Posts made by CanucKev

OK, here comes my second reply to my own question (this doesn’t mean I’m excluding anyone else!)

What I’ve boiled it down to is:

Does using Leningrad (Karelia) as a victory city make it too easy for the Axis, since they could take the city AND an industrial complex? Victory cities should be challenging to take, after all.

Or, does using Stalingrad (Caucasus) make it too easy for the Russians, and therefore, the Allies? The Axis is disadvantaged at the beginning of the game as it is, not to mention two of the victory cities are in the US.

So … which of the above is more correct?

As I said above, here’s my (current) debate on whether to choose Leningrad or Stalingrad as the USSR’s second victory city:

Karelia has an industrial complex, but can be attacked by a maximum of 9 inf, 7 tanks, 5 ftrs, 1 bmr, and a transport from Germany or Western Europe on Germany’s first turn alone (although whether that would be a GOOD idea is a totally different story). However, Caucasus doesn’t have an industrial complex, but can be attacked by “only” 3 inf, 3 tanks, 1 bmr, 3 ftrs (5 if the German player decides to risk AA fire), plus a battleship and a transport from either Southern Europe, Eastern Europe or Libya.

If Stalingrad is chosen as the victory city, the Soviet player has to split his forces, dividing his attention between the industrial complex in Karelia and the victory city in Caucasus. But losing Karelia is bad enough as it is - perhaps it’s too much of a blow to lose a victory city with it?

Also, having an industrial complex in the same territory as a victory city means you don’t have to take a turn to shuffle infantry to the victory city. But maybe that’s not a problem anyway, since you could clear out Karelia every turn and just fill it up again when you place your units.

Stalingrad as the victory city would prevent the German player from focusing his forces on Karelia, so maybe dividing up Soviet forces wouldn’t be so bad.

Not to mention that Stalingrad has GREAT historical implications - but that REALLY doesn’t matter ;). All that means is if there’s ABSOLUTELY no difference between using Stalingrad and Leningrad, I’d choose Stalingrad - but it’s much more important to pick the better one.

Finally, choosing Stalingrad as the victory city may deter the Soviets from attacking as much, since there would be two very important territories to watch out for. But I don’t really know … obviously if the game is Russia Restricted anyway, that wouldn’t make a difference (on the first turn at least), but if not it may help the Axis if Russia is more scared of attacking.

So that’s what I’ve come up with on my own. I don’t know which arguments win out. And, if you can come up with any more arguments, please do. Thanks again, in advance :)

Hey,

I want to add victory cities to my Axis and Allies map (it’s the “old” edition). Except for the Russian front, all the key territories are the same. But I’m having a really tough time deciding whether to use Leningrad in Karelia or Stalingrad in Caucasus as the USSR’s second victory city.

Karelia has an industrial complex, but can be attacked by a lot more on Germany’s first turn than Caucasus. However, Caucasus doesn’t have an industrial complex.

Caucasus is further away than Karelia - even if the German player does take Karelia, Caucasus is still 3 spaces away from Berlin and Rome - but nevertheless still borders right on Moscow (in the new game, there’s a space between Leningrad (the victory city) and Moscow) and disregarding victory cities, Karelia is much more desirable (IMHO).

Anyway, that’s the start of my personal debate (I’ve added more below, so that this post isn’t even bigger). My big question is obvious: which do you think would be a better choice of victory city on the old map, without altering the setup - Leningrad or Stalingrad? Is there one that would screw over a player TOO much?

One thing concerns me about Karelia. If Leningrad should be the victory city, should there be another territory between Karelia and Russia, so the Germans can’t be knocking on Moscow’s door RIGHT after taking Leningrad? Is Karelia too big as it is? I suppose realistically it’s alright, but what about playability?

So, my other big question (about the territories on the old A&A map) is: are they alright the way they are, or are changes necessary? I’d rather not alter the map unless I have to, but if it improves the game, then I guess that’s alright ;)

Please give me your opinion, I need some help! Sorry for the long post. Thanks a lot in advance!

Kinda a loaded question … “fewer territories so it’s more like checkers”. I guess you wouldn’t knock off any territories at all ;)
I’ve only tried the revised map once, but I think I like the original map a bit better. One thing I did like from the new map was the sea zone between Japan and Manchuria. Really makes getting to ships in there a pain!
Off-topic, on the old map Karelia is HUGE. There’s FIVE territories spoking off of it. Why is it so big? Does anyone think it should be split up? If anyone has split it up, how did you do it?

I love navies … ships are SO cool. And so I prefer Pacific. … Although, I’ve only played each once; Pacific seems a bit less “crowded”. Or maybe I’m nuts …

genious? … how ironic …

I assume you’re talking about each AA gun firing at each plane … so three AA guns attacked by 5 planes would involve rolling 15 dice - 3 at each plane?

I like the idea (seems realistic enough) and AA guns always have a tough time shooting down planes … but I’d be worried a) about this making it too easy to absolutely rip an airforce, and b) a side quickly monopolizing all the AA guns.

But doing it like pacific/europe/revised (multiple AA guns, only one fires) seems OK … however, if you’ve got twice as many AA guns, shouldn’t you also have twice as much AA firepower? … geez, I don’t know. Depends on realism vs playability. Maybe a limit of two or three (I’m leaning towards two) AA guns actually firing is a good idea.

Or, make planes cheaper (I have the original, but I think I’ll adopt $10 fighters and $16 carriers), or AA guns more expensive.

Another alternative is to have AA guns fire in each round of combat, not just the first … however, since they’re indestructible, this would probably be even worse for airforces, and no one would bother buying planes. So … maybe they should be destructible, if you choose to do this? (yeah - it could be your choice whether they fire once, or each round … )

Well, now I’ll be thinking about this all tonight … another idea I’ve heard of on this forum is using AA guns as artillery, for a fee ($5 extra if it’s a new AA gun, $6 if you want to convert an existing gun - must be in the same territory as an industrial complex). From what I (quickly) gathered, these artillery (not the same as the artillery piece from revised, pacific and europe) would be moved into an attack, and would roll one die for each defending infantry, hitting on a one. The argument is that this is a good way to reduce stacks of infantry. It may also be really painful … and I don’t know if it would be a good idea to allow it to be used this way in defense, too.

Ah well …

I agree with Shuurai … Of course I love spending time with my girlfriend, but I also enjoy hanging out with the guys, and one of the things we like to do is play D-Day (I’m slowly working on getting them into A&A as well as Pacific). I’ve had countless “Risk nights”. They don’t happen as often anymore (we all went and “got” girlfriends … ) but it’s still possible.

I’ve also given up on trying to validate playing a board game when I’m hanging out with the guys (girlfriend couldn’t understand that we didn’t just sit around and drink beer … I told her we drink beer while playing, and she replied with, “yeah, but it’s a BOARD game!”) Anyway, I think she’s realized I’m gonna play it anyway, so now she’ll either laugh, call me a loser, or ignore the fact ;) This is fine, since when she first did that, I got offended and she told me she doesn’t actually care.

However, sometimes she’s over when we’ve got a game still in progress set up (waiting to be finished another night) … then it can get interesting! She likes to move the pieces around - not because she likes them, but because it messes it up … cute :)

Anyway, back to the point. Yeah, your gf may not like A&A - I haven’t found a girl, yet, who does. I suppose they’re out there, but I may never meet one. Not a big deal … personally, the worst I get out of it is a little good-natured flirtatious ribbing. I know for a fact she doesn’t actually care, and this is probably (hopefully) true for most. Most girls like to hang out with just their girlfriends every now and then, too … plus, it always goes both ways (though it may be hard to see): I watch sex and the city with her (though that’s to make up for all the hockey I made her watch as the Flames went through the playoffs), not to mention I (almost) always let her choose the movie.

I love the game. It is, however, more tactical whereas the regular game is more strategic (OK, I lifted that straight off of the avalon hilll site). It’s simple, quick, and damned tense and exciting, I find. A lot of opportunities for shouting! Plus, I love how it re-creates such an epic event. And, maybe I’m a little morbid, but it’s SO bloody :) Half the time I get shivers playing it, because it seems to show what hell the guys on the beach actually went through … but I’m pretty good at putting myself in the situation ;)
Anyway, I love it. It’s the most fun A&A game I’ve found thus far, and the guy I play with agrees. You hardly even have to read the rulebook - just do what the card tells you. But, this doesn’t preclude you from making many important decisions … overall, great game.