Victory Cities:

Marking the 50th anniversary of Avalon Hill, Wizards of the Coast published this very special version of A&A. I hope you enjoy it.
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"

Victory Cities:

Post by elbowmaster » Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:58 pm

Larry wrote:Victory Cities: There are now 6 new victory cities. Actually 7, Los Angeles has been replaced by San Francisco. The new victory cites are: Hong Kong, Honolulu, Ottawa, Stalingrad, Sydney and Warsaw. With 3 new victory cities in the Pacific there is a guarantee that things are going to heat up between Japan and the allies. No more can America ignore Japan and focus all its power on Germany first.

Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Front Line

Re: Victory Cities:

Post by thehero » Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:07 pm

Mabey we should add 2-3 more.

Mabey one in Norway, one in Egypt and one in western China.
It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. ~Voltaire, War

The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it-George Orwell

User avatar
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Englewood, Colorado

Re: Victory Cities:

Post by Builder_Chris » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:44 pm

I see the VC as a great way to determine the end of the game. It’s a clearly defined ending yet I don’t see players interested in playing A&A that way and I’m wondering why and if I am the only one experiencing this.

When VC were introduced in Axis & Allies Revised I thought it was such a great addition to the game and I was very pleased to see that they had been carried over into the anniversary game. When they were first introduced to the game I thought they were a great mechanism for stirring up action on the board in places that would otherwise be forgotten about or just plain old abandoned. That didn’t prove to be the case.

It’s been years since I’ve played a game of classic A&A but as I recall, the pacific was always abandoned. There was no need for the US, UK or Japan to fight for control over it. So no one did.

Until recently it had been about a year (since AA50 was released) since I last played a game of AAR but as I recalled, the pacific was still abandoned in it even with the VC in it. I recently played two games of revised with a player that was brand new to Axis and Allies -- he had bought revised about a year ago but could find anyone that wanted to learn the game with him. I ran across him by chance, hooked up to game and I taught him how to play using the revised game and emphasizing playing for VC -- and I was surprised to see that he too (a new player to the game) abandoned the pacific. Even with the VC in it he didn’t see any value in the pacific as the Axis or the Allies. His first game he was the Axis and right away he realized that India was important and he went right to the standard German and Japanese pinch move toward Russia but he (and I) put no effort into the pacific.

My regular gaming group gets together once a month and plays nothing but Axis and Allies and since the release of AA50 that’s the only version we have been playing and it’s rare that we “play for Victory Cities”. I’ve tried getting players to play for VC but no one sees (or seems to understand) the significance behind them.

I’ve tried discussing this topic with them and others but I’m experiencing that most players (new and veteran players alike) have this “Risk” mentality when they sit down to a game of A&A. They think that they are playing till someone surrenders, till one side (Axis or Allies) owns the entire world. So to some degree I don’t think it would matter if there were more VC or not.

Is this what everyone else is experiencing with VC or is this unique to the players I know?

Do you guys play for VC or do you play “till it ends”?

If you do play for VC, how many VC do you play to (13, 15, or 18)?

User avatar
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Victory Cities:

Post by Krieghund » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:50 pm

We play to 13.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

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

Re: Victory Cities:

Post by Craig A Yope » Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:40 am

For Revised (and hopefully they work for AA42 as well) try my alternate set of VTs.
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.


Western Europe
Southern Europe
Eastern Europe
Ukraine SSR

French Indochina
Philippine Islands
East Indies



United Kingdom

Eastern US
Western US
Hawaiian Islands

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.
They work well in determining the winner of games in the tournament that I run.

Soon the event AAR will be up on the BPA site, but you can read it now on the A& site. ... #msg495803


User avatar
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Englewood, Colorado

Re: Victory Cities:

Post by Builder_Chris » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:23 pm

That’s cool and all, using Victory Territories instead of Victory Cities…even though it looks like the same thing I would have to give it more thought to see the differences.

But…I guess what I’m really asking is…how many players really use the VC to determine the end/winner of their games?

Do you guys finish every game using VC or does something “happen in the game” that players get to a certain point and just “see the end is near” and someone gives up?

For most of our games that “something that happens” is usually Germany or Russia looses their capital…regardless of how many VC each side controls…everyone pretty much “knows” the game is over.

It seems like all the guys I know that play A&A play till the death blow happens…for the kill…rather than for VC, a condition that usually looks more like a flesh wound and less like a killing blow. I get the impression from talking to players that VC as a end game tool is not…rewarding enough…for a global war game like A&A…like they are stuck on the Risk way of all or nothing. Most of these same players sit down to the game like that can be achieved in a few hours instead of the days it would take to control every territory on the board.

I personally see the value behind the gaming mechanism that VC (or VT) can bring to the game; it’s a tool for shortening the game AND for defining a clear ending point.
Every sports game I can think of is timed, or played to a set number of frames, or innings, or laps, or points and with these games having these “victory conditions” clearly defined it creates a sense of urgency and to a large degree dictates the actions and strategies of both the players and the coaches based off of how close they are to the end of the game.

For some reason I don’t see players seeing things that way when it comes to playing A&A, they don’t seem to want a “clearly defined ending” (short of “total victory) because they always seem to want to just “play till someone cries”.

So is this unique to me and the group of players I seem to find or is this how it is in other A&A circles?

Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:10 am

Re: Victory Cities:

Post by Black_Elk » Tue Jul 08, 2014 2:47 am

This is how I use VCs

The Victory City replaces the factory unit. All VCs are given a starting factory, and no new factories may be purchased beyond these Victory Cities. This grantees that all VCs are significant to the gameplay (whether or not you choose to pay attention to them in determining victory, they are still made part of the core game mechanics.)

AA50 is ideal for this adjustment, because it features the best VC placement of any mapboard to date. There are 18 total
"There are now 6 new victory cities. Actually 7, Los Angeles has been replaced by San Francisco. The new victory cites are: Hong Kong, Honolulu, Ottawa, Stalingrad, Sydney and Warsaw. With 3 new victory cities in the Pacific there is a guarantee that things are going to heat up between Japan and the allies. No more can America ignore Japan and focus all its power on Germany first"
If you want to make good on that promise of 'things heating up' try this adjustment. It produces interesting strategies and an interesting overall game balance. By fixing all production onto the VCs, and restricting it anywhere else, you open up a whole new dynamic around Europe and the Pacific. One that finally does encourage Allied action in the Pacific for a change.

To your question about whether players use Victory cities to actually determine "victory" I can only say that, in all my various gaming groups over the years, everyone prefers to play A&A until concession. Unconditional Surrender! Normal VCs don't seem to offer anything in terms of this, so many people just ignore them. But if all VCs are given a starting factory, and no new factories can be added after, then these VCs are brought into the core of the game. Players suddenly have a much stronger reason to track them, to contest them, and to potentially use them in determining overall victory.

I also favor a simple bonus for control of a Victory City, as an alternative to nuanced "National Objectives." Instead of NOs, a bonus for each VC controlled. Add this bonus in ipcs during collect income. Depending on your preference, you can include this bonus at +1, +3, or +5 ipcs. This provides a simple way to counterbalance the overwhelming effect of the capital cash dynamic. This approach where all VCs = factories, takes some of the emphasis off Moscow and puts the action back where it occurred during the actual war. In places like the Philippines, Hawai, Australia, India, coastal China, France, Poland, Canada etc. I think it works quite well, and secures a place for the VC at the foundation of the game.

Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: Victory Cities:

Post by WILD BILL » Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:19 am

Interesting thought on VC as the only production centers, but the game has evolved to where islands like Philippines or Hawaii aren't eligible for IC anymore (I think that is a good thing). I would still like to keep production in the home territories and have a power like the US need to transport units from the continent. I like these remote VC's (especially in the PAC) to be more like staging points with bases, but not able to produce units.

Good thought Black_Elk about tying bonuses to all the VC. A while back I had come up with a VC bonus for the G40 game. My thought was in G40 most enemy VC's have a 5 IPC bonus built into the NO's. Some are given to certain powers if you conquer them like Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, San Fran, Calcutta, Sidney.....Egypt (if Germany places a ground unit there). Even Berlin for the Russians is a one time 10 IPC bonus, and London has flirted with an NO bonus too. Others VC's denied NO's to the enemy if you capture them like Hawaii, Philippines for the US.

My proposal was to make all captured enemy VC's worth 5 IPC's to the power that controls them (every round they do so) and tweak the NO system to accommodate. Then as a counter balance give a one time liberation bonus of 5 IPCs to the Power that liberates one of their sides VC from the enemy.

Note that you must capture an original enemy VC to get the bonus. You don't get paid for VC in your possession that belong to your power. Like in G40 Germany wouldn't get paid for Berlin, or Warsaw (original German VC's), but would get paid for Paris (an original French allied VC). The Allies would also have the same opportunity to make NO bonus from capturing Axis VC's (like taking Rome).

In G40 Shanghai would start off in Japanese hands (worth 5 IPCs) and others would be captured with-in the first couple turns (Paris, Philippines, Hong Kong). This would ratchet up the Axis income, and the Allies would be pressured to regain these VC to cut off the income flow to the enemy. I think other NO's still need to be in the game (like the Italian control of the Med NO), but some could be reduced, or eliminated (could even make this proposed VC NO worth 3 IPCs, instead of 5 IPCs). Could even make Capital VC's worth 5 IPC, and other VC worth 3 IPCs.

My thought was that these VC's are marked on the game board in Red, and would be easier for newer players to see them as potential targets, or defending points. They have more (equal) value, and even if you don't play with these cities as a way to victory, there is more emphasis on them all. It also eliminates the question of why are some of these cities (marked in red), worth something, and others aren't?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests