia greatly mitigated. No gimmicky rules needed and you still have an openended “sandbox” style of play.
Besides Russia and Japan did fight each other in the beggining and the end of the war.
