Matrix Games Forums

There are 2 season shifts based on 2 highwater VP thresholds, but there are 3 VP thresholds (the last, of course, being for AV).

The highwater mark for the VPs is updated every turn, while AV is only checked at the end of the WA turn. This AV check is typically after Allied attrition to Axis production levels has brought the VP level below the high water mark.

Due to this, the game can continue even if the highwater mark is above the AV threshold.

Why not add a 3rd seasonal shift if the high water VP level is above the 3rd threshold?

Why does it take WanderingHead to point out the obvious? Clearly this makes sense.......

Personally, I don't think I'd favor this. I like the fact that the victory level shifts within a range of one turn either way from the norm (1 in favor of Allies, normal, or 1 in favor of Axis). Adjusting it could lead to more marginal victories - but only in the situation where the Axis does not quite make AV. Once the Japanese A-bomb surrender is adjusted appropriately, I'd rather give the Allies the chance to make it. Taking away 2 turns they would otherwise have seems a bit much. If it proves to be NOT too much, then that would suggest the a-bomb surrender should be made even tougher.

In my view, surrender is reasonable once a single a-bomb is dropped and the outcome of the war is not in doubt. The outcome is never in doubt by the time the a-bomb is dropped, so making it harder after that seems to fly in the face of a realistic Japanese response.

Another way, to get more marginals (if the a-bomb change is not enough) might be to simply pull the end date in by one turn. I don't really think it needs to be harder to finish the Axis, but perhaps it should be done faster.

I think the important thing to remember here (and for me this is a stand-alone issue) is that 2 VP levels create a shift in victory conditions, whereas the third (arguably the most difficult to obtain) VP level (AV) is not rewarded. This is inconsistent..........and it ought not to be. Simple.


Note: Clearly when I say "unrewarded" I am referring to a situation where the Allies are able to reduce the Axis VPs to a sub AV level..........

My feeling on this is that the current deviation from the default victory conditions of 1 season either way (so a total of 3 different seasons possibly leading to the same level of victory) is enough to reward the Axis or Allies for doing well in the early game, while still keeping the endgame interesting. In the long-run, adding another level for the Axis will only mean more marginal victories because the current conditions are a little off and should be tilted a bit to favor the Axis. (Hopefully, this will happen with the proposed abomb adjustments.) The SP required for the Axis AV serve a different purpose than the other watermarks as it is the Axis's main chance to get a decisive victory - an option the Allies don't have except by getting to Berlin and Tokyo before the clock runs out.

A potential issue with adding the 3rd shift is that if the Axis has done well enough to get it (but not quite get AV) then one might assume that they are likely to have done well enough to also do a good job of delaying ultimate defeat.

However, since marginals can only happen on time, I think that one can not achieve a lot of marginal victories without also having a fair amount of decisive Axis victories on time. You're just not going to get a lot of Axis "substantive victories" without sometimes getting delayed 1 more turn and getting an Axis decisive victory.

So I think that adding the 3rd shift gives another route to a decisive victory (on time) and that is OK, because that's the way to get more marginals.

I also like it because it gives a little more significance to the race to the 3rd VP level, and can be implemented without a change in the graphical UI. And it gives some meaning to that condition that is always kind of weird to look at, the high water is above the 3rd level but nothing has happened and there is no remaining importance to it.

In theory, I like it but I would rather wait and see if the new A-bomb condition changes things up a bit. I think the game is pretty well balanced now except for the ease with which Japan falls, letting Allied player concentrate too heavily on Germany first and then throw the token attacks and Japan and force the surrender.
 
If that dynamic changes, I'm not sure it would be a good idea to give the Axis another potential shift. To make matters worse, that shift would only be in games where the Axis was already doing well (ie, hitting that 3rd threshold). Coupled with the tougher Japanese surrender, it might make the game nearly hopeless from that point on. Personally, I prefer them to come down to the wire, and knowing in 1942 (or whatever) that they have little chance of actually winning through 2 column shifts wouldnt exactly inspire many players to continue to play on.
 
IMO, I'd rather see the Japanese A-bomb surrender changed first and see some playtesting to judge the impact. From there, if something else is deemed necessary, then this tweak could be implemented. If that type of timing is not possible, then I'd rather see it left out and just go with the A-bomb change rather than risk overcorrecting.
 
Just my $.02.