Possible Victory Conditions

Proposed Victory Conditions based on points.
Post Reply
User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Possible Victory Conditions

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 12, 2005 12:20 am

Larry wrote:
Possible Victory Conditions
-We could elect to play for X hours. Side with the highest score wins?
-First side to have X points wins the game.

The number of IPC’s made per turn equals 1 point per IPC. If the IPC values are not equal the difference will be considered when calculating victory points.

For the sake of this exercise consider each territory to have the IPC value as presented on the A&A Revised map. However I am open to suggestions. For example – Oil rich Balkans worth X. Trans-Jordan and Persia worth X, etc…

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:54 pm

TMTM wrote:
Krieghund wrote:
Larry wrote: On the subject of losing your capital, how about this: If you lose your capital, you lose half your IPCs and must immediately relocate your capital to another territory containing a major VC. If you do not have an eligible capital, you may not produce units until you get one.
I like this suggestion for players who like a long fought war... and it kinda makes since. In most games I play losing a capitol is a game killer... make a mistake by forgetting to move 1 infantry to protect your capitol even when you are kinda winning the game can be frustating... this could be an optional rule as well.

As I have been thinking of all the good rules you could use... once the game is produced... we could work on a Official Optional Rules.

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:55 pm

Imperious leader wrote:Thats fine. at least its closer than before.

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:56 pm

Larry wrote:GG: you are right about Tifli and Stalingrad, they are close. That kind of flies in the face of my logic of not wanting Khursk. Still I like Baku and Stalingrad. This area was a very attractive objective for the Germans and I like to capture some of that feeling in this game. Khursk does not offer that same “feeling” to me.

Thoes426 – If you don’t like the point system I understand. I invite you to argue against it if you wish. Perhaps its just semantics however. You certainly can set your objectives to capture the enemy capitals. I don’t think that rule would be in conflict with this new proposal. This new system of winning points is simply to open up more game play avenues to victory. There certainly will be a sliding scale showing points. Remember that there are two ways of earning points – IP income and possession of the listed cities. When combined together that is your score.

Elbow: Yeah Juneau as a VC is probably a good idea.
larry, learning from what happened to the tourney folks during revised, is making a good choice to include this in his ruleset...all groups should be counted for in this version...
I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

Krieghund: Good question about the ENR’s and SBR . How would you like it to work?
I totally agree with you about San Francisco. Please, don’t let me make the mistake of forgetting this. Don’t over complicate the capital thing. You lose it you give up your money. If you still have a factory and have earned some IPC’s you can still build new weapons.

Imp: If not Formosa what? Please, not another mainland Chinese territory.
I’m attempting to inflate Italy’s value to the Axis. To do this I must somewhat promote the value of Mogadiscio. It’s good for Italy and its good for shifting conflicts to the central African area. Being one of the few Italian colonies in the world it has some political and physiological value.

As to how I pick my cities. That’s kind of complicated and simple at the same time…
Some cities must be listed (the capitals). I need an equal list of secondary target cities. Each power should have a couple. None should, in theory, be easier to be captured by the enemy than another. I want to HEAR city names spoken and written about when playing this game. Cities like Stalingrad, Leningrad, Paris, Singapore and so on. They scream of World War II. My predominant underlining consideration is FAIRNESS in layout. I want to be as fair to both sides as I can. I want each side to have equal opportunities to capture enemy VC’s. I don’t want one side to have a more difficult time defending key VC’s. Yeah –Equal opportunities and protection for both sides. Historical recalls of strategic areas (territories and cities). As big a spread out of VC’s as possible. With that said I should probably include Cape Town South Africa.

TMTM: Yeah, as I wrote above to thoes426 – you can just fight it out to a total victory if you like. However, let me add – Fighting it out to total victory could be the 3rd type of game objective. The other two are – having the most points at the end of a set amount of time. The second system - Being the first side to obtain a certain number of points

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:13 pm

newaxis wrote:Larry, I like the Victory city/point option as a victory option, but would like to voice my concerns about capital capture. Capturing a player's capital is a major stroke, but taking all their IPCs and keeping them from building is a bit much. Just because Washington D.C. fell to the British, the Americans did not stop fighting. I propose a compromise:

"If your capital is captured, then you must immediately surrender 1/3 of your IPCs to the conquering nation. You still produce as normal, but each turn your capital is occupied you must surrender the value of the capital (or some fraction that we can talk about, like say 1/4 of all your IPCs) directly to the conquering nation immediately after you collect income."

The loss of all your IPCs served its purpose in past games, but this is advanced A&A, which should strive to be a little more realistic. Losing a capital does not mean that you have lost the war. If a player wishes to concede after his or her capital is taken, then the people of the conquered nation have given in. For those who wish to continue the fight, there needs to be an option for them to come back and win the war, however unlikely.

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:14 pm

Larry wrote: Hello newaxis
welcome to the site. Your expressed concern about fallen capitals is shared by several others. This is an area that I did not recognize as a problem. I don’t like compromising per se. I’d rather just find the right thing to do.

What would you think of simply having no penalty at all. The loss of the capital is punishment and/or reward enough in and of itself?

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:15 pm

elbowmaster wrote:
Larry wrote: What would you think of simply having no penalty at all. The loss of the capital is punishment and/or reward enough in and of itself?
in this version, yes...

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:16 pm

Imperious leader wrote:Quite right. In this game we have to present a more Advanced and historically realistic program. The old scrape up another version and recolor the pieces with as few new wrinkles as possible will no longer do if we are to create a "Game for the ages" All old and accepted core rules should be reexamined and be forced to endure the bonfire untill they can reprove themselves under our watchful eyes. The Advanced concept game deserves only the best we have to offer.
I have made my case for why i dont like taking capitals resulting in sure defeat , since this was the case in 2nd edition , 3rd (computer) and Revised 4th edition. I dont see that anything other than capturing all a players factories should prevent the construction of new units. Losing a capital is a loss of possibly a factory that produces units, or a port and of course you lose 20 points, plus you lose the value of the terrirory (economically), but why do we have to lose everything and the kitchen sink??? History has proven that all these six had prepared to fight the war from other locations, and it was only the decision of Hitler, or the French to end the war, when all or most advised continuing the war in the south, or from a colony.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest