Entente Minor Victory Conditions

[scpeth]

I need a sanity check. Have the conditions for an Entente minor victory recently changed? When I checked this 4-6 weeks ago, I would swear the Entente needed to hold Warsaw (along with London, Paris and Cairo) to get a minor victory. When I looked at this again a few days ago, Warsaw was gone and Verdun had been added.

Am I just imagining this or were the victory conditions changed? (Apologize if this has already been discussed anywhere and I missed it)

[BillRunacre]

Yes, Verdun has replaced Warsaw because the latter was considered too unlikely a location to be held by the Entente.

[scpeth]

OK…good to know I’m not crazy (yet). I do wonder though if in trying to fix one perceived problem, others have been created.

The Entente can now win a minor victory without taking anything. Theoretically they can just play “good” defense the whole game and win. Before, since they were unlikely to hold Warsaw, they couldn’t just sit back, but had to aggressively attack elsewhere. This presented them with a strategic challenge comparable to that faced by the CP.

Additionally, I wonder how much real difference there is between the CP Major and Minor Victory conditions. That is, how often does the CP control Paris and Verdun at the end of the game without having knocked out two of the Entente majors. Here I’ll defer to those who have more experience with the game than my limited exposure.

One (humble) suggestion for your consideration. If you don’t want Warsaw in the victory calculation, perhaps delete control of Paris from the CP Minor victory conditions. This makes Verdun the critical hinge that neither side can achieve a minor victory without holding (which feels right historically) without imposing far more difficult Minor victory conditions on the CP than the Entente faces.