elbowmaster wrote:i have to agree with you krieghund...i think larry gave us something to chew on just for the sake of changing the energy that was here lately...
but to jump from subs, to ending the game, leaves way too much "unknown"
even though im a marathon gamer type, i feel his addressing "all" groups will win in the end...
adlertag wrote:INDIVIDUAL WINNING CONDITIONS
Will this game have team victory or individual victory as standard rule ?
*For tournament purpose, an individual winner are needet.
(If the allies win as a team after x rounds, can Japan still win an individual victory ?)
*For historical learning, the individual winner will reflect that this Greate Powers had a "community of interrest", and because of that was fighting as a team, but winning individually.
Imperious leader wrote:Yes your correct.. The point system as we are now dealing with is but ONE of several victory contitions that are implimented to speed up the game. Still for historical realism, the introduction of individual conditions for victory are on the table, as well as the old "take capital" system of winning. WE have not got back to this point since we havent finished with the victory city thing. I would hope that the future order of which part of the project we work on is done differently. I would have liked to work on naval combat , since larry started with subs so it seemed more natural to finish in the vein of this topic.
V-2 wrote:When my gaming group plays A&A using the "War of Attrition" house rules taken from the Avalon Hill forum (collect income phase is just before the set-up attack phase, which I believe Larry said he was going to use in advanced, correct me if I'm wrong), when a capital is taken the defender loses his income, but the invader does not gain it. This made sense to use, since the invader should not simply be able to loot his enemy's capital. However, the invader does get his opponents techs, if any, starting next round.
Griffey wrote:The original A&A system is simpler, more subtle, and more flexible than any rule which assigns separate special victory point status to territories.
The problem with the latter is that there are either too few or too many victory territories, making the victory conditions too simple or too complex. When it's too simple, as in A&A Revised, the victory conditions dictate strategy. India, Leningrad, and Russia are the only Allied victory territories in reach--ruling out an Australian Japanese strategy or an African German strategy.
But going the other directions, making the victory territories too numerous, nuanced and weighted in importance, creates too many bburdensome new rules. 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.
Griffey wrote:When a player plays two or three powers, he can be induced to play with equal fervor and concern for each of them, by a simple rule giving heavier WEIGHT to the victory scores of his powers which do LEAST well.
For example, suppose one player plays both Japan and Germany. Suppose Japan does well and gains a score of +80, while Germany does poorly, and suffers a score of negative 50, meaning Germany lost half of its starting IPC income.
Double weight the German Score because it was the worse of the two Powers' scores:
Germany's -50, times a weight of two = -100.
Japan's score is unweighted, = +80.
Now, add the two scores together, and divide by three, to get the German -Japanese Player Score. It would be (80 -100) / 3 = -7 points.
Using this rule, you do best by doing equally well for each of the powers you represent. This is realistic, because powers rarely sacrifice their own interests to other powers' interests.
If one were playing three powers, the weights would be x 3 for the lowest scoring power, x 2 for the middle scoring power, and x 1 for the highest scoring power. After multiplying all powers' scores by their respective weights, the three weighted scores are added together, then the sum is divided by six, to get the Player Score for a 3-power player.
adlertag wrote:INDIVIDUAL WINNER (again, wikings never quit)
This is a race, like A&A Pacific. The Axis player must build an Empire of x territories before the Economic stronger Allies stop him by occupying his capitol.
AXIS WIN INDIVIDUAL
*Germanys war goal is to establish "Der Dritte Reich" from France to Ural .
*Italys war goal is to re-establish a Roman Empire around Mediterranean.
*Japans war goal is to establish a Shogun Empire in Pacific/Asia.
ALLIED WIN AS TEAM
*The allied war goal is to stop the Axis from building their Empires.
To do this, the Allies must occupie each of the Axis capitols, Berlin, Roma and Tokyo. (When an Axis capitol is occupied, that nation is out of the war.)
This victory conditions reflects the real ww2. The Axis tryed to build Empires, and the Allies liberated neutrals.
OCCUPIE OR LIBERATE
*When Axis units occupi a territory, they can use the ipc- value.
*When Allied units occupie a territory, that territory are liberated, and the allies can not use its ipc-value.
NEW IPC STARTING INCOME
Closer to reality:
Germany 20 %..............USA 40 %
Italy 5 %......................UK 10 %
Japan 10 %...................USSR 15 %
Axis total 35 % versus Allied total 65 %
This un-balance is playable because it is a race, like A&A Pacific.
If this was a "Conquer an Empire" game, with the same vinning conditions for all, then the ipc-start income must look like in Revised.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests