Possible Victory Conditions

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

Re: GRAND STRATEGY

Post by elbowmaster » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:29 am

Griffey wrote:Percentage gain in at start IPC income as the criterion of victory leaves players the most freedom to devise their own GRAND STRATEGY for victory. Players should not be forced to go after just a few of all of the territories within reach. They should be free (Free!) to get their IPC and their victory wherever they can. (See my previous post on this subject, "Winning the Game," several pages up, for more detail on the argument for IPC as the criterion of victory.)

To expand on the idea:

SEA ZONES SHOULD COUNT AS VICTORY OBJECTIVES. Why should territories be the only victory objectives? For example, how long would Britain have fought if the Axis had seized control of all her proximate seas?

In all previous versions of A&A, the reason sophisticated players always pour all available resoures into the struggle for Eurasia is simple. That's where the most accessible IPC s (or victory cities) are to be found. Why put anything into a naval effort when there are no IPCs or victory points there at sea?

The result is a severe constriction of strategic options, and games that usually closely resemble one another.

If the Axis and Japan have little hope of seizing sea zones worth IPCs or victory points, they should at least have hope, by their submarine efforts, of denying those certificates or points to their enemies.

ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT VICTORY POINTS
I would make IPC the sole criteria of victory in almost all cases, because it's so simple and intuitive to do so. There are some special cases where IPC do not tell the whole story about a territory or sea zone's true value.

Victory points, instead of being used as a substitute for IPC, should be used as a COMPLEMENT to IPC. For example, what would the effect have been on American and British morale have been if the Imperial Japanese Army, instead of raping and murdering hundreds of thousands of Chinese women and girls, were threatening to do the same to white women in Australia? I think the mere threat would have lead to a swift peace with Japan. That was certainly the view at the time, however much "political correctness" may have thinned our blood today.

However, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa are worth only a few IPC. Their IPC alone do not reflect their strategic importance. Morale is about more than mere resources.

There were a few other territories, and a few sea zones, where I think Allied morale would have been particularly sensitive. The loss of Hawaii, or Alaska, or any part of South America to the Germans or Japanese would have harmed American morale, because their loss would have punctured the American feeling of invulnerability, and punctured our self-image as the Guardian of the New World. In these cases, doubts would be raised about the winnability of the war, and there would have been arguments for accepting peace in return for a Japanese or Axis withdrawal from those parts.

The same would apply to British losses in the Atlantic, and even in India, and the Indian Ocean.

In sum, the criterion of victory should still be IPC, but IPC-plus in a few special places. A few places should be worth extra, special victory points to reflect their importance to Allied morale.

Using such a system to determine victory would greatly widen the possibilities of victory for the Axis. They wouldn't be restricted to a "USSR, China, and India, or Bust!" grand strategy.

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

Post by elbowmaster » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:30 am

Imperious leader wrote:With individual victory conditions say in Japans case control of all China, India, Australia, and all pacific islands from Hawaii eastward.

British Conditions could be regain control of all former british colonies, plus western (not Soviet ) control of France , Greece, Norway,Italy.

Soviet victory would be capturing finland and all central europe from Berlin to moscow, plus 1-2 Japanese controlled territories in manchukuo, korea, shakilin islands

USA would be western europe , Italy , plus phillipines, and all pacific islands including Japan

Germany would be all europe to the Urals , gibraltar, malta, and middle east.

Italy would be top half of afrika, yugoslavia and greece

note this is very rough ideas, but Tojo in Moscow is definatly out.

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

Post by elbowmaster » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:30 am

elbowmaster wrote:ive always thought that stategic positions or "special areas" are/should be worth more, as

solomons, okinawa, iwo jima come to mind...hawaii, panama..etc...

remember this idea from rob, "avalonhill" at don rae's site???

somehow i managed to save this, but it offers another alternative to winning the game by forcing surrender... 8)

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

Post by elbowmaster » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:31 am

Defiance wrote:Wow elbow.... that is indeed a very nice idea... I like it!! .....

This could apply to get Neutrals into the game as well.... For example, Turkey, once Iraq/Causasus has been captured you get a +x on roll for letting it join the war on the Axis side!

-----------

Griffey, I like your ideas as well. In my view, I think the convoys should be used to give the seas their "IPC" value.

A percentage gain is what I believe to be best as well. This, combined with those specific victory points from certain territories as a complement (a.k.a. where the Victory Cities lie!) should determine who wins.

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

Post by elbowmaster » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:34 am

Flashman wrote:
elbowmaster wrote:ive always thought that stategic positions or "special areas" are/should be worth more, as

solomons, okinawa, iwo jima come to mind...hawaii, panama..etc...
I disagree with this. If certain areas are strategically important, this should be reflected in the game mechanics without any artificial boost.
For example, Hawaii should be important for exactly the same reasons as historically, i.e. as a vital forward base for the US Navy. This can be reflected by, for example, introducing the rule forcing damaged capital ships to repair at naval bases. This is how Hawaii should be made important, rather than by an artificial IPC boost, or making Honolulu a Victory City.

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

Post by elbowmaster » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:35 am

elbowmaster wrote:i understand :? what your saying flash, but japan's income has already been inflated in most versions of axis & allies...

each of these games use IPC, or 1 million man hours of production...

this area is where enhancements or adjustments could be made, as examples by griffey, who seems to be saying something similar to what i am...

all that im trying to show as an example, is that product has more influences than just man hours...

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

Post by elbowmaster » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:36 am

DonMoody wrote:"If certain areas are strategically important, this should be reflected in the game mechanics without any artificial boost."

While I basically agree with this, to achieve this often requires rules that are not simple.

"For example, Hawaii should be important for exactly the same reasons as historically, i.e. as a vital forward base for the US Navy. This can be reflected by, for example, introducing the rule forcing damaged capital ships to repair at naval bases."

Except for very minor repairs, what capital ships were repaired or refitted at PH?
Most went to the West Coast (because it was only a few days from PH to the West Coast).

The Hawaiian Islands real advantage to the US was primarily logistical.
And logistics are routinely boring and/or tedious to implement in a game.
Implementing realistic logistics certainly doesn't make a game simpler.
For example, Japan wasn't logistically capable of maintaining the areas it historically captured, let alone supplying/supporting the areas it tried to take and failed, let alone the areas it considered capturing but never made an attempt (or never had the chance to make an attempt, or never was capable of making an attempt).

DonMoody

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

Post by elbowmaster » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:36 am

Imperious leader wrote:
Except for very minor repairs, what capital ships were repaired or refitted at PH?
Most went to the West Coast (because it was only a few days from PH to the West Coast).
gee how bout about the six battleships that were sunk or heavily damaged in Hawaii and raised to fight within a year or two, or the Yorktown that was damaged in Coral sea and made fit for combat in 48 hours? I think any port with a record as this would probably be fit to repair anything...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest