Why make Victory Cities that wont see play?

Got a question that you'd like me to answer?
I'll be checking in on this thread now and then and hope I can answer any questions you may have.
Post Reply
Rakeman
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:50 am

Why make Victory Cities that wont see play?

Post by Rakeman » Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:21 pm

I never quite understood making LA the US VC in revised, as opposed to Honolulu. In a "normal" game, LA will never fall to the Axis, so why make it one as opposed to Honolulu? If the non-capital VCs were Leningrad, Calcutta, and Honolulu, Pacific action would have been more or less forced, as America ignoring the Pacific would mean loss of 2 VCs, so Germany taking Leningrad would force a 9 VC win.

Right now, most US players abandon the Pacific, because if Japan threatens Western USA, all they need to do is build up and the threat is deflected. So Japan has no reason to do just about anything the Pacific and instead hit russia hard (the JTDTM, as it is called).

The problem stems from the idea, I believe, that Japan has no real target. Axis and Allies has always been decided by capitals being lost. All 3 Allied Capitals are in the Europe section, not Pacific. Japan really has nothing to go for, except the ahistorical rush-Russia strategy. Heck, even in Pacific, this problem of no real capitals was noticed by giving Japan a victory point win, as opposed to simply taking a capital. Of course, India and Australia as capitals made this not 100% necessary, but a very nice feature as it gave the Japanese player a new way to win.

If Hawaii was a VC, I think Japan would have had a decent target. Hawaii + Calcutta + Leningrad would have been a win under 9 VC, after all. Japan has something it can threaten, and as a result, the Allies can not just let Japan rule the Pacific, because right now the Pacific is unfortunately, a side show.

This problem may or may not be in AA50, but I am disappointed in the inclusion of Ottawa as a Victory City. I really don't understand the point in putting in North American victory cities, because as they will rarely if ever see play between two skilled opponents, they devalue the whole victory city system, IMO.

Black_Elk
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:10 am

Post by Black_Elk » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:14 pm

I favor Benghazi, Singapore and something else in range of the Axis. Maybe Cape Town, Cairo, or one more in the Pacific. Or perhaps just another VC for Germany to worry about; Bucharest maybe or Amsterdam.

The problem with North American VCs is that they are relatively simple to cover (a troop train out of Western US from round 1 and its pretty much impossible for the Axis to get in position.) Sometimes I've seen a joint Canadian shield by Japan on W. Canada and Germany on E. Canada, but only when the allied player makes a mistake or goofs the logistics.

I still think the main difficulty with VCs is that they don't have any in game associations beyond the stated victory conditions. I really like the new National Objectives idea with the bonuses, but I wish they included a 1:1 bonus/penalty for individual victory cities. Even something small, like say an extra +1 ipc taken directly from the enemy's cash reserves if you take a VC from them that round. Something that could be explained in a line, and relatively simple to keep track of, so it wouldn't overburden the rules. Could be fun :)

Maybe something to think about for the next one, or for some house rules.
Last edited by Black_Elk on Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:21 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Rakeman
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:50 am

Post by Rakeman » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:16 pm

Black_Elk wrote:I favor Benghazi, Singapore and something else in range of the Axis. Maybe Cape Town, or something else in the Pacific. Or maybe just another one to for Germany to worry about, Bucharest maybe or Amsterdam.

Problem with North American VCs, is that they relatively simple to cover (a troop train out of Western US from round 1 and its pretty much impossible for the Axis to get in position.) Sometimes I've seen a joint Canadian shield by Japan on W. Canada and Germany on E. Canada. But only when the allied player makes a mistake or goofs the logistics.

I still think that the main difficulty with VCs is that they don't have any real in game associations beyond the stated victory conditions. I really like this new National Objectives idea with the bonuses, but I wish they included a 1:1 bonus/penalty for individual victory cities. Like even something small say, an extra +1 ipc taken directly from the enemy's cash reserves if you take a VC from them that round. Something that could be explained in a line, and relatively simple to keep track of, so it wouldn't overburden the rules. Could be fun :)

Maybe something to think about for the next one, or for some house rules.
Oh yes, you've mentioned that on axisandallies.org and I agreed 100%. If victory cities gave you a bonus for owning them, it would be a much better system. Now that we have real bonuses, it makes Victory Cities just kind of awkward IMO.

User avatar
Craig A Yope
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Saint Clair, MI

Post by Craig A Yope » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:07 am

In the Anniversary Edition, I fought for Cairo as an Allied VC (instead of things like Ottawa) since it was a place that the Axis were aiming for.

There are more VCs in the Pacific in the Anniversary Edition.

As for Revised, the VCs choosen were less than. That is why I came up with the Victory Territories (VTs) that I did for use in the tournament that I GM.

Craig


Adjudication System-
The determination of who wins a tournament game will be based upon the control of Victory Territories (VTs). The Victory City method of determining a winner will NOT be used. Each side controls 12 Victory Territories at the beginning of the game. The Victory Territories are listed below.


AXIS POWERS

GERMANY

Germany
Western Europe
Southern Europe
Eastern Europe
Ukraine SSR
Norway

JAPAN
Japan
Manchuria
French Indochina
Philippine Islands
East Indies
Borneo

ALLIED POWERS

USSR

Russia
Caucasus
Archangel
Novosibirsk

UK
United Kingdom
India
Anglo-Egypt
Australia

USA
Eastern US
Western US
Hawaiian Islands
Sinkiang

If a player holds 18 (or more) VTs for a full round of game play (From the end of a country’s turn to the beginning of that same country’s next turn.), then that player automatically wins the game.

In the event of a VT tie at the end of the game, whichever side increased its IPC total is the winner. If the game is still tied after reviewing the IPC totals, then the GM will make a determination of the winner based on upon the game situation at the time the game ended.

If a player chooses to concede a game before it has reached the 18 VT automatic win threshold or the game time limit (4.5 hrs), a default score of 19 VTs and +30 IPCs will be awarded to the winner.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests