3 levels of Victory Cities

Proposed Victory Conditions based on 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 11:49 pm

Imperious leader wrote:Not true , Hitler could have had two seperate world wars, if he reneged on his "Tripartate act" pledge to declare war on any nation if it found itself at war with one of the three axis partners. He has a good record for breaking treatys, but he underestimated USA. Other wise , Churchill and FDR would have to find other creative ways to get the American people involved against Germany, The passion of our people against the attack on Hawaii, was directed against the Japanese, But Hitler opened the door and his mouth, which that caustic speech in the Reichstag (that was broadcast to the Americas), followed by the declaration of war. This sentiment was easy to rally against, while FDR was none too happy to say thanks herr Hitler!
If i was Hitler id force Stalin to send oil to Japan by way of the trans-siberian railroad . If that failed id get Germany out of that pact, since their was no real partnership or planning on world conquest. Just dont attack USA. If Japan didnt attack french indo-china we would not have frozen oil exports. AS it turned out China was acceptable, but adding other nations to a growing list of aggressions by Japan, was a sure sign that USA had to do something . Japan should have just fought China before turning her stick on other neighbors. The oil grap of the Dutch east indies would make little difference for a land campaign with what the Kwangtung Army
used. They were not very mobilized and did not have full scale tank divisions on the scale of their German friends. So the door could have swung either way-
below are the details of the pact, The idea is to help the other in the event that they are attacked by a another power, But japan attacked USA, so Germany had no real obligation to declare war on USA. But stupid Hitler did it anyway.

(3)Summary of the Three-Power Pact Between Germany, Italy, and
Japan, Signed at Berlin, SEPTEMBER 27, 1940. (THE TRIPARTITE
PACT)

The governments of Germany, Italy and Japan, considering it as a
condition precedent of any lasting peace that all nations of the
world be given each its own proper place, have decided to stand
by and co-operate with one another in regard to their efforts in
greater East Asia and regions of Europe respectively wherein it
is their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of
things calculated to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare
of the peoples concerned.

Furthermore, it is the desire of the three governments to extend
co-operation to such nations in other spheres of the world as
may be inclined to put forth endeavours along lines similar to
their own, in order that their ultimate aspirations for world
peace may thus be realized.

Accordingly, the governments of Germany, Italy and Japan have
agreed as follows:

ARTICLE ONE

Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and
Italy in establishment of a new order in Europe.

ARTICLE TWO

Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan
in the establishment of a new order in greater East Asia.

ARTICLE THREE

Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on
aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another
with all political, economic and military means when one of the
three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not
involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese
conflict.

ARTICLE FOUR

With the view to implementing the present pact, joint technical
commissions, members which are to be appointed by the respective
governments of Germany, Italy and Japan will meet without delay.

ARTICLE FIVE

Germany, Italy and Japan affirm that the aforesaid terms do not
in any way affect the political status which exists at present
as between each of the three contracting powers and Soviet
Russia.

ARTICLE SIX

The present pact shall come into effect immediately upon
signature and shall remain in force 10 years from the date of
its coming into force. At the proper time before expiration of
said term, the high contracting parties shall at the request of
any of them enter into negotiations for its renewal.

In faith whereof, the undersigned duly authorized by their
respective governments have signed this pact and have affixed
hereto their signatures.

Done in triplicate at Berlin, the 27th day of September, 1940,
in the 19th year of the fascist era, corresponding to the 27th
day of the ninth month of the 15th year of Showa (the reign of
Emperor Hirohito).

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

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:50 pm

elbowmaster wrote:sounds like a potential boring USA adventure if japan doesnt attack pearl on t1, based on the december 6th starting date...hmmm...this will certainly make the point system interesting as well...

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

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:51 pm

Imperious leader wrote:Well im sure about boring, but Japan can start by finishing off China, and build up her navy a bit. Remember in order for japan to win she has to conquer china, french and dutch colonies, austrialia, and all pacific islands including hawaii. Any attack on any ally of USA is an attack and end of neutrality. Consider the following 1939 scenario rules: Note forget about the numbers and turns which are for another game.

Japan
Japan can attack French Indo-China at any time but doing so ends US aid to Japan and starts a war with United Kingdom. If Vichy France exists, once per turn Japan can pay 4 IP and if you successfully roll 1-8, then all forces are now Japanese controlled for immediate use. In this manner Japan can keep her neutrality with United Kingdom but does however end US aid to Japan. The “Dutch” fleet in the East Indies cannot move until Japan is at war with U.S. or Britain, or turn 6.
Japan receives 5 IP from the US player to represent economic aid during turns 1-4 as long as Japan does not attack any British or French territories/units nor takes more than ½ of Chinese held territories. The aid is not deducted from current US IP levels.

United States
U.S. is neutral until turn six unless it is attacked as follows:
1) Attack upon any nation in North/South America.
2) Japan attacks any U.S. or British territories or ships.
Until at war, they collect only 40 IP per turn but have the ability to lend lease to UK on any turn and Russia if they are already at war with the axis. A maximum of 20 IP can be sent per turn in peacetime and 1/3 of US full wartime IP level. While neutral, no US units can enter territories or with units from nations at war with an axis power. Axis units can pass though sea zones controlled by the US player, except the Panama Canal which can only be used with permission during American neutrality.

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

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:51 pm

TMTM wrote:If US is neutral until turn 6... do the US get to build and collect IPC's for the first 5 rounds but just don't attack?

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

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:52 pm

Imperious leader wrote:If the game starts in 1939, then yes but at a reduced rate, plus lend lease is possible after for Uk, and eventually Soviet Union after its at war with Germany. However the game starts in dec 41. So as a general idea the post illustrates how say Japan and USA are introduced to War with each other. In my game turn 6 is dec 7th 1941- June 1942.

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

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:53 pm

Defiance wrote:Seems I was missing an important discussion
in which I have an opinion! :) Warning I've written alot but it's worth to read! Especially for you Larry....
20 point cities are:
Washington
London
Moscow
Berlin
Rome
Tokyo
- allright this is pretty clear I think....
15 point cities are:
San Francisco
Calcutta
Stalingrad
Paris
Athens
Peiping
- You might want to change Peiping with Shanghai or Nanking.... During the war these two cities, which lie very near to eachother, where of more importance for the Japanese and for the Chinese. Although Peiping was the capital pre-WWII, the fighting was more focused around the Yangtze-basin

- Maybe change Stalingrad with Leningrad and vice versa... not sure though... Leningrad was besieged for a long time, it's importance compared to Stalingrad.. I don't know exactly.

- Why San Fransisco instead of Los Angeles? Doesn't really matter for gameplay purposes but I'd like to know...

10 Point cities are:
Honolulu
Manila (The Philippines are American at the beginning of the game)
Panama
Canberra
Cairo
Singapore
Leningrad
Baku (Southern Caucasus – The Caucasus as shown on the map will be made into two territories)
Vladivostok
Oslo
Warsaw
Budapest
Tripoli
Mogadiscio (Italian Somaliland)
Sicily (To be added to the map)
Okinawa
Seoul (Korea to be added)
Formosa (To be added to map)
USA
- You should definately change Panama with Chungking! Putting more victory cities on the american continent is not good for the gameplay & pressure on the allies!! Chungking was of mayor importance for the Chinese!!! You cannot exclude this city in advanced....

UK
- I'd swap Canberra for Sydney or Melbourne. The big cities are of more importance.

USSR
- Baku is a nice pick for a victory city
- Be careful with Vladivostok as a pick for a Victory City, as it could too easily land in the hands of the Japanese. Maybe Novosibirsk is a good alternative to use, as the city lies within reach if the Japenese go through the desert areas in the northern parts of china it is the first city they could encounter.

Germany:
- I'd use for victory cities Vienna, Bucharest and Warchaw(maybe Oslo). It is difficult.... It depends on how you want to put even more things in this game (rumanian oil to represent a high IPC value for Rumania would make Budapest a better choice to spread out importance). Oslo would mean a good spread of VC's.

Japan:
- Right now with your current selection there are many Victory Cities "around" Manchuria (3) This concentration, combined with your selection of Tokyo, Okinawa and Formosa will make the more northern areas of asia far more important, while I think there was more fighting in the south! - you should geti Chungking and Saigon/Bangkok into the game to get more balance in this, and drop Panama and Seoul/Formosa. This is one thing you really should change!!!!!
- Saigon was an important seaport for the Japenese.
- For Japan's setup, I'd use VC's in the more outer territories and just obtained territories in the starting setup (Peiping, Guam and Saigon), while giving the territories which where in Japan's possession pre-WWII a significant IPC value (Formosa, Korea, Manchukuo, Okinawa) rather than a victory city, to balance things out nicely.

Italy:

- Italy is difficult with VC selection. Tripoli yes of course, but furthermore it then is already difficult... To add 2 more Mogadishu seems to be a nice choice in spreading them, but the city was already captured by the British in '41... Hence the British campain to take over Abysinnia and Somalia(British and Italian somaliland) was already completed before december '41, the start date of the game...... So how do you want to incorporate this in the design of AAA? Give back Italian East Africa to boost Italy in the game? But how are the axis gonna stop British forces from taking it in the long run of the game? Though I think Mogadishu should stay, as Mussolini wanted an African colony spreading from Tripoli to Mogadishu, THAT is what he wanted for Italy. This psychological aspect is nice to incorporate!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In general I think you should overthink one important issue. Just like in Revised, you've putted up an EVEN number of victory cities per Power/player. I think this should be changed. I think that because the Allies cover far more territory worldwide, and in reality their production was way higher (so higher IPC value for allies in comparision to more troops for the axis to balance the game), it might be best to go with a 40%/60% or 33%/66% division of victory cities. Give the allies more cities and the axis less. This way the axis goal in the game should be to get even with the allies, so in general to get an even total in IPC's and victory cities.

Furthermore let the axis start with more forces than the allies and you have a game in which:

a) People can agree to which amount of axis domination can be played
b) It's a race against time for the axis to quickly "score" enough victory cities and IPC-valued countries. "Will they have made the right strategic choices in getting even with the allies in world domination?"
c) Since time is against the axis (as was in reality), long games in which the axis didn't get even will eventually end up in a Allied victory (as now happens in most games in A&A). This principle should end the marathon games (8+ hours of playing) which happen alot now with A&A revised/ 2nd edition games
d) Axis have some real victory cities for Japan and Italy instead of having to create them. This way Italy could have (for example) 3 VC's and Japan 4 VC's instead of 5, and thus not making every Italian territory and important one.
e) With more allied VC's, the axis can make some real choices in which campain they'll be undertaking. This will give the game MORE strategic options. For example make Rio de Janeiro or Cape Town a VC in the game. This way the game can really be made "worldwide".

So I'd go for the following selection of VC's. 24 for Allies 12 for Axis. This is more realistic. Axis need to win 7 VC's from allies to win (get control over 50% of the VC's), and allies need to win 7 VC's from the axis. Very simple, but effective....

UK (9):
- London
- Calcutta
- Cairo
- Singapore
- Sydney
- Cape Town
- Montreal
- Batavia (this is one people tend to forget, former Jakarta on Java; represents the Dutch East Indies colonies! also an island VC's to encourage more pacific fleet action by the Allies! That is what we want is it???)

- Mogadishu (now under British control! it can represent the early victories by the British.... make Italian East Africa an italian territory but start under british control?) Edit - Otherwise I'd use Baghdad as the 9th VC.

(maybe Gibraltar, Bombay, Hong Kong)

USA ( 8 ):
- Washington
- Los Angeles
- Honolulu
- Chungking
- Manila
- Rio de Janeiro
- Panama
- Anchorage

USSR (7):
- Moscow
- Stalingrad
- Leningrad
- Baku
- Vladivostok
- Novosibirsk
- Chelyabinsk

Germany (5):

- Berlin
- Paris
- Vienna
- Oslo
- Bucharest

(Kiev, Warsaw as options, I find it difficult to choose)

Japan (4):

- Tokyo
- Saigon (option Bangkok)
- Peiping (option Shanghai)
- Guam (option Okinawa)

Italy (3):

- Rome
- Tripoli
- Athens

(Palermo, Milan as options)

So I hope this is clear. I'll soon post my newest map (working on it) which will include these choices so you can see how their are geographically located to one another for a more clear view of my picks.

I hope this helps..... Let me know what you think! :D :shock:

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

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:54 pm

Larry wrote:Defiance – welcome to the discussion. Thanks for the input. San Francisco was simply more important than LA during the war – big port and so.

You are of course right about Mogadishu. It was captured in 41 by the Brits but in February of that year. This game will start 9 months later. This sucks… I’m not sure how I’m going to handle that. Maybe we can start the game in December 1940. Have the American player set out the first turn. – Just joking.

I’ll of course keep you list for consideration for when the final VC selections is made.
Thanks

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

Post by elbowmaster » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:55 pm

Larry wrote:Yoo Imp – why do you keep posting these long history lessons in the middle of dedicated discussions? If you like, I could open a thread just for you, so you can type these long, long, excerpts from the Encyclopedia Britannia all day and all night. The problem is I don’t need the long articles that have nothing to do with what we are trying to do here – come up with some game mechanics for the Advanced game

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest