Imperious leader wrote:I think we all agree on that point Moody. So the currently active solution is to make a few more sea zones and no more Hawaii "factory "or even repair facilities should be offered there. Repair done at Pugent sound, san diego, and possibly SF ports.
Flashman wrote:The question arises as to what exactly do Victory cities represent. It seems to me there are three basic criteria: political, economic and strategic.
This is the most obvious factor, as VCs represent important political centres such as capital cities. Population can be considered as part of this factor.
The problem here is that an advanced game may include economic factors as a separate factor, particularly if oil and raw materials are included. If they are NOT included, then important economic centres such as Baku and Bagdad can be considered as VCs.
As I've mentioned above, I'm not comfortable with strategic importance being considered in deciding on VCs, as strategy is reflected in the game in so many other ways. A careful calculation of flying/sailing ranges and sighting of bases should give territories such as Hawaii their due importance. Moreover, strategic importance of centres should change every turn with the ebb and flow of battle fronts, so permanent centres of "strategic importance" is anomolous.
The original A&A system is simpler, more subtle, and more flexible than any rule which assigns separate special victory point status to territories.
Carried to its logical limit, proliferating vicotry territories gets you right back to making victory points equal to IPC again. In which case, we can eliminate "victory points," and stick to IPC income as the basis of victory.
The original A&A rule assigned victory status as a percentage of the power's increase (or decrease) of IPC income, with its game-start IPC income as the baseline. This is the ideal rule, first because it makes calculating one's score very easy.
For example, Japan started with 25 IPC income. If it gained +20 IPC income, its individual score was +80%.
Second, it maximizes strategic options. You can get your victory anywhere the IPC value is.
Third, it has some subtlety. The victory scores of powers with bigger starting base IPC income can't be hurt or helped much by the loss or gain of a few points of IPC income, whereas powers with smaller starting IPC incomes are hurt or helped much more by changes in control of a few territories. This is exactly as it should be.
Fourth and my favorite feature, the rule is adaptable to all kinds of alliances. For example, the Axis economic victory in the original game required Germany (32 IPC) and Japan (25 IPC) to reach 84 IPC, and increase of almost 50% over their starting income.
A rule giving Economic Victory to any two powers which agree to end the game and which increase their joint starting IPC income by fifty percent (50%) would, for example, have looked like this in the original game:
Germany (32) and Japan (25) control 86 IPC.
USA (36) and Britain (30) control 99 IPC.
USA (36) and USSR (24) control 90 IPC.
USSR (24) and Japan (25) control 74 IPC.
Germany (32) and USSR (24) control 84 IPC.
USSR (24) and Britain (30) control 81 IPC.
USA (36) and Japan (25) control 92 IPC. etc.
A rule could also give an instant Economic Victory to any one power which has increased its IPC income by 2/3. For example,
INDIVIDUAL POWER VICTORY
USA (36): 60 IPC controlled.
Britain (30): 50 IPC controlled.
USSR (24): 40 IPC controlled.
Japan (25): 42 IPC controlled.
Germany (32): 56 IPC controlled.
Exactly how and where a power reaches its objectives should be left to the powers.
Note: I strongly believe that relations of power should be strictly "cut-throat," with no mixing of units and no "liberation" of one another's territories, except in the case of the special American-British relationship.
Adlertags comments :
I totally agree with this, because it can be easy to track.
On the "National Production Chart" the players starting income are having a logo, and the winning income also have a logo.
NATIONAL INCOME CHART
30 31 (32 STARTING INCOME ) 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50 51 52 53 54 55 (56 YOU WIN )
This is better than counting Victory Cities each turn.
I think that one of possible choice for the victory condition could be the exactly historical reason - and strategic objective - that moved each Powers into the war.
I mean… it is clear that the WWII began because the thirst of conquest of the three major Axis Powers, they start an aggressive war against the neighbourhoods’ countries and the Allied were forced to enter the war in order to prevent this expansionism and fought against the dictatorship in the name of democracy.
So the victory conditions should be aimed on the Axis Powers initiatives.
Based on my home made map (that includes Italy as 6th Player) I reassume the following objectives:
Italy: conquer a “place under the sun” and enter in the club of the major Powers, its means take the control of the entire Mediterranean Sea (Malta and Gibraltar included), preserve the Italian East Africa territories and conquer the Anglo-Egypt taking the control over the Suez Channel in order have a direct route from Italy to the overseas territories of the Italian East Africa. As victory condition I also included that no any allied surface vessels are allowed in the Mediterranean, just some submarines.
Germany: conquer the “Lebensraum” or "living space" I quote from wikipedia:
Developing these ideas, Nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg, proposed that the Nazi administrative organization in lands to be conquered from the Soviets be based upon the following Reichskommissariats:
• Ostland (Baltic States, Belarus and eastern Poland),
• Ukraine (Ukraine and adjacent territories),
• Kaukasus (Caucasus area),
• Moskau (the Moscow metropolitan area and adjacent European Russia)
(in my map Siberia, Russia, Kazakhstan included) and push the Russian forces over the Urals.
Germany must also have at least 1 infantry unit for each territory in order to exercise the control and subdue the conquered territories (no empty territories are allowed for the III Reich).
Japan: conquer all the coastal territories and island groups in the South Chinese Sea including Burma.
Axis strategic victory: all the three Axis Powers reach their own objective;
Axis tactics victory: only two of the Axis Powers reach their own objective;
Allies strategic victory: conquer two Axis capitals.
Allies total victory: conquer all the Germans and Italians territories (capitals included), conquer and liberated all the territories under the Japanese control except for the Japanese metropolitan islands.
Member of http://axisandallies.forumup.it, the FIRST Italian Forum on the web
I like those ideas and I strongly agree with the rule about 1 inf. operating as an occupier because that would deffinatly add to the historical accuracy of the game. I still feel it should be a game of domination or surrender however because even if the axis had accomplished those goals the allies would have continued to fight. I mean the Axis powers had already cut the entire world up into their own spheres of influence which showed they intended to have it all. As you pointed out the Italians would have controlled the medditeranian but I can't recall the other two Axis Powers boundaries. Yeah I agree with what you say though and it looks like it would make a pretty solid game much better I feel than the current system.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests