Imperious leader wrote:yes but San diego was our major military port before it was moved in early 41 to Hawaii , of course SF had military facilities, but no building drydocks, just moored some naval units. It doesnt really matter but as a military center San Diego was a clear choice, but of course the other two are important for other reasons (population). However Los Angeles had more industrial stocks (oil, manufactural) but SF was more populated at this time (narrowly).
Whats wrong with Tunis/ Tobruk for Italian colonial victory centers. One is in Tunisia, the other is in Lybia, if you want to add a third ( tripoli) is good. We are gonna get grilled if we allow Italian east Afrika (which is UK at this time) to majically be Italian again. As last resort Id make Sicily a victory city or Taranto ( largest Italian Naval base) in southern italy.
Krieghund wrote:One point - at this rate it looks like close to every territory on the map is going to end up with a victory city. Aren't we simply moving back to another version of economic victory? We're just using "victory points" instead of IPCs.
I kind of like the idea of each side having its own victory conditions based on its historical goals.
thoes426 wrote:I had also suggested this in another area quite awhile back and totaly agree with this being at least one form of possible Victory conditions.I kind of like the idea of each side having its own victory conditions based on its historical goals.
I know several large lists of Victory cities have been posted with good reasons behind each list, but i feel totaly confidant Larry will shave those lists down and find a happy balance of Victory cities.
At first i posted against these Victory cities and Victory points but as i've read and given more thought to the possible strategies that could arrise, i'm starting to lean towards liking this.
That statement is based on looking at the Revised map while invisioning these proposed V.city locations.
Defiance wrote:Krieghund - when I put in my selected victory cities in my new map for advanced, you'd be surprised that all axis VC locations hence the russian ones don't border eachother directly So I think this could be done without having a victory city in most territories.... Don't think about the revised map...
Larry wrote:Krieghund – your concerns are well founded. This is all very delicate and could turn into a catastrophe in terms of popular acceptance of the mechanic. I’m watching thoes426’s reactions to all this. His reactions are very interesting. The point system is slowly grow on him… the problem with this statement is that I have to use the word “slowly”. I will predict that I will eventually start backing off somewhat. For example – there may not be a 10 point list of cities just 15 and 20 pointers.
This entire exercise is very critical and must be done right. I want it to be both uncomplicated and intuitive (is that redundant, is that redundant)…
For the moment I’m more or less gathering input from many of you. I have not actually started to finalize the details of the design yet.
Do you see the important of this discussion? Once it is concluded how the game is won and what your objectives as a player are, I can design backwards to meet the games objective.
I may lay this discussion aside at some point and come back to it at some future date. I realize it is long and perhaps tedious. Nonetheless, it must be addressed and absolutely resolved.
Flashman wrote:Mmmm, interesting discussion. I rather assumed that the new game would use a modified VC system - I'll have to think about VPs.
I'm totally against crippling a country because of a capital loss. The Soviets would surely have continued to churn out units in the Urals if Moscow had fallen.
Furthermore, if capitals continue to be so important, it's fairly clear that players will still base their strategy on capturing them. The VC system COULD have worked in AAR but, in my view, it fails because the overwhelming thrust of Axis strategy is still to capture Moscow and knock Russia out of the game. Similarly, Allied strategy must focus on Berlin - do people really consider Rome important?
Thats why, if using a system which includes VCs, capitals MUST NOT work as under the old system. The proposed VC/VP system with capitals simply being worth more points seems fine to me.
As to which Soviet cities should be VCs, it really depends on how the geography works. If (as I've always advocated) Moscow is in it's correct location, then Chelyabinsk must be considered.
A reminder of how my AAE map works in this regard; there are 20 VCs, 3 of which begin as neutrals. Without the old capital rules, this works just fine in spreading out the action.
Note that VCs are never in adjoining territories.
Anyway, I'll ruminate over the weekend, and maybe come up with a world map with my suggested VCs.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests