Victory Conditions: One Man's Views

[Daykeras]

If you reduce neutrals it means that the Axis has a very very very slim chance of the AV. That's kind of the issue. It's that the game is hard enough without it, but with it it's too easy. We need to find a balance. AV isn't sooo easy that it should be made that much harder. It just needs something small to keep the Axis players honest. Otherwise, there will be nothing to keep the Allied players honest

[Forwarn45]

Yes I agree AV is too easy currently. If you were to reduce the value of conquered neutrals, then the AV condition for victory would be reduced somewhat as well. Alternatively, counting 1/2 free trade toward an increased AV would work if AV is revised upwards. I don't think this will go anywhere, but I think it would help a lot to make AV a better indicator that the Axis is doing well in the game. I would still like to see an open-ended AV that doesn't require conquest of something in particular. [8D]

[Scott_WAR]

Well, I have been playing games without AV, and I have come to a conclusion. Changing the AV to include holding London or Moscow, will make the axis unable to win in a game with equally skilled players. It takes so much to take London or Moscow, that Germany will be unable to take, repair and hold the territory necessary to attain the PP to get an AV.

When you consider the territory Germany must defend at the beginning because of the WA's ridiculous amount of transport ability, the men needed to take the territory to attain 70 PP, AND the units and resources needed to actually take Moscow or London, it becomes apparent this is the wrong way to go. This takes it from one extreme to the other. It will go from too easy to get a AV victory, to impossible to get an AV victory against a half decent opponent.

[JanSorensen]

AV should not happen often though. Its simply a means to show that one side is so badly outclassed that you might as well give up. Atleast thats how I see it. I concur though that the WA has over the top invasion power early on. Its a very delicate balance - the WA needs invasion power to threaten the Germans - but not too much to cripple them.

[Scott_WAR]

There is a problem with that idea Jan. In a game between two equally skilled players, the axis WILL NOT win without the AV. The US is just too strong when it enters. So, the AV is the only real hope the axis has of winning. To make the AV only possible IF the axis seriously outclasses the allies means that the axis will ONLY win when they outclass their opponent skill wise. Not quite a fair and balanced game, and it has to be a fair and balanced game, or people will stop playing.

[JanSorensen]

I am not quite certain I agree that the Allies will always win barring an Axis AV. I might admit that they have the edge but I dont think its nearly as bad as you make it.

At any rate - I dont think AV should account for more than 10% of all games - if the end game favors the Allies too much I prefer adressing that. Its just more fun to play the game to the end than have 40% end early with an AV.

[Scott_WAR]

Oh I agree, a full game would be nice, but, the allies do have a huge advantage. Once the USA enters, IF the allied player knows how to prepare by buying supplies, and knows how to deploy, Japan is out of the game, leaving Germany alone to face the UK, the USA and Russia. An overwhelming task, that will never be successful against a good allied player.

The ONLY way to have any success against the allies in a non AV game is to attack Russia with BOTH Germany and Japan, EARLY. Do we really want a game with one and only one viable axis strategy? Without the AV that is.

Japan cant stop the USA from eliminating their fleets, and cutting them off from the mainland, leaving them with the ability to buy next to nothing, and not being able to move it off of Japan when they do. Then its just a matter of the US and Russia and UK ganging up and driving Germany back.


EDIT- I have been working on a strategy that involves crippling the UK Navy (u-boats) and then trying to take London before the US and Russia enter. So far, against equal or better players, it hasnt worked, Uk can defend itself just enough to survive.

[Forwarn45]

Japan cant stop the USA from eliminating their fleets, and cutting them off from the mainland, leaving them with the ability to buy next to nothing, and not being able to move it off of Japan when they do. Then its just a matter of the US and Russia and UK ganging up and driving Germany back.

I think it's a testament to the game that people have so many different perspectives on it! [8D] I agree with Scott_War that the allies have the edge without the AV. In my experience the allies are amazingly (and appropriately) resilient once everyone is in the war. Both Russia and the WA can come back from incredible devastation early in the game. But I also agree with Jan that victory is not certain for the WA. What is funny is that I think Japan can often be defended for longer than Germany. Japan can be hard to reach and invade if the Japanese fleet is recalled close to home and the Japanese maintain a decent airforce to support it. Even if the fleet is eventually eliminated, the scrap from damaged ships can be used to keep the Japanese economy going..... The ability to get an A-Bomb victory, in my experience, is the main counter to this that keeps the Allies with the edge (assuming the Allies spend the significant resources needed to develop it).

[JanSorensen]

Forwarn

I quite agree with your assesment on the Japanese method of defense. I have yet had to try to crack such a defence myself and the idea of using the A-bomb had not even crossed my mind. Quite interesting to see such a view. Anyway, sofar I havent had a truly down the wire game where the Japanese were holding out and I was the WA so I am withholding judgement.

I find that simply bidding +supply for the Axis (Germany and Japan both) is probably the easiest way to go about settling any real or perceived imbalance. Mainly as I dont find the imbalance to be terribly large if both players are somewhat experienced and equal in skill.

[Lebatron]

I would like to see the A-bomb be a little easier to win with. I don't mean make it easier to research to 10. I mean having LA10 plus having less than 5000%. If I'm correct the requirement is LA10 plus have at least 5000%. Well at 5000% the Axis have almost nothing left so what impact does having atomics have? I think the number should be around 4000% in this way you don't have to conquer everything. You make them submit by the power of the A-bomb.

I was wondering if you guys observed the same tendency I have. For games to end in either a draw or a decisive victory? Why doesn’t marginal come up more often? For that matter, why have the level for Axis total victory require that the whole world be conquered? That’s ridiculous. It’s possible for the allies to get a total victory since it’s within reason to take all Axis lands. I think these victory levels need to be redone so that each of the 3 victory levels for each side can be obtained with the same amount of effort/skill. For the Axis, a total victory for them should be control of London AND Moscow not take over the whole world.

[Forwarn45]

I would like to see the A-bomb be a little easier to win with. I don't mean make it easier to research to 10. I mean having LA10 plus having less than 5000%. If I'm correct the requirement is LA10 plus have at least 5000%. Well at 5000% the Axis have almost nothing left so what impact does having atomics have? I think the number should be around 4000% in this way you don't have to conquer everything. You make them submit by the power of the A-bomb.

It's tipping my hand as the allies - but the A-bomb victory has been my key to winning every game as them. [;)] Maybe it's because my invasion plans for Japan are weak or because I have spent so much WA money on the A-Bomb program. It's hard with Germany and Japan still around but with one or the other left and reasonable range of the homeland, it's not hard at all since you only have to get the 5000% at the end of the WA turn. Japan only has two resources on the home islands, so if you isolate Japan and have taken Manchuria - an A-Bomb victory is in the bag even if the Japanese have huge numbers of troops recalled to Japan and an essentially impregnable defense against invasion (close to the real situation in 1945 when the US dropped its bombs). If Germany is left, the economy can often be strat bombed.....

[JanSorensen]

I have seen marginal victories quite often. Infact, when I lose as the Axis sofar it has been a marginal loss (once in Sum 46 after I made a huge mistake, once in Fall 46 after a great game, and probably in an ungoing game where we are in Sum 45 and I am down to Germany and Japan only but they are still strongly defended).

[Harrybanana]

If you read back earlier in this post you will see that I also thought that if you made the AV Victories for both sides more difficult (and I think they should be difficult) the Allies would win most games as Fall 46 is a long time for the Axis to hold out. However, a few players disagreed with me. I think we will just have to play a few more games to see who is right. If it turns out that the Allies do win more games than the extra supplies may help the Axis. But perhaps the Allies winning most games is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy for those games where the Axis Player always shoots for the AV. In other words, if the Axis player gambles on winning the AV and fails then he should have no reason to complain that he can't hold out to win at least a marginal victory. I would actually like to see more games where the Axis says "Forget about the AV, my strategy is just to hang around in force until 1947." Some might consider this a boring game,but for me it would be a novelty.

[Scott_WAR]

I should have mentioned that I have played without AV for around 10 games now, and that is where I am seeing that the axis just cant win against a competent allied player. As Jan has stated elsewhere, I think the AV should be an alternative way of winning, and not the primary way. I just dont see how its possible against a competent allied player.

So far I have tried a few different strategies.
The closest I have seen is attacking Russia in '41 with both Japan and Germany and trying to take Moscow before '43. Against some people this will work, but as time has passed it just isnt working any more. Competent allied players can delay the axis enough to be saved by the USA entering the war. Devoting everything to take Moscow leaves Japan and Germany defensless against the US naval hoarde.

The next best strat I have seen is trying to take London early with Germany. This can be attempted in one of 3 ways----
- Air power that can just keep attacking London until there is nothing left to oppose an amphibious landing. A competent allied player will buy flak and make this too expensive and take too long to pull off.
-Building transports and trying for an amphibious invasion. Obviously if you have ever thought of this, the sheer number of transports Germany will need to accomplish it, even if they tech their transport capacity up, is huge. The allied player doesnt have to be all that experienced at all to stop this.
-super subs. Spending as many points as possible every single turn in sub evasion and torpedo attacks ubtil the subs are 5/5, will result in subs that are extremely lethal to the WA fleets. I have even raised evasion as high as 6.
In most games I used this, UK would eventually just dock all of their naval units to keep them from getting destoyed. I have even parked 5 or 6 subs in the sea zone containing the USA's ports on the east coast, preventing the US from moving their ships after they are activated. That doesnt last long though. I thought this one might work out, but after a few games it became apparent that even with this denying Russia getting lend lease, Russia is still able to build up more than Germany can, after using all those production points for researching subs.


I am still looking for an answer, as I am sure others are too. But if the AV is made too difficult to get, I fear this will become a very one sided game.

[MarcelJV]

Is it me or am I just crazy. The solution is very simple. Reduce the number of neutral resources in and around Europe to a level that requires the Germans to attack the Soviets or take all of India, Africa and South Africa. No need to change the AV level, or add in capitals.

[Forwarn45]

Reduce the number of neutral resources in and around Europe to a level that requires the Germans to attack the Soviets or take all of India, Africa and South Africa. No need to change the AV level, or add in capitals.

This suggestion would significantly alter the balance of the game to Germany's detriment as many of those resources are available by free trade and necessary for the Germans to have a decent economy. Any alteration would make it much easier for the allies to do well.