Larry wrote:Players win with points.
The following victory conditions are what I see Advanced Axis & Allies being. I would like your feed back. Is this a good idea - Why? Is this a bad idea - Why? What would you do differently or what part of these rules would you change?
Gaining points will spread out the game’s strategic objectives. This should make for a truly global struggle. Territories with high IPC values will become even more important as objectives. At the same time designated cities will offer big points.
- Imperious leader
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
- Location: Moving up to phase line red...
thoes426 wrote:Larry -
I'm not a big fan of ''Victory Points" or time limits.
As long as the new game can still be played by players like myself who just want to beat the other player thru combat which leads to their elimination from the game either by taking their capital or crushing them out to the last infantry piece!
I trust you and the other members will create something awsome and to be fair, when this game is sold, i will try playing by the rules for victory which are included.
I think i'll stay in the shadows on this one.
elbowmaster wrote:time to add some stars on the map to get a better visual of this...
will be interesting trying to get revised values on a pacific map, im thinking more of the lines of revised values in europe would be easier for that side of the map...
as youve suggested before, should the aap map be considered your initial template in the pacific, as i see the pacific VC's lead more to that map...
java and sumatra / split like in pacific???
i like the juneau vc as suggested, one could consider honorable mention to dutch harbor or even the aleutians as it did tie up 35,000 men on the us side...
thanks for making canberra a VC...will that be included on s coast territory...? or more inland as geographically located now...it may make for interesting australia campaign if it were inland...
though not a fan of time restrictions, as im similar gamer to theo's (marathon games!! love em)
larry, learning from what happened to the tourney folks during revised, is making a good choice to include this in his ruleset...all groups should be counted for in this version...
Krieghund wrote:Will ENRs and SBRs reduce points as well?Larry wrote:The number of IPC’s made per turn equals 1 point per IPC. If the IPC values are not equal the difference will be considered when calculating victory points.
Also, I was never quite sure why LA was the US west coast VC. Wasn't San Francisco more important during the war (Navy Yards, etc.)? Not that it makes any practical difference for the game.
On the subject of losing your capital, how about this: If you lose your capital, you lose half your IPCs and must immediately relocate your capital to another territory containing a major VC. If you do not have an eligible capital, you may not produce units until you get one.
Larry wrote:GG: you are right about Tifli and Stalingrad, they are close. That kind of flies in the face of my logic of not wanting Khursk. Still I like Baku and Stalingrad. This area was a very attractive objective for the Germans and I like to capture some of that feeling in this game. Khursk does not offer that same “feeling” to me.
Thoes426 – If you don’t like the point system I understand. I invite you to argue against it if you wish. Perhaps its just semantics however. You certainly can set your objectives to capture the enemy capitals. I don’t think that rule would be in conflict with this new proposal. This new system of winning points is simply to open up more game play avenues to victory. There certainly will be a sliding scale showing points. Remember that there are two ways of earning points – IP income and possession of the listed cities. When combined together that is your score.
Elbow: Yeah Juneau as a VC is probably a good idea.I’m not sure what you’re saying here.larry, learning from what happened to the tourney folks during revised, is making a good choice to include this in his ruleset...all groups should be counted for in this version...
Krieghund: Good question about the ENR’s and SBR . How would you like it to work?
I totally agree with you about San Francisco. Please, don’t let me make the mistake of forgetting this. Don’t over complicate the capital thing. You lose it you give up your money. If you still have a factory and have earned some IPC’s you can still build new weapons.
Imp: If not Formosa what? Please, not another mainland Chinese territory.
I’m attempting to inflate Italy’s value to the Axis. To do this I must somewhat promote the value of Mogadiscio. It’s good for Italy and its good for shifting conflicts to the central African area. Being one of the few Italian colonies in the world it has some political and physiological value.
As to how I pick my cities. That’s kind of complicated and simple at the same time…
Some cities must be listed (the capitals). I need an equal list of secondary target cities. Each power should have a couple. None should, in theory, be easier to be captured by the enemy than another. I want to HEAR city names spoken and written about when playing this game. Cities like Stalingrad, Leningrad, Paris, Singapore and so on. They scream of World War II. My predominant underlining consideration is FAIRNESS in layout. I want to be as fair to both sides as I can. I want each side to have equal opportunities to capture enemy VC’s. I don’t want one side to have a more difficult time defending key VC’s. Yeah –Equal opportunities and protection for both sides. Historical recalls of strategic areas (territories and cities). As big a spread out of VC’s as possible. With that said I should probably include Cape Town South Africa.
TMTM: Yeah, as I wrote above to thoes426 – you can just fight it out to a total victory if you like. However, let me add – Fighting it out to total victory could be the 3rd type of game objective. The other two are – having the most points at the end of a set amount of time. The second system - Being the first side to obtain a certain number of points
Krieghund wrote:I'm not sure. On one hand there's a precedent in Pacific for reducing victory points through economic damage, but on the other hand I'm not sure I like the concept of accumulated income contributing to victory points at all. It seems simpler to leave money out of it and just count the total victory city points plus the total value of territories you currently control to see if you've reached the target total.Larry wrote:Krieghund: Good question about the ENR’s and SBR . How would you like it to work?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest