The Old Soldier wrote:Why not play a certain number of turns, determined by the players with a minimum and a maximum.
Winner is the combined totals of the following ( I suggest a tracking chart), Total GNP + victory cities + decisive battles won (any battle that destroyed completely the enemy force within the 3 rounds of play) points would be based on total units destroyed. Thus you have Wealth, Political, and Military victories. This goes with the idea of being able to increase your GNP by paying IPC's like buying troops.
Defiance wrote:For this discussion of victory conditions, I would like to add 2 more things to the discussion:
- I do not like individual victory conditions at all. This whole A&A game should be that 2 teams compete against eachother. If the allies decide to go after Italy first, how does the italian player supposed to get an individual victory?... Cause you work as a team, and the opponent make their choices, I don't see how one could objectively add individual victory conditions without making this extremely complicated...
- The amount of victory cities per power should not be equal to eachother: this way we now have difficulties in placing Japan and Italian cities as with the current setup they need 5 each! Italian territories almost all have a VC that way, and I find that to be unrealistic. Victory cities should be spread out over the map as much as possible.
I'd propose (for starters) to keep an equal amount per side (Axis and Allies), but lets have powers on each side have different amount of victory cities (UK and Germany will then have the most VC's compared to their fellow powers).
I would even go for more Allied VC's than Axis VC's to reflect more historical sense that the Allied held far more territory than the Axis, as I stated earlier. Good numbers are for example:
Allies 15 - Axis 10
Allies 18 - Axis 12
Allies 21 - Axis 14
Allies 16 - Axis 8
Allies 18 - Axis 9
Allies 20 - Axis 10
Allies 22 - Axis 11
Allies 24 - Axis 12
This way you can let the Axis try to obtain a specific amount of VC's plus IPC value to win. Same for Allies, but once they keep the advantage in IPC totals they'll win in the long run.
Instead of determining how many VC's we should have and THEN decide the cities, I'd go for ma different approach: FIRST select the cities we want to use as Axis VC's (spreaded as much possibly and realistic choices), 2nd then count total amount for Axis, then determine from the above the % and thus getting the numbers of Allied VC's needed would give a more constructive selection of the VC's.
This way you then have no need for Mogadishu or Palermo as victory cities! Or having X amount of Japenese VC's all clunged together. For Italy one can stick with Rome, Athens and Tripoli for example. Clear, simple and effective.
Imperious leader wrote:Ahh good ideas as usual, My feeling is in this "victory condition" talk, we can both win as a team and individually, not one or the other. I dont see Japan winning the game along with the allies, but for example i see say the allies winning as a team, but individually some can come in 1st 2nd and 3rd. I want individual victory conditions, but not for the same reasons why you dont like them. I would like to see some tension between partners, while they are a team in fact they also follow their own agendas to secure goals which may at times "cross" an other powers political objectives. This would bring into the game some diplomatic style dealing, that is lacking from the other games. I really like the Idea of how Italy fits into this consider:
Italy can be played by those who dont want alot of responsibility, with some easier objectives to meet for individual victory... a perfect nation to play for a novice, while Japan or Russia will have many things to ponder when considering their turns to achieve individual victory, Its almost like each nation will want to be played because they symbolize different human personality types. What im driving at is the notion that we play a nation as we see its effectiveness or vitality as a reflection of our own passions and psycology. This element cannot be underestimated. Its a foundation of what makes games replayable over and over. We see ourselves in the game. It sounds strange but its true. Thats one of the main reasons why i favor individual victory conditions. Now take a deep breath..
thoes426 wrote:I second your feelings on the matter.
In games i have played i find an aggressive player makes for a good German player. put a passive player in the same role and Germnay will get it's ass waxed every time.
Russia should be played by someone who will only help if it fit their goals in the game.
Britian and America are best played by two close friends so that there is minimal disagreement and excellent coordination.
Japan needs someone who likes the naval side of the game, so that great sea battles can occur.
I too find myself "in the game" and try to play the country the way i think it should have been lead during the war when possible.
The two forms of Victory should be Team (Axis or Allies) and Individual based on specific goals for each country.
This would bring new excitement to the game and i feel will Advance the games evolution.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest