wevilc (allies) v Old_Shane (axis

[Old_Shane]

That's a good point Harry. And as I remember I was waiting for Yugo to coup to avoid DofW. But saving that mobilisation hit was rather lost in the time it took to take Yugo. Big mistake. Won't make it again Clive!

I gambled that Clive was not prepared for an amphibious invasion of Japan. I was wrong. My hope was to delay his landward progress so that he could not meet the victory conditions and that he was not prepared to take Japan. Excellent game Clive and I think we both learned a lot.

Thanks to everyone that provided input to Clive's AAR. It was a lot of work for him and we both benefited from the input. I appreciate this gaming community for the maturity it shows to help each other gain a deeper understanding of the game and to learn from each other.

[wevilc]

That's a good point Harry. And as I remember I was waiting for Yugo to coup to avoid DofW. But saving that mobilisation hit was rather lost in the time it took to take Yugo. Big mistake. Won't make it again Clive!

I gambled that Clive was not prepared for an amphibious invasion of Japan. I was wrong. My hope was to delay his landward progress so that he could not meet the victory conditions and that he was not prepared to take Japan. Excellent game Clive and I think we both learned a lot.

Thanks to everyone that provided input to Clive's AAR. It was a lot of work for him and we both benefited from the input. I appreciate this gaming community for the maturity it shows to help each other gain a deeper understanding of the game and to learn from each other.

I echo Shane's remarks about the forum and the helpful atmosphere and only add that I haven't quite finished the AAR,

[Old_Shane]

Oh no! Sorry Clive. I may have been a spoiler!

[wevilc]

Oh no! Sorry Clive. I may have been a spoiler!

Nope, don’t think so.

[wevilc]

Finale

1st a few screenshots. WE have the world map going into the final turn.

Screenshot 2026-05-25 170657.png (2.9 MiB) Viewed 354 times

And we have Japan.

470516 Japan.png (914.09 KiB) Viewed 354 times

Finally, those victory conditions again, because I have a question.

Victory conditions.png (114.19 KiB) Viewed 354 times

Who won? The victory screen at the end (which I neglected to screenshot) said Axis Tactical Victory. I was surprised as I thought the result should have been stalemate per the VCs. Is this a glitch in the matrix, did I misread them or is there a refinement to them I have not found anywhere in the guides? Thoughts please.

[petedalby]

Presumably Japan still holds Delhi & Chungking? If so, an Allied Victory can not be achieved.

Your pictures suggest that the Allies hold Berlin, Tokyo & Rome. If that is the case, yes, I agree, looks like a Stalemate to me.

[wevilc]

Presumably Japan still holds Delhi & Chungking? If so, an Allied Victory can not be achieved.

Your pictures suggest that the Allies hold Berlin, Tokyo & Rome. If that is the case, yes, I agree, looks like a Stalemate to me.

Yes to all of the above.

[Taifun]

Japan still holds Delhi and Chungking, so I think this should be considered a draw. It's very rare to see a game end in a stalemate!

Thanks for the AAR. I think you could have attacked the Japanese positions in China and Korea with the Soviets much earlier. Germany was already finished by that point, so keeping such a large Soviet force in Europe may have been overkill. It might have shortened the war in Asia considerably.

[BillRunacre]

I've found it: Seoul is also a location that if it remains in Axis hands, grants them a Tactical Victory.

[LoneRunner]

Excellent AAR wevilc. And, wow, great campaign. I've never seen the Japanese Empire so strong. You and Shane both deserve a win.

So, if I understand correctly, the victory conditions in the Strategy Guide are incorrect. The Axis wins a tactical victory if either Berlin, Rome, Tokyo, or Seoul have not fallen. Hmm...what about Osaka? Perhaps the victory conditions should be based on surrender not cities. If Germany, Italy, and Japan have not surrendered then the Axis wins a tactical victory.

[wevilc]

I've found it: Seoul is also a location that if it remains in Axis hands, grants them a Tactical Victory.

Please tell us where you found it.

[wevilc]

Excellent AAR wevilc. And, wow, great campaign. I've never seen the Japanese Empire so strong. You and Shane both deserve a win.

So, if I understand correctly, the victory conditions in the Strategy Guide are incorrect. The Axis wins a tactical victory if either Berlin, Rome, Tokyo, or Seoul have not fallen. Hmm...what about Osaka? Perhaps the victory conditions should be based on surrender not cities. If Germany, Italy, and Japan have not surrendered then the Axis wins a tactical victory.

Thx LoneRunner. If the VCs in the SG are incorrect then I am a bit bummed TBH. Had I known, I could and would have taken Seoul. As it was, I was a gnat's whisker from doing so.

And yes, Shane is ruthless with the Japs.

[wevilc]

Japan still holds Delhi and Chungking, so I think this should be considered a draw. It's very rare to see a game end in a stalemate!

Thanks for the AAR. I think you could have attacked the Japanese positions in China and Korea with the Soviets much earlier. Germany was already finished by that point, so keeping such a large Soviet force in Europe may have been overkill. It might have shortened the war in Asia considerably.

Thx Taifun. You’re right. I also should have motorised the soviets at the 1st opportunity.

[BillRunacre]

I've found it: Seoul is also a location that if it remains in Axis hands, grants them a Tactical Victory.

Please tell us where you found it.

In the victory scripts.

[wevilc]

I've found it: Seoul is also a location that if it remains in Axis hands, grants them a Tactical Victory.

Please tell us where you found it.

In the victory scripts.

Thanks Bill.

When I said above I would & could have taken Seoul had I known, I forgot Shane would & could have devoted more resources to its defence. Anyway, what happens next? Will the scripts be amended or the VCS in the strategy guide?

A funny thought occurs to me. It took exactly this run out to identify the discrepancy. Had I taken Seoul but not Tokyo, for instance, the issue would have remained latent, maybe for thousands of years. Shane & I having contributed to the sum of human knowledge, do we not deserve a statue or at least a medal?

[BillRunacre]

Please tell us where you found it.

In the victory scripts.

Thanks Bill.

When I said above I would & could have taken Seoul had I known, I forgot Shane would & could have devoted more resources to its defence. Anyway, what happens next? Will the scripts be amended or the VCS in the strategy guide?

A funny thought occurs to me. It took exactly this run out to identify the discrepancy. Had I taken Seoul but not Tokyo, for instance, the issue would have remained latent, maybe for thousands of years. Shane & I having contributed to the sum of human knowledge, do we not deserve a statue or at least a medal?

Of course, that is why we credit people in the Version Notes!

I've made a note to look into this, and will ensure that Seoul either features in the Strategy Guide, or disappears from the conditions.

[wevilc]

Immortality!

[petedalby]

Well done!!

IMO this should still be regarded as a draw.

[wevilc]

Well done!!

IMO this should still be regarded as a draw.

Thx pete. I’m proud.

Me too, since we both adjusted our play to the printed VCs it would be odd to let some rogue script decide the outcome.

[Old_Shane]

I should be thrilled with a draw Clive. I truly think you deserve the victory, even if for finding the VC issue. As it was, I defended Seoul the best I could. I could not navigate the waters any more to transport troops safely to defend Tokyo, never mind Seoul.