New idea regarding victory cities

[Doctor Strategy]

I just had an idea that would make people want to defend their VCs. You add a rule to the game similar to the rule for capturing capitals.

When a defending nation loses a VC they lose 1/2 of their current IPCs rounded down. The IPCs are handed to the capturing player.

While I don't agree with the nation losing all of their IPCs for losing a capital, the rule makes them want to hold on to it at all costs. This may make VCs more fought over and if lost a major punch in the nose. Instead of, I captured X amount of VCs you now lose the game eventhough their output is worthless ( Leningrad anyone? ).

You don't need more VCs to balance the game, just make them worth more to hold onto. I my opinion less is more. :) I do realize that some VCs may need repositioned on the board as some are too easy to capture as it stands now.

Discussion anyone.

[cousin_joe]

I just had an idea that would make people want to defend their VCs. You add a rule to the game similar to the rule for capturing capitals.

When a defending nation loses a VC they lose 1/2 of their current IPCs rounded down. The IPCs are handed to the capturing player.

While I don't agree with the nation losing all of their IPCs for losing a capital, the rule makes them want to hold on to it at all costs. This may make VCs more fought over and if lost a major punch in the nose. Instead of, I captured X amount of VCs you now lose the game eventhough their output is worthless ( Leningrad anyone? ).

You don't need more VCs to balance the game, just make them worth more to hold onto. I my opinion less is more. :) I do realize that some VCs may need repositioned on the board as some are too easy to capture as it stands now.

Discussion anyone.
series, is that you? :confused:

[pagan]

This means the death of russia.

LEts see how this could be easily manipulated....

German tank rush into VC karelia.
Germany gets USSR cash !!
Germany pulls out....
Germany waits to recapture karelia
Germany BEGS allies to recapture karelia.....
Tank rush to Caucasus.....

[Desert Rat]

I just had an idea that would make people want to defend their VCs. You add a rule to the game similar to the rule for capturing capitals.

When a defending nation loses a VC they lose 1/2 of their current IPCs rounded down. The IPCs are handed to the capturing player.

While I don't agree with the nation losing all of their IPCs for losing a capital, the rule makes them want to hold on to it at all costs. This may make VCs more fought over and if lost a major punch in the nose. Instead of, I captured X amount of VCs you now lose the game eventhough their output is worthless ( Leningrad anyone? ).

You don't need more VCs to balance the game, just make them worth more to hold onto. I my opinion less is more. :) I do realize that some VCs may need repositioned on the board as some are too easy to capture as it stands now.

Discussion anyone.

This won't work at all. The Axis are in a much better position to capture VC's in the beginning of the game leading to the death of the Allies. Your solution would be to move some VC's but now this rule change is a major overhaul and isn't simple anymore. Even if you did move some VC's, what is Russia going to do. Pagan is right, Russia wouldn't stand a chance in this game. I as the Axis would ignore the Pacific and go straight for Russia's throat. The JTDTM doesn't change at all.

[DocD]

Uhhh, Doc S....Hey, docd here....sorry...but I think I'm going to have to report you to the medical board....sorry pal, but you are constantly abusing your doctorate degree in the name of absurdity!

Besides, one Doc on this board is plenty!

[cousin_joe]

Uhhh, Doc S....Hey, docd here....sorry...but I think I'm going to have to report you to the medical board....sorry pal, but you are constantly abusing your doctorate degree in the name of absurdity!

Besides, one Doc on this board is plenty!
LOL :D Yeah, keep it up Doctor Strategy and we're going to have to take away your degree and start calling you "Mister Strategy"... and if you still haven't learned, we'll have to demote you even further to "That Strategy Guy" :)

[series]

The idea gives Germany way too much power. I think an idea similar to this could work into the game, but not with 1/2 the income, because that would just be a bit crazy. Nice try though DocS.

[Vollick1979]

The idea gives Germany way too much power. I think an idea similar to this could work into the game, but not with 1/2 the income, because that would just be a bit crazy. Nice try though DocS.

I have an idea how about when a nation, lets say Germany, captures a territory containing a VC, lets say Karelia, that on the collect IPC phase the capturing nation gets the value of the territory. So in my example Germany before it's turn was at 38 IPC's and then they capture Karelia which is worth 2 so at the end of their turn they collect 40! Heck why don't we do this with all territories regardless of whether they have a victory city in them or not! ;) How do you like that idea series? it's similar!

Note to DocS: If series thinks it's a good idea be careful because it's most likely not.

[series]

Note to DocS: If series thinks it's a good idea be careful because it's most likely not.Check out my submarine thread and say that again. Even Joe likes that idea.

[Vollick1979]

Check out my submarine thread and say that again. Even Joe likes that idea.

Ok i'll say it again!

Note to DocS: If series thinks it's a good idea be careful because it's most likely not.

Now here's a note to you series: when i say most of your ideas are not good i should say most of your ideas are a complete waste of time to read because they baffle one's senses as how you come up with them. To be honest series i think you just post every little thing that comes into your head so you can have 1000,1100, heck 10000 posts before Christmas! And series I don't care if Joe thinks your idea is the best one ever, you shouldn't judge your own success on what other people think. If you actually like all the ideas you put out here then all the power to you but I really have trouble thinking you do cause you appear to be a smart young guy who can obviously play!

[series]

Ok i'll say it again!

Note to DocS: If series thinks it's a good idea be careful because it's most likely not.

Now here's a note to you series: when i say most of your ideas are not good i should say most of your ideas are a complete waste of time to read because they baffle one's senses as how you come up with them. To be honest series i think you just post every little thing that comes into your head so you can have 1000,1100, heck 10000 posts before Christmas! And series I don't care if Joe thinks your idea is the best one ever, you shouldn't judge your own success on what other people think. If you actually like all the ideas you put out here then all the power to you but I really have trouble thinking you do cause you appear to be a smart young guy who can obviously play!
Someone needed to blow off some steam. Sorry though, but I have trouble understanding some of the things you said, like If you actually like all the ideas you put out here then all the power to you but I really have trouble thinking you do cause you appear to be a smart young guy who can obviously play. I do have this to say though: I dont really care how many posts I have.

[cousin_joe]

Check out my submarine thread and say that again. Even Joe likes that idea.Hey series, don't go misquoting me now. Here's my actual line:


Great twist sking500! :D You may have saved this idea, yet :)
Notice, I am complimenting sking500 on the twist, I said nothing about the idea. I still think the original idea is bad as it makes SUBs much stronger militarily than they actually were.

You're reading too much into things series... do you want a compliment from me that badly? :D Okay, here, I got one for you... I'm actually starting to find you a tiny, little bit less annoying - still annoying, but a tiny, little bit less. How's that? :D

[series]

Notice, I am complimenting sking500 on the twist, I said nothing about the idea. I still think the original idea is bad as it makes SUBs much stronger militarily than they actually were.
But the twist was originally posted by me (sking didnt notice) so technically you are complimenting our ideas.

[cousin_joe]

But the twist was originally posted by me (sking didnt notice) so technically you are complimenting our ideas.Soft music plays in the background...

Deeesssperadooo, why don't you come to your senses,
You been out ridin' fences, for so long now...

Someone is sure desperate for recognition here :rolleyes: Series, there was no mention of destroyers negating directed firing by subs in your original post. All there was was something about whether subs could direct fire at destroyers. I see now that there's an edit at the end, correcting this... that is just pathetic! :rolleyes: Now you're taking sking500's idea and calling it your own... that's called plagiarism! Maybe I should report you to your Grade 9 English teacher?!? :mad: She's not gonna like this!!! :D

[Doctor Strategy]

Well, How come most of you like the idea of looting a capital for all of the powers IPCs if it is captured? That rule is not very realistic in my opinion as all their funds would not and could not all be located in the capital. Boy, you all sure go after the capitals like a pack of rabid dogs though no matter how unrealistic the rule is.

However, if I would lower the loss of IPCs in VCs to 1/3 or even 1/4 of IPCs it may be playable. The idea was to make victory cities more defended and more fought over instead of abandoned. Hey it works for the capitals. And guess what you getall their IPCs. :eek: I was only suggesting half and you guys nearly bit my head off.

The Russian victory city should be located at Stalingrad instead IMO. The Caucaus oilfields were more sought after than Leningrad.

[pagan]

Taking a capital comprises a great deal of things. But the most poingant thing is TIME.

If a capital falls, Most-Of-The-Time that means we are in the stages of play that most experienced players view as 'going through the motions'. Giving a player that cannot defend his capital money should increase the Time played 'through the motions'.

I do know of a notbale exception to this, where multi-capitals have fallen and the game was still afoot. But reducing the payout for a captured capital does not help/hinder the game. The game is still active at this point.

So What I am saying in this single-point is this: Shall we extend the death scenario?

[DocD]

Well, How come most of you like the idea of looting a capital for all of the powers IPCs if it is captured? That rule is not very realistic in my opinion as all their funds would not and could not all be located in the capital. Boy, you all sure go after the capitals like a pack of rabid dogs though no matter how unrealistic the rule is.
Doc, you are really hurting me now! The rule may seem unrealistic but it allows for the simulation of very realistic and historical events. Go to your history book and pick almost any war. Countries that lose their capitals in a war suffer significant setbacks which in many cases effectively end their fighting capability and willingness to continue the struggle at hand. Let's pick Paris WWII for instance. The french government ended the war when paris fell even though 2/3's of France was untouched by the German forces!!
Countries don't fight after the capital is lost!! (there are exceptions of course)
The rule in AandA could be rewritten to say once a capital is capture that country is eliminated from the game. So the designers didn't go that route, but they knew losing a capital had to severely cripple the power in the game. And what could be better than having that power give up all of its money, so that their contiuned war effort would be greatly decrease. The rule may seem unrealistic, but it does a great job of doing what realistically happens.


The Russian victory city should be located at Stalingrad instead IMO. The Caucaus oilfields were more sought after than Leningrad.

That's a matter of opinion. Germany seiged Leningrad for over Three YEARS! Sounds like an important place to me.

[SCIPIO]

So the designers didn't go that route, but they knew losing a capital had to severely cripple the power in the game. And what could be better than having that power give up all of its money, so that their contiuned war effort would be greatly decrease.

I agree! but maybe it should be only for the first time that you conquer a capital, not every time you conquer it. For, if you are speaking realistic, once your enemy looted your capital, nothing remains in it, that would mean that if you let your foe reconquer it and than take it back one or two turn later you don't find any more money there - your foe would not take back in its capital all its money...

[DocD]

Well scipio, the rule doesn't simulate "looting the capital". Imagination says it represents lost of morale, lives, money, destruction of infrastructure, etc. Anything that severely hinders the country from continuing the war. Recapturing the capital is a small recovery (like the French did in 1944), losing it again places you back in the severely defeated mode.

[SCIPIO]

Well scipio, the rule doesn't simulate "looting the capital". Imagination says it represents lost of morale, lives, money, destruction of infrastructure, etc. Anything that severely hinders the country from continuing the war. Recapturing the capital is a small recovery (like the French did in 1944), losing it again places you back in the severely defeated mode.

All right, but if you hold firm the other 2/3 of your territory in term of game I think you should have the right to collect some money to continue the war, maybe only 1/2 of your remaining IPCs but something anyway! AND if you're the conqueror power you shouldn't be able to collect income from territory you don't hold. Now, if the conqueror power takes all the money from its enemy that doesn't reflect reality, because it doesn't yet hold all its enemy territory.
Let say that Germany drives to Moscow and holds only that territory (not very realistic, but it's only an example, let's say with Karelia and Archangel too) I agree that it has the right to take all soviet money, but if it plays the elastic letting USSR take back the capital only to retake it later, then I think it isn't right to let Germany capture another time ALL soviet money, because Germany doesn't hold the eastern soviet territory yet...
You may say that as Russian you would not take back your capital if you don't think to hold it strong, but you're quite forced to take it back as soon as possible to try to rebuild you power.

[Doctor Strategy]

The thought of not losing your capital just leads to more and more infantry stacks because the penalty of losing your capital is too great. You would probably see a lot more offensive type wars going on instead of Russia holding on until the Allies start to whip butt.

Yes, I agree that some countries give up after losing their capital but this is usually because they are hopelessly outmanned and would be slaughtered. The best course would be surrender and marshall your strength for an opportune moment to happen as it did with the liberation of Paris. France and Poland and etc were only minor powers. To give a side the deathblow by only losing their capital isn't fair to the five greatest world powers.

Maybe if they possess less than 50% of their starting territories when the capital falls, a capitulation should result. Getting the territories' production should be enough of a bonus instead of getting a huge cash disbursement. How are they ghoing to transport their whole worth in one season. Gee I dunno. I don't feel the capturing player should receive a whopping bonus.

Let's look at the situation abstractly for a moment. They could simply only occupy 51% of the capital yet for all purposes it would be under the capturing players control. There could still be rebels and etc fighting untill help arrives.

The capitals have the highest IPC values on the board as it is. Isn't losing this production punishment enough. Russia losing 8 million man hours of prodction, an IC and an AA isn't enough punisment for losing Moscow. Come on wake up here.

Would the US give up today if Washington DC were taken by enemy forces? I don't think so. The concept of all 50 states having their own militia, gives the impression that we would fight on if something drastic happens.

Anyway that all I have to say for now.

[DocD]

I've said this before and I will say it again....In order to play Axis and Allies, a person has to use their IMAGINATION!. It is impossible for the game to simulate every tactical or strategic detail that happened in WWII.
The game can only provide us with simulations that hopefully and accurately simulate the detail in question in some abstract form.

Now taking that into consideration, I see why you argue your point, but put yourselfs into the shoe(s) of the designer. The game has to end, the war has to end, the conflict has to come to an END. Somebody, somehow has to be declared the victor.
I mean what stopped Japan from continuing the war even when not one Allied soldier was even in Japan! The game has to come to an end somehow and this rule helps bring that about as quickly as anything except totally eliminating the player from the rest of the game.

Now we can argue all day about how this country won't have stop this war if its capital was captured and so on, but what does history show!

If a country loses its capital in a war, they are greatly hindered in continuing that war.
That is not an argurable statement! That is fact...LOOK it up!
The designer is only trying to simulate the same event in the capture capital rule.

You guys are thinking too much into this one.

[cousin_joe]

All right, but if you hold firm the other 2/3 of your territory in term of game I think you should have the right to collect some money to continue the war, maybe only 1/2 of your remaining IPCs but something anyway! AND if you're the conqueror power you shouldn't be able to collect income from territory you don't hold. Now, if the conqueror power takes all the money from its enemy that doesn't reflect reality, because it doesn't yet hold all its enemy territory.
Let say that Germany drives to Moscow and holds only that territory (not very realistic, but it's only an example, let's say with Karelia and Archangel too) I agree that it has the right to take all soviet money, but if it plays the elastic letting USSR take back the capital only to retake it later, then I think it isn't right to let Germany capture another time ALL soviet money, because Germany doesn't hold the eastern soviet territory yet...
You may say that as Russian you would not take back your capital if you don't think to hold it strong, but you're quite forced to take it back as soon as possible to try to rebuild you power.
There is some merit in what you're saying here scipio. What do you think of the following from another thread?

1. If you lose your capital, you still give all your money to your opponent
-This continues to make capitals important, and punishes you for losing them

2. If you have an IC in a location other than your original capital, you may declare a new capital. You may continue to collect income on your turn, but your production is still limited to the new capital's IPC value.
-this prevents the "lame duck" situation, where you still have territory, and an army, but no money to spend
-it also prevents you from repeatedly losing your capital and handing over the money again, and again, and again.

3. This 2nd capital is your capital for the rest of the game, even if you regain your original capital. If you lose this 2nd capital you must surrender your income to your opponent. You must recapture this 2nd capital (rather than the original) to start collecting income again. You cannot declare a 3rd capital.
-once you've declared a new capital, it's permanent. This prevents someone from always changing their capital based on what suits them at the time.

[Doctor Strategy]

Now taking that into consideration, I see why you argue your point, but put yourselfs into the shoe(s) of the designer. The game has to end, the war has to end, the conflict has to come to an END. Somebody, somehow has to be declared the victor.

I mean what stopped Japan from continuing the war even when not one Allied soldier was even in Japan! The game has to come to an end somehow and this rule helps bring that about as quickly as anything except totally eliminating the player from the rest of the game.



I thought victory cities were supposed to be the deciding factor on who wins the game. Correct me if I am wrong. If the designers went though the trouble to add them why does a capital falling still end the game. IMO they would have been better off not even having VCs. Either that or lose the stiff penalty for capital capture if you are playing with VCs. I mean if Moscow falls it is very likely the Germans already have the two Russian victory cities. It shouldn't be a very long game after this anyway.

[DocD]

I think the designer was trying to say..don't lose that capital!!! It will really hurt ya!!! kind of like real warfare....

[GROGnads]

This means the death of russia.

LEts see how this could be easily manipulated....

German tank rush into VC karelia.
Germany gets USSR cash !!
Germany pulls out....
Germany waits to recapture karelia
Germany BEGS allies to recapture karelia.....
Tank rush to Caucasus.....If 'Germany' captured 'Karelia', then LOST it on the following Turn, they'd LOSE 1/2 of their money to the 're-captors'! I see that this would benefit whomever as they'd 'gain' not only their OWN 'lost' funds, but 1/2 of whatever it is that whomever was 'worth' at the time, in additon to the 'captured' funds! Not a bad little 'investment' scheme and just think if '2' V.C.s were 'done' this way! No money to build with, huh?

[Drax Kramer]

Victory cities are useless concept in the game with the capital conquest rules as written (unless you play Minor Victory game). The best and only strategy is still to go after the capital.

Now, by losing a capital, a player

1. Loses his most valuable territory
2. Loses an industrial complex with most capacity

Noone wants to lose such items so players are likely to protect these territories with the bulk of their land forces if this territory is in danger.

So, in most cases, a player is going to lose the bulk of his army as well.

Therefore, what's the point of surrendering IPCs? To introduce more positive feedback in the game? Why not declaring right away that losing a capital ends the game? Why introducing a rule that introduces a special event in the game for no obvious gain in the gameplay?

I won't even go into the historical background because there's none, but this is beyond the point I am trying to make. Surrendering IPCs is either a bad rule (if you don't want a positive feedback) or a redundant rule (because whoemever loses his capital is already on his way down).

Its survival from MB game to the revised one shows the unwilligness or incapability to think out of the box in my opinion.


Drax

[madmat]

The current Capital rules are less than brilliant, that's for sure. Just for the sake of discussion, I'd propose this solution.
In the collect income phase of a Power's turn, if that Power has conquered/liberated a VC territory, it receives due amount of IPCs from the hands of the previous VC owner, and the rest from the Bank, as usual.
So, if Germany conquers Leningrad, in the CI phase it gets 2 IPCs from Russia and, say 38 from the bank...similar to the Middle East rules for AAE. Since Capital territory's minimum value is 8, this could still be a serious incentive to go after them (and defend them).

[Caractacus]

madmat has a good idea there.

You lose the points that that territory was worth to the other player when you lose your capital. Or you could say twice that, to allow for the concentration of supplies and materiel there, but perhaps not all of your IPCs.

Other points:

Victory cities that aren't capitals could lose 1xIPC value from your hand when you lose them, but certainly not anything like the loss of a capital.

Leningrad (St Petersburg) was and in many ways still is the cultural capital of Russia - very nearly as important as Moscow. Plus, of course, the symbolism involved due to the political propaganda invested in its name at the time..

[Desert Rat]

Victory cities are useless concept in the game with the capital conquest rules as written (unless you play Minor Victory game). The best and only strategy is still to go after the capital.

Now, by losing a capital, a player

1. Loses his most valuable territory
2. Loses an industrial complex with most capacity

Noone wants to lose such items so players are likely to protect these territories with the bulk of their land forces if this territory is in danger.

So, in most cases, a player is going to lose the bulk of his army as well.

Therefore, what's the point of surrendering IPCs? To introduce more positive feedback in the game? Why not declaring right away that losing a capital ends the game? Why introducing a rule that introduces a special event in the game for no obvious gain in the gameplay?

I won't even go into the historical background because there's none, but this is beyond the point I am trying to make. Surrendering IPCs is either a bad rule (if you don't want a positive feedback) or a redundant rule (because whoemever loses his capital is already on his way down).

Its survival from MB game to the revised one shows the unwilligness or incapability to think out of the box in my opinion.


Drax

Great analysis Drax, you have a very good point.

To be honest, almost all the games I have played are conceded before the victory conditions are met anyway, usually this would be either the fall of the Russian or German capital. Once this happens, most players know which side is going to win (unless the other side is somehow able to take over the opposing capital on the same turn which I have seen happen a couple of times).

This is why the original game was so boring because it was a race to see who could capture Berlin or Moscow first, with the huge infantry stacks, little action, no Pacific theater and the JTDTM. What a dull game that was! And to think that a certain someone actually said that there was nothing wrong with the MB version that we have sitting on our shelf. To prove the silliness of that statement that MB version no longer sits on my shelf.

I think what most people are getting at, is that the current revised fix of 12 victory cities doesn't change anything from the original version. There is still a race to see who can capture Berlin or Moscow first. Revised is still an improvement, but it still stinks of that boring MB gameplay.

Almost all of us agree that something needs to be changed, but just can't agree on exactly what that change should be. Here are the options so far:

1) Doing away with capitals all together, making all victory cities of equal value. Im having visions of Risk and Attack in my head. Is this a WWII game anymore?

2) Change the rules of giving up all IPCs when losing a capital, to make capitals less important. I think Drax just bit this one in the bud.

3) The Clauze and Series option, add lots and lots and lots of victory cities so that half of the game board are victory cities. Im not even wasting my time commenting on this one.

4) Keep the VCs fixed at 12, but just move the locations of the non-capital Allied VCs to make it easier for the Axis to capture them. One of the better ideas but it just falls a bit short of what were trying to accomplish.

5) Add just 3 more VCs for a total of 15 divided evenly between all powers at 3 each. VCs are added in Hawaii, Australia, and Karelia. Each country now owns one capital VC and two non-capital VCs. With just a little more non-capital victory cities available, the Axis have another option to win the game other than capturing Moscow. Most of you already know I support this option.

Option 5 needs more playtesting to be sure, but I challenge anyone who doesn't agree with me to just try it. Give it a fair chance and tell me what you think.

[Doctor Strategy]

Victory cities are useless concept in the game with the capital conquest rules as written (unless you play Minor Victory game). The best and only strategy is still to go after the capital.

Now, by losing a capital, a player

1. Loses his most valuable territory
2. Loses an industrial complex with most capacity

Noone wants to lose such items so players are likely to protect these territories with the bulk of their land forces if this territory is in danger.

So, in most cases, a player is going to lose the bulk of his army as well.

Therefore, what's the point of surrendering IPCs? To introduce more positive feedback in the game? Why not declaring right away that losing a capital ends the game? Why introducing a rule that introduces a special event in the game for no obvious gain in the gameplay?

I won't even go into the historical background because there's none, but this is beyond the point I am trying to make. Surrendering IPCs is either a bad rule (if you don't want a positive feedback) or a redundant rule (because whoemever loses his capital is already on his way down).

Its survival from MB game to the revised one shows the unwilligness or incapability to think out of the box in my opinion.


Drax

My thoughts exactly Drax. Losing a capital should be felt but not crippling. Minor countries were taken over with their capital falling. That much is true. But were're talking the five most powerful nations in the World at this time. They were no easily overpowered weak country. I proposed some changes in Improved A&A which may be more fair.

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=2949

Or maybe once a capital falls and the losing country has less than 50% of original starting value of territories in IPCs , they should be forced to capitulate. Their remaining forces still have to be conquered as rebels.

[madmat]

madmat has a good idea there.

You lose the points that that territory was worth to the other player when you lose your capital. Or you could say twice that, to allow for the concentration of supplies and materiel there, but perhaps not all of your IPCs.

Other points:

Victory cities that aren't capitals could lose 1xIPC value from your hand when you lose them, but certainly not anything like the loss of a capital.

Leningrad (St Petersburg) was and in many ways still is the cultural capital of Russia - very nearly as important as Moscow. Plus, of course, the symbolism involved due to the political propaganda invested in its name at the time..

I wonder how the game would change if this rule applied to any single territory on the map.
Pro: no more traded territories that may generate twice or three times their value in a turn, shorter game as the number of total IPCs would always be 166.
Against: Obviously unbalanced in Axis favour.

[Doctor Strategy]

I think the designer was trying to say..don't lose that capital!!! It will really hurt ya!!! kind of like real warfare....

Yeah but who wants to play Russia then. The Russian player only has to pool all their considerable forces in to Moscow. Like a turtle going into their shell. Will they lose their capital then? It may take a while before the Russians lose to attrition.The Allies are going to strike Germany at some time while Germany takes the unoccupied Russian territories. Russia only really needs to hold Caucus and Moscow to have 12 IPCs which translates into 4 INF a turn in defense.

Gee, who wants to play a game like this? :(

[DocD]

Well drax...here we go again.
Victory cities are useless concept in the game with the capital conquest rules as written (unless you play Minor Victory game). The best and only strategy is still to go after the capital.
This where you guys are making your mistakes. This is not the best strategy in the game or even real life. You have to destroy the enemies armies and capability to fight first. Don't be a Napoleon.

Now, by losing a capital, a player
1. Loses his most valuable territory
2. Loses an industrial complex with most capacity
Noone wants to lose such items so players are likely to protect these territories with the bulk of their land forces if this territory is in danger.
So, in most cases, a player is going to lose the bulk of his army as well.
So what's wrong with that. Most players know when the tide of war has turned totally against them. If they are on their death legs so what. Surrender or die.

Therefore, what's the point of surrendering IPCs? To introduce more positive feedback in the game? Why not declaring right away that losing a capital ends the game? Why introducing a rule that introduces a special event in the game for no obvious gain in the gameplay?
Here comes imagination again...the point of surrendering IPCs is to represent the lost of material, morale, lives, time, etc...anything that says this country is almost out of the fight. The only reason I can see in continuing to let the player stay in the game is to give them a chance to bounce back if they still have units to fight with or some holy miracle.
I think that the surrendering of IPCs was meant to represent the most negative thing that could befall a country in war. The lost of it's leadership and morale.
That country takes a massive morale blow when it loses its capital. Troops desert as morale plumments. The people's willingness to fight crashes to zero once they lose their capital. This can all be easily replicated when the player surrenders his IPCs.
For the victor...he is strong, more technology advanced, his troops are better feed, supplied and led. And of course they have a better outlook on things.
This is what I think the designer was intending to simulate buy having the winner receive the IPCs.
Now should the rule be changed because some players want to ignore sound historical tactics. Take out the man's ipc territories (his ability to reinforce and finance the war) and his armies if they are a threat or you may end up watching that capital you just took fall back to your opponent. Don't be Napoleon!

Surrendering IPCs is either a bad rule (if you don't want a positive feedback) or a redundant rule (because whoemever loses his capital is already on his way down). What positive feedback? And if you are already on your way down, what difference does it make if you give up your IPCs.


Its survival from MB game to the revised one shows the unwilligness or incapability to think out of the box in my opinion.
Drax
This is an opinion I have to disagree with.

[DocD]

My thoughts exactly Drax. Losing a capital should be felt but not crippling. Minor countries were taken over with their capital falling. That much is true. But were're talking the five most powerful nations in the World at this time. They were no easily overpowered weak country. I proposed some changes in Improved A&A which may be more fair.

France was one of the 5 most powerful countries just 2 years earlier. What happened to them when Germany took Paris?

[series]

France was one of the 5 most powerful countries just 2 years earlier. What happened to them when Germany took Paris?
good point

[moppar]

Germany took Paris fast. If the French had time and were fighting on par with the Germans they may have moved thier capital. The French had a large military but they got caught with thier pants down.

[Attila the Wolf]

Huh? The French weren't just surprised, they were caught fighting WWII with WWI tactics. Germany whipped them soundly and completely. By the end, French forces were surrendering in droves without even putting up a fight. Their tactics were so outclassed and their spirit to fight so poor that, IMO, it was downright embarassing. As a result, the French have been the whipping boys of what not to do in battle for the past 50 years. Their stunning and absolute defeat did more to drive the final nail into French dreams of super-power status than anything else.

[DocD]

Germany took Paris fast. If the French had time and were fighting on par with the Germans they may have moved thier capital. The French had a large military but they got caught with thier pants down.
Give me a couple of examples of successful warring powers that lost their capital and move into a new capital and continued the war effort and WON the war.

[moppar]

the french as they were didnt have a chance against germany. what im trying to say is that had the war been going on for a few years they may have continued after the fall of paris. lets imagine the war is two years old and germany is close to paris, the united states has just started sending large amounts of troops and supplies to europe. the french army is fighting with skill and bravery but slowly being beaten, paris will fall but help is on the way. would the proud people of france lay down thier weapons or would they fight on? would stalin give up if he knew help was on the way? now i know the french were no match for the german army. im saying what if, because i view this as a game of what ifs controled by the players.

[Attila the Wolf]

But the whole point is that the French couldn't last more than a few weeks so how could they fight on after years? If you twist my arm and I give up after 10 seconds, how can I make an argument that I would have struggled on if you had twisted it for 2 minutes?

But we're getting off topic...

[series]

The Germans would have probably killed off the french/russians if they didn't surrender when the capital was taken. They would have no choice but to surrender.

Next, will we hear you say "Just because Poland was conquered completely, if Germany didn't invade 'Granny Yerpowsky's house', she would have continued to fight against the Nazis until the Americans arrived"?

[Attila the Wolf]

Translation?

[Doctor Strategy]

Here comes imagination again...the point of surrendering IPCs is to represent the lost of material, morale, lives, time, etc...anything that says this country is almost out of the fight. I think that the surrendering of IPCs was meant to represent the most negative thing that could befall a country in war. The lost of it's leadership and morale.
That country takes a massive morale blow when it loses its capital. Troops desert as morale plumments. The people's willingness to fight crashes to zero once they lose their capital. This can all be easily replicated when the player surrenders his IPCs.
For the victor...he is strong, more technology advanced, his troops are better feed, supplied and led. And of course they have a better outlook on things.
This is what I think the designer was intending to simulate buy having the winner receive the IPCs.
Now should the rule be changed because some players want to ignore sound historical tactics. Take out the man's ipc territories (his ability to reinforce and finance the war) and his armies if they are a threat or you may end up watching that capital you just took fall back to your opponent. Don't be Napoleon!
What positive feedback? And if you are already on your way down, what difference does it make if you give up your IPCs.




DocD, Have you been inhaling atomic bomb fumes again? How does one with an imagination turn lost material, morale, lives and time and etc. into military units from the IPCs you seize? Suddenly the German people have more money and effort to supply since we took Moscow. What kind of drek is this?

[DocD]

OK, docs, since you obviously don't have a functioning imagination....here goes:
In May 1945, Russia stood right in Berlin. Now, would you not say that they had, compared to Germany, more men, better tanks, more tanks, more artillery, better equiped troops, better feed troops, troops that felt better, more reserves, factories producing more of everything, better officers, more supplies in general, and could continue to produce all of that and more?
Now of course they didn't get an influx of IPCs from Hitler, or not to my knowledge.
But this is what the game intends to represent. A country at its military peak and not solely concerned with its own survival. A country that could continue the adequate supply of its Armies' needs (whether they be more troops, tanks, airplanes, supplies, reserves, investment in new tech, etc, etc).

What about Germany in May 1945? Did they have 60 year old infantry men, 8 year old armed boys, dwindling supplies, deserting soldiers, less of everything? Did Hitler go to the switz account and write a check for Stalin. OF COUSRE NOT!
But by losing their Ipcs in the game, it is meant to represent this sad state of affairs for them.
A country that really can't go on fighting even though it still has military units in the field.

Now does AandA represent surrender down to the last white flag...NO...but I think that having a player hand over his money lets him know that the reserve pool has been tapped, soldiers are deserting, supplies are almost gone, the Furher has left the building, on and on. It may not be surrender, but it sure puts one in that mode of thinking.

Now could the rules have been written to include all of your wants and whines...maybe....but for the rest of us they work well as is.

[Doctor Strategy]

I am not saying that the losing side would not be punished for losing the capital. However, the person capturing gets unjust enrichment from it. I would be fine with a rule that states the person losing the capital must surrender all his IPCs to the bank. This is way more fair and realistic than giving the capturing player all the IPCs. Anyway that's how I see it.

[series]

I am not saying that the losing side would not be punished for losing the capital. However, the person capturing gets unjust enrichment from it. I would be fine with a rule that states the person losing the capital must surrender all his IPCs to the bank. This is way more fair and realistic than giving the capturing player all the IPCs. Anyway that's how I see it.
I was thinking that as well

[Doctor Strategy]

I was thinking that as well

Yeah, but we'll probably have to give the whiners some money for capturing it. Because they'll cry that they don't get anything for capturing a capital then. Wah. It makes capital capture worthless.

[Stephen]

Now does AandA represent surrender down to the last white flag...NO...but I think that having a player hand over his money lets him know that the reserve pool has been tapped, soldiers are deserting, supplies are almost gone, the Furher has left the building, on and on. It may not be surrender, but it sure puts one in that mode of thinking.

The argument in favour of keeping the current rule hinges on a) the game is likely over anyway, and b) there should be a reward to taking out the capital.

What irks me is a situation where Germany in his prime gets taken over by amphib. assault, while still having huge armies in WEur, EEUr, SEur and any other nearby territories. If UK takes it with a single inf left, so that Germany can be instantly and effortlessly liberated, should the game end there? I've won and lost games like this: the wins are not very satisfying and the losses are irritating beyond imagination! And what's the point of getting all the money if you can't spend it?

A more appropriate result would be UK making off with something significant but not all of Germany's wealth and production. If Germany is the second or third last territory to be taken down, the game will end because the German player won't want to waste time delaying the inevitable. But if it is taken cheaply, I say let the game continue until the German player's forces are ready to capitulate!

[Lt M Cotten]

I agree that the conquered nation should surrender those IPCs to the bank instead of the conqueror because the IPCs represent labor (man hours) that are allocated towards specific projects. In reality the funds are never idle as builds are always in motion. This can not be quickly changed into usable funds for the conquerer. (Example Germans rifle bullets don't work in Russian rifles.)
This is off the subject but I think that perhaps IPC rules should be adjusted since the way they are now people can be thinking about buying one thing at the end of their turn, and by next turn have changed their minds. If you started to work on building a BS but due to bombings ran out of money you would have a 1/2 of a BS not 12 IPCs to be used towards something else. I also question the concept of "saving" IPCs. I can see them being assigned to a project such as a BS as those can be built slowly, but not just being held for later. IMHO
I'm sure this post will catch lots of flak but it is just a thought.

[series]

Yeah, but we'll probably have to give the whiners some money for capturing it. Because they'll cry that they don't get anything for capturing a capital then. Wah. It makes capital capture worthless.
Yeah, it's not like, by capturing germany, you get an extra 10 IPC at the end of your turn or anything...

[Doctor Strategy]

Yeah, it's not like, by capturing germany, you get an extra 10 IPC at the end of your turn or anything...

There is the ring of truth to that statement. Getting the most valuable territory, an industrial complex, and an AA gun. So considering that Germany is taken you are already getting a 30 IPC bonus per se by counting the above items. They are just being greedy by wanting another 10-20 IPCs or so more.

[Doctor Strategy]

I agree that the conquered nation should surrender those IPCs to the bank instead of the conqueror because the IPCs represent labor (man hours) that are allocated towards specific projects. In reality the funds are never idle as builds are always in motion. This can not be quickly changed into usable funds for the conquerer. (Example Germans rifle bullets don't work in Russian rifles.)
This is off the subject but I think that perhaps IPC rules should be adjusted since the way they are now people can be thinking about buying one thing at the end of their turn, and by next turn have changed their minds. If you started to work on building a BS but due to bombings ran out of money you would have a 1/2 of a BS not 12 IPCs to be used towards something else. I also question the concept of "saving" IPCs. I can see them being assigned to a project such as a BS as those can be built slowly, but not just being held for later. IMHO
I'm sure this post will catch lots of flak but it is just a thought.

Thanks for the support Lt.

I do like your suggestions about the big builds and IPCs. The only problem is if you need a navy now and unless 1 rd of play represents approximately 1 year it can't be realistically done.

The US built ACs in one year compared with everyone else at around 3 years. This would severely limit naval action. But I guess realistically, that's why they didn't have many naval engagements because they didn't want to lose such hard to make and costly ships. Well, I guess navies don't get much use in the game now. Except for transports which were cranked out in two months by the Allies.

This could be an interesting variant though. You could approximate how many turns it would take to build certain units. You obviously would only pay for the unit in approximate equal portions based on how long it takes to build. For example, transports and INF 1 turn. Tanks and ART and subs 2 turns and so on. This would force people to think ahead about what they need. It might make the game more defensive in nature but then so was most of WWII.

[Attila the Wolf]

It might make the game more defensive in nature but then so was most of WWII.

Huh? Maybe WWI, but not WWII.

[Doctor Strategy]

Huh? Maybe WWI, but not WWII.

How long did the Russians hold the Eastern Front from the Germans? Most naval battles were defensive with a few big ships lost. There were only a few major offensives throughout the war. What was done during the majority of the time?

At the beginning of the war it was very offensive in nature via German aggression and Japan Pacific expansion. Once they hit the Russians it was more defensive esp. after the Battle of Kursk. When taken as a whole it can be seen as defensive. If the Germans weren't so cautious in feeling that they needed to take out the RAF for an invasion of Britain, they may have taken it. The Italians were super defensive. The Russians were defensive most of the war they had to hold the line. The British for the most part were defensive. The US was more offensive against the Japanese navy and island hopping. The Japanese were in defense mode as they nearly conquered all that they could after their humbling defeat at Midway.

There were a few major offensives throughout the war but mostly defense was the order of the day. Most wars are defensive. You expand your territory then you fortify your gains. Sieges are even defensive.

Compared to WWI, you are right WWII was way more offensive.

[DocD]

The argument in favour of keeping the current rule hinges on a) the game is likely over anyway, and b) there should be a reward to taking out the capital.

What irks me is a situation where Germany in his prime gets taken over by amphib. assault, while still having huge armies in WEur, EEUr, SEur and any other nearby territories. If UK takes it with a single inf left, so that Germany can be instantly and effortlessly liberated, should the game end there? I've won and lost games like this: the wins are not very satisfying and the losses are irritating beyond imagination! And what's the point of getting all the money if you can't spend it?

A more appropriate result would be UK making off with something significant but not all of Germany's wealth and production. If Germany is the second or third last territory to be taken down, the game will end because the German player won't want to waste time delaying the inevitable. But if it is taken cheaply, I say let the game continue until the German player's forces are ready to capitulate!
Well stephen, I think this is what the designer was trying to help prevent. Don't overstretch yourself to the point you let your capital fall or it may be curtains for you.

[DocD]

I am not saying that the losing side would not be punished for losing the capital. However, the person capturing gets unjust enrichment from it. I would be fine with a rule that states the person losing the capital must surrender all his IPCs to the bank. This is way more fair and realistic than giving the capturing player all the IPCs. Anyway that's how I see it.
It may seem fair and realistic, but it takes away from the overall goal in the game, the capture of capitals.

AAR has placed VCs in the game to make strategic points important and the game can end before any capitals fall, but the importance of the capital has been left intact.

[DocD]

I agree that the conquered nation should surrender those IPCs to the bank instead of the conqueror because the IPCs represent labor (man hours) that are allocated towards specific projects. In reality the funds are never idle as builds are always in motion. This can not be quickly changed into usable funds for the conquerer. (Example Germans rifle bullets don't work in Russian rifles.)
This takes away the desire to take a capital if you ask me. A capital is more than just a heavy IPC laden territory with an IC. It needs to be worth more to the conqueror.

This is off the subject but I think that perhaps IPC rules should be adjusted since the way they are now people can be thinking about buying one thing at the end of their turn, and by next turn have changed their minds. If you started to work on building a BS but due to bombings ran out of money you would have a 1/2 of a BS not 12 IPCs to be used towards something else. I also question the concept of "saving" IPCs. I can see them being assigned to a project such as a BS as those can be built slowly, but not just being held for later. IMHO
I'm sure this post will catch lots of flak but it is just a thought.
I see what you are trying to get at here, but why mess up a good thing.

[DocD]

There is the ring of truth to that statement. Getting the most valuable territory, an industrial complex, and an AA gun. So considering that Germany is taken you are already getting a 30 IPC bonus per se by counting the above items. They are just being greedy by wanting another 10-20 IPCs or so more.
All of that is good, but what if the enemy doesn't concede or is eliminated from the game. They may be at a slight disadvantage but what is to stop people from hording armies for a counterattack just to destroy your advancing army. Now there, you have nothing to show for your flag that once flew over the Reichstag.
Nah, capitals have to be the most important and riches things on the board (They appear to be in real life, too.)

[Lt M Cotten]

What I meant to say was that if a nation had the IPCs necessary to build the BS (big ship?) then that is great, they could due it on one turn, however I am opposed to the "saving" of unallocated resources. That is a part of the game that could be adjusted without any major changes, but could improve realism as manpower was never simply idle for a full season while the big wigs thought about the next build. Any "saved" IPCs should have to be allocated towards a purchase and declared, so as to show that it is a project in progress. If the country is bombed and those funds get taken then the project is incomplete unless they have other funds to complete it with...
I realize it is not a big fix issue like some of the others but it is just a thought....

[Drax Kramer]

You have to destroy the enemies armies and capability to fight first. Don't be a Napoleon.

Actually, Napoleon beat Austrians in 1805 and Prussians in 1806 before he captured their respective capitals. Throughout 1812 campaign, Napoleon tried to catch Russian army and beat it decisively. Moscow only seemed as a good winter quarters. So, don't judge him based on misconceived understanding of history.

However, this is not relevant for A&A. Current rules make sure that player inevitably goes down the moment he loses the capital, therefore these are the most important territories in the game.

So what's wrong with that. Most players know when the tide of war has turned totally against them. If they are on their death legs so what. Surrender or die.

Then the rule is redundant. Once the capital is lost, game over. Why bothering with the IPC transfer?

Here comes imagination again...the point of surrendering IPCs is to represent the lost of material, morale, lives, time, etc...anything that says this country is almost out of the fight.

In such situations, countries surrender. But we are not talking about the real war. We are talking about the game. German "capital" in A&A is actually entire Third Reich. If whole of Germany is lost, then the war is over, as far as Hitler's Germany is concerned and from the game point of view, the game is over as well. Who wants to continue playing once Germany (not Berlin) is gone?

The only reason I can see in continuing to let the player stay in the game is to give them a chance to bounce back if they still have units to fight with or some holy miracle.

I don't see any reason at all. Imagine Soviet player losing the capital in five players game? What is he supposed to do in 10 VC game once Russia is lost? Watch porn on cable or go home?

I think that the surrendering of IPCs was meant to represent the most negative thing that could befall a country in war. The lost of it's leadership and morale. That country takes a massive morale blow when it loses its capital. Troops desert as morale plumments. The people's willingness to fight crashes to zero once they lose their capital. This can all be easily replicated when the player surrenders his IPCs.

No. Such things in the real life represent surrender and the end of the war (game).


What positive feedback? And if you are already on your way down, what difference does it make if you give up your IPC?

Games can be designed with positive feedback (whomever takes the lead is more likely to win as the game progresses) or negative feedback (early leader provokes reaction from his opponents or game mechanisms that restrain his lead) or neutral.

Losing capital is a bad thing in A&A even without surrendering your IPCs. If a designer wants for loser to lose all means of getting his capital back (very likely in German, Japanese or US case) than it would have been simpler to finish the game right there rather than introduce another mechanism (surrender of IPCs) that gives the same effect with few more turns to play.

Games like A&A should be interesting until the last turn (D-day or Pacific). Games like Europe or Revised (except for Minor Victory) are interesting until decisive moment after which one party either concedes (95% of games)) or game continues for half-a-dozen turns more with known victory (5% of games).



Drax

[DocD]

What I meant to say was that if a nation had the IPCs necessary to build the BS (big ship?) then that is great, they could due it on one turn, however I am opposed to the "saving" of unallocated resources. That is a part of the game that could be adjusted without any major changes, but could improve realism as manpower was never simply idle for a full season while the big wigs thought about the next build. Any "saved" IPCs should have to be allocated towards a purchase and declared, so as to show that it is a project in progress. If the country is bombed and those funds get taken then the project is incomplete unless they have other funds to complete it with...
I realize it is not a big fix issue like some of the others but it is just a thought....Again Lt...it takes away from the strategic decisions in the game. and remember, a turn represents many months. who is to say one didn't start a BS, then axed the program and used the material as scrap or retooled it for a destroyer, carrier, etc. plausible if you ask me. Besides, why change something that has worked for 20years.

[DocD]

Actually, Napoleon beat Austrians in 1805 and Prussians in 1806 before he captured their respective capitals. Throughout 1812 campaign, Napoleon tried to catch Russian army and beat it decisively. Moscow only seemed as a good winter quarters. So, don't judge him based on misconceived understanding of history.He tried and failed. And russia took back moscow and kicked his butt out of Russia to boot. So don't lose like Napoleon...destroy those armies.

However, this is not relevant for A&A. Current rules make sure that player inevitably goes down the moment he loses the capital, therefore these are the most important territories in the game. And you are arguring they shouldn't be??

Then the rule is redundant. Once the capital is lost, game over. Why bothering with the IPC transfer? because some unsaviory opponents might not quit when they are down. They might have to have their money snatched from their hands so they know they have lost.

In such situations, countries surrender. But we are not talking about the real war. We are talking about the game. German "capital" in A&A is actually entire Third Reich. If whole of Germany is lost, then the war is over, as far as Hitler's Germany is concerned and from the game point of view, the game is over as well. Who wants to continue playing once Germany (not Berlin) is gone? Just because you play with nice opponents that quit when the going gets rough, most of us don't. Some us fight against...I don't know...guys who hide themselves in bunkers, who have 9yrs conscripted into the armies, guys who marry their sweethearts right before they shoot themselves, guys who wait on that imaginary panzer division they know will come and save them.


I don't see any reason at all. Imagine Soviet player losing the capital in five players game? What is he supposed to do in 10 VC game once Russia is lost? Watch porn on cable or go home? He could...or he could set up a Russian-Government-in-exile in london until the Allies liberate moscow. Hey, it worked for the french.

No. Such things in the real life represent surrender and the end of the war (game).well, you should ask MIKE why he didn't make it so.


Losing capital is a bad thing in A&A even without surrendering your IPCs. If a designer wants for loser to lose all means of getting his capital back (very likely in German, Japanese or US case) than it would have been simpler to finish the game right there rather than introduce another mechanism (surrender of IPCs) that gives the same effect with few more turns to play.
DraxHey baby, I don't make the rules! I just argue them!
Ask MIKE why he choose not to do it Drax's way.

[pagan]

There are games where multi-capitals have fallen and the game was still afoot.

This includes the loss of money to the victor.

Here is the oddest scenario I have played:

Germany could take USSR, but didn't.
1. berlin could be taken by allies two-pronged attack
2. germany did not want to gain USSR money and then give them back to allies (with fall of berlin) , thus losing the game.
3. germany waited for Japan to get USSR
4. allies (US/UK) focused on the fall of berlin but didn't want to wait too long, started sending fighters to Russia. (crucial aspect here in depleting allied naval defense)
5. axis wanted germany to get the money, allies wanted germany to get the money... (smile)

Conclusion....japanese onslaught of tanks reduces total USSR ipcs to a drizzle, so allies push on berlin. berlin falls. (barely), USSR falls to germany, japanese tanks rush to EE.... (allies were depleted now from berlin attack losses - but there were more coming to WE)

Huge axis airwave of german then japanese planes hits alllies navy in suicide run. (germany had 12 IPCs to spend if capital could be gained!)

Game was definately not over with the fall of TWO capitals...

Outcome....oh I don't remember.....

[Lt M Cotten]

Hey if germany loses it capital, they can try to regain it and may, but that temporary loss will more than likely doom them anyway. In most cases the capital is the last to fall so the captured IPCs is not too big. IF your capital falls while you are still a large empire, then you weren't careful enough. I have never played a game where all the Russian, or whoever, forces surrendered just because the capital fell, BUT I can't recall a single occasion where the 'team' who lost a capital ever won in the long run..... I don't think the victory getting the spoils of a fallen capital really needed that bonus to be victorious in the end, but it sure helps!
Also, I thought this discussion was to consider what changes may be wanted/needed to improve this 20+ yrs old game. I didn't realize that some parts of the game were off limits for discussion (IPC savings, etc). :)

[Doctor Strategy]

I see that a few people vehemently defend the capital rules of surrendering IPCs when captured. However when you dare extend it to a victory city which should be at least half as important as a capital, people look at you like you're crazy. What gives? The same arguements for capture of a capital should apply to VCs. You certainly wouldn't want to lose one with the potential IPC loss and it certainly makes it worthwhile to go after. So for those of you who made arguements for keeping the IPC gain for capitals, you actually gave support for the VC idea in an indirect way. The whole point of the thread was to see if captured IPCs matter and boy do they. Thanks DocD for making that point so clearly.

[DocD]

Well DocS. No, VC cities are not as valuable as capitals. Don't get me wrong...the game depends on capturing them, but you can't say that the leadership is severed or destroyed or all of those other things mike spoke about. Check out mike's response if you don't know what I mean.
So NO on IPC transfer on VCs capture. (and you heard that here first)

[Doctor Strategy]

DocD

I guess Leningrad was so worthless that Hitler decided to forgo going to Moscow to make it fall. If Hitler had went on to Moscow in full force would it have been over for the Russians.

Leningrad was the cultural center of E Europe. But after continuous shelling it could not have been worth the 3 years that the German's seiged it even if the Germans had taken it. The question remains why did he not go for Moscow? Did Hitler feel that he had to demoralize the Russians by taking Leningrad? Or did he feel that the Russians had to be beaten militarily and capturing the capital would not accomplish this?

[DocD]

Well its hard to say doc. Hitler made enough mistakes in the war to question almost everything he was doing. His generals advised him against diverting the panzers in August/1941 south away from the center. He realized too late the importance of Moscow (which he had stated earlier was only a "geographical expression") and the winter freeze along with a fierce Russian counterattack prevented him from ever getting close to the capital again. Its interesting that Stalin felt Moscow was worth something and decided not to move the capital. (I'm sure he was prepared to fight house by house for the city if needed).

As far as Leningrad, it was obviously important to the Germans, but how much might be in question. I mean after their 1941 assault, they felt secure enough just to let Leningrad die on the vine. They didn't do a full scale assault to take the city like they did Stalingrad, Kiev, Minisk, or Sevestapol.

[pagan]

VCs are about winning the game. (but you must play VC win conditions)

Taking the capital is about getting IPCs.

There can be a correlation of anything to anything else.

Making IPC loss for the loss of VCs makes the game easier to lose. It also makes the VCs as important as a capital (almost since you would lose only a perc.IPCs) I don't think this helps gameplay. I don't think this is an 'enhancement'. I think it is a poor idea being taken way too seriously.

Loss of a capital = loss of IPCs
Loss of VC = imminent player strategy decisions

VC loss is recoverable by strategy & gameboard tactics
Capital loss is either imminent death or bonehead play. I will always be against lessening the consequences of bonehead player decisions & extending the Death-Scenario.

[Desert Rat]

VCs are about winning the game. (but you must play VC win conditions)

Taking the capital is about getting IPCs.

There can be a correlation of anything to anything else.

Making IPC loss for the loss of VCs makes the game easier to lose. It also makes the VCs as important as a capital (almost since you would lose only a perc.IPCs) I don't think this helps gameplay. I don't think this is an 'enhancement'. I think it is a poor idea being taken way too seriously.

Loss of a capital = loss of IPCs
Loss of VC = imminent player strategy decisions

VC loss is recoverable by strategy & gameboard tactics
Capital loss is either imminent death or bonehead play. I will always be against lessening the consequences of bonehead player decisions & extending the Death-Scenario.

Good points Pagan! Im in agreement with you.

[Doctor Strategy]

VCs are about winning the game. (but you must play VC win conditions)

Taking the capital is about getting IPCs.

Making IPC loss for the loss of VCs makes the game easier to lose. It also makes the VCs as important as a capital (almost since you would lose only a perc.IPCs) I don't think this helps gameplay. I don't think this is an 'enhancement'. I think it is a poor idea being taken way too seriously.

Loss of a capital = loss of IPCs
Loss of VC = imminent player strategy decisions



Well, if there wasn't a bonus in IPCs for capturing a capital what would a capital be worth. Would it simply be a glorified VC? I don't think so. The bonus you get is depriving the person 1 turn of production and their most valuable territory and etc. You don't need the money.

You state that adding IPCs to the VCs makes the game easier to lose. How? And is it necessarily a bad thing as most of you seem to be too crunched for time to play a total victory game anyway. Why a few measly IPCs lost from a VC, wouldn't cause you to lose the game right. Or is it simply that some VCs are absurdly easy to get while others nearly impossible. More IPCs can be lost in a SBR after all.

After all with the liberation of Paris, it was downhill from there for Germany. How is this represented in the game? Not at all. But put some IPCs there and you get the effect.

[pagan]

I think we are done discussing this.

Youvery well may feel the need to continue with others, but I have said my piece, and I bid you a farewell on this subject. Have fun in your Total Victory games!!

[Desert Rat]

Well, if there wasn't a bonus in IPCs for capturing a capital what would a capital be worth. Would it simply be a glorified VC? I don't think so. The bonus you get is depriving the person 1 turn of production and their most valuable territory and etc. You don't need the money.

You state that adding IPCs to the VCs makes the game easier to lose. How? And is it necessarily a bad thing as most of you seem to be too crunched for time to play a total victory game anyway. Why a few measly IPCs lost from a VC, wouldn't cause you to lose the game right. Or is it simply that some VCs are absurdly easy to get while others nearly impossible. More IPCs can be lost in a SBR after all.

After all with the liberation of Paris, it was downhill from there for Germany. How is this represented in the game? Not at all. But put some IPCs there and you get the effect.

I see your point DocS that when playing a total victory game, there is no point in having VC's, unless ofcourse you add a home rule that a VC will cost you money as well.

However, the majority of players don't play total victory because it is a waste of time and it is not fun at all for the player who is losing. It is better for the losing player to concede if he knows he has no chance to win, and start a new fresh game of A&A if everyone feels like they want to keep playing.

[cousin_joe]

I think we are done discussing this.

Youvery well may feel the need to continue with others, but I have said my piece, and I bid you a farewell on this subject. Have fun in your Total Victory games!!Good call, pagan.

I don't see how you could have made it more clear. The guy obviously doesn't get it. Do you actually read other people's posts DocS? Do you actually take in what they have to say? Sort of reminds me of my mom... you know the type... always talking, never listening :rolleyes: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

[Doctor Strategy]

You could always just play a set amount of time say 4 hours and declare the winners by IPC gain from starting values. Then you could probably play another game.

I do agree that most games are well decided before a total victory results. We start out playing for total victory and it always ends in a concession from someone. It never comes down to I took out your last piece on the board ala Risk. We played these kind of games of A&A in high school with the original. We don't see the point of doing so now.

[Doctor Strategy]

Good call, pagan.

I don't see how you could have made it more clear. The guy obviously doesn't get it. Do you actually read other people's posts DocS? Do you actually take in what they have to say? Sort of reminds me of my mom... you know the type... always talking, never listening :rolleyes: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

I am not going to even dignify your post with a response.

[Desert Rat]

You could always just play a set amount of time say 4 hours and declare the winners by IPC gain from starting values. Then you could probably play another game.

I do agree that most games are well decided before a total victory results. We start out playing for total victory and it always ends in a concession from someone. It never comes down to I took out your last piece on the board ala Risk. We played these kind of games of A&A in high school with the original. We don't see the point of doing so now.

So if that is the case, then your not really playing total victory, your just playing until someone concedes. In this case VCs still wouldn't matter in this type of game. However, if your not really playing total victory anyway, why not just make a 9 or 10 VC win condition?

[Desert Rat]

Good call, pagan.

I don't see how you could have made it more clear. The guy obviously doesn't get it. Do you actually read other people's posts DocS? Do you actually take in what they have to say? Sort of reminds me of my mom... you know the type... always talking, never listening :rolleyes: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

C'mon guys, don't be so hard on DocS, there are far worse members on this board, some of which don't contribute a single thing to A&A like NerdX for example, he should be kicked off the board in my opinion.

[cousin_joe]

I do agree that most games are well decided before a total victory results. We start out playing for total victory and it always ends in a concession from someone. It never comes down to I took out your last piece on the board ala Risk. We played these kind of games of A&A in high school with the original. We don't see the point of doing so now.
That's all you had to say, DocS. You have to remember though, there are some unreasonable players that insist on playing despite an obvious loss - eg. a tournament game when one loss and you're out.

[Doctor Strategy]

C'mon guys, don't be so hard on DocS, there are far worse members on this board, some of which don't contribute a single thing to A&A like NerdX for example, he should be kicked off the board in my opinion.

Thanks for the vote of confidence Desert Rat.

[cousin_joe]

Sorry to be so hard on you DocS :) You gotta agree that you're pretty stubborn though :D

[Doctor Strategy]

So if that is the case, then your not really playing total victory, your just playing until someone concedes. In this case VCs still wouldn't matter in this type of game. However, if your not really playing total victory anyway, why not just make a 9 or 10 VC win condition?

You are correct about VCs not mattering in this type of game. I don't want to get into how I feel about VCs. If some of you like to play by VCs, then have fun. I have fun in the games of A&A that I play and that is the whole point in playing after all.

[Doctor Strategy]

Sorry to be so hard on you DocS :) You gotta agree that you're pretty stubborn though :D

Apology accepted. Anyway that's what everyone tells me. And Cousin it may be construed that you're a little stubborn about defending Enhanced?

[cousin_joe]

Apology accepted. Anyway that's what everyone tells me. And Cousin it may be construed that you're a little stubborn about defending Enhanced?
Touche! :D I think it can be said that everyone on these boards is quite stubborn when it comes to their ideas on A&A :D

[Desert Rat]

You are correct about VCs not mattering in this type of game. I don't want to get into how I feel about VCs. If some of you like to play by VCs, then have fun. I have fun in the games of A&A that I play and that is the whole point in playing after all.

We can both agree that having fun is the most important thing about playing A&A.

I think we can also both agree that the current VC system set up in the standard revised game doesn't work unless your playing a minor victory game.

The reason why VCs were set up in the first place (and correct me if Im wrong Mike Selinker) is to steer the attention away from Berlin and Moscow, so that the game isn't mainly focused in those two places.

I think the VC system is a good idea, but it just wasn't done properly. As it is now, we all know that in a major victory game the Axis still have to go for Moscow, there just isn't any other playable alternatives. That's why players like Cousin Joe, Pagan, DocD and myself have gone up to a 15 VC system. I just ask you to try it and see if it makes a positive and fun influence in your games.

[Doctor Strategy]

I feel that by adding extra VCs it actually hampers the Allies instead of helping them. It makes too many VCs too easy for the Axis to snag. The Japanese navy is way too strong for VCs in Australia and Hawaii to work.

The mechanism for forcing the US player to fight Pacific is wrong. Raising the value of islands whether ahistorical or not is better because it doesn't force play. If you don't go for them you aren't hurt by it other than not getting some IPCs. Adding VCs does because if you don't defend them you lose the game. It's that simple.

The US strat from the get go of WWII was to KGF. This is official and easily checked in old war documents. They were slapped in the face with Pearl Harbor and chose to go that way instead.

If you are going to force the US and UK to defend the Pacific, then the US and UK need more naval presence or higher income to build navally. Either that or a wholesale revamping of naval unit costs for just the US and UK. Japan did not replace their naval losses quickly because of their lack of industrialization and Germany didn't focus too much on navies other than U-boats( they were relatively cheap for function).They were locked into a massive land battle with Russia.

[DocD]

I feel that by adding extra VCs it actually hampers the Allies instead of helping them. It makes too many VCs too easy for the Axis to snag. The Japanese navy is way too strong for VCs in Australia and Hawaii to work. This would be a true statement if you placed 8VCs as the goal...but then it wouldn't matter under what rules you were playing, the Axis would win. In enhanced, 10 Vc for the Axis and 11 for the Allies. This makes things much more even for both sides. And I have found out in those games, the Axis grab 2 or 3 VCs then have to hold on to everything as the Allies try to turn the tide, while at the same time the Axis try for that last VC or two. So far the Axis have been successful, but only barely.

The mechanism for forcing the US player to fight Pacific is wrong. Raising the value of islands whether ahistorical or not is better because it doesn't force play. If you don't go for them you aren't hurt by it other than not getting some IPCs. Adding VCs does because if you don't defend them you lose the game. It's that simple. Well, let's just say historical is good. I'm against making players do things just to have them do it...but steering the game in a historical way is good if both sides have equal chances. Otherwise, the game falls into a total ahistorical fallacy land and that ain't good.
As far as AAR is concerned, the US is free to ignore the pacific, even though there are islands there worth over 10 ipcs, so increasing IPCs is ahistorical and useless. In enhanced the choice is left up to the Japanese and they would be better off fighting a Pacific campaign. But they do have an option.

The US strat from the get go of WWII was to KGF. This is official and easily checked in old war documents. They were slapped in the face with Pearl Harbor and chose to go that way instead. This is true, but they didn't ignore Japan either. I'm for moving things in the historical flavor, and giving both sides an equal chance at victory. If you are against history, why even bother playing the game I say.

If you are going to force the US and UK to defend the Pacific, then the US and UK need more naval presence or higher income to build navally. Either that or a wholesale revamping of naval unit costs for just the US and UK. Japan did not replace their naval losses quickly because of their lack of industrialization and Germany didn't focus too much on navies other than U-boats( they were relatively cheap for function).They were locked into a massive land battle with Russia.
Well, I can't totally disagree with you here, but the "enhanced-crew" only wanted to change things as 'slightly' as possible. If you are going to revamp the system I say start with the mapboard with china.
And Again, no one is forcing the US/UK to defend the Pacific, (even though it would be in their best interest if they did), enhance just creates more options. You really should check it out.

Craps, I guess I'm no longer just a user of "AAR:E", now I'm also a seller of it!

[cousin_joe]

Craps, I guess I'm no longer just a user of "AAR:E", now I'm also a seller of it!
"The Force is strong in this one!" :D

A&A: Enhanced is like a drug DocD... once you try it, you can't quit... and then maybe you even start selling the stuff :) Not that I would know ;) LOL :D

[Desert Rat]

I feel that by adding extra VCs it actually hampers the Allies instead of helping them. It makes too many VCs too easy for the Axis to snag. The Japanese navy is way too strong for VCs in Australia and Hawaii to work.

The mechanism for forcing the US player to fight Pacific is wrong. Raising the value of islands whether ahistorical or not is better because it doesn't force play. If you don't go for them you aren't hurt by it other than not getting some IPCs. Adding VCs does because if you don't defend them you lose the game. It's that simple.

The US strat from the get go of WWII was to KGF. This is official and easily checked in old war documents. They were slapped in the face with Pearl Harbor and chose to go that way instead.

If you are going to force the US and UK to defend the Pacific, then the US and UK need more naval presence or higher income to build navally. Either that or a wholesale revamping of naval unit costs for just the US and UK. Japan did not replace their naval losses quickly because of their lack of industrialization and Germany didn't focus too much on navies other than U-boats( they were relatively cheap for function).They were locked into a massive land battle with Russia.

With the 15 VC variant, there is nothing wrong with trying to defeat Germany first while defending the Pacific at the same time. What makes you think that just because Hawaii and Australia are VCs that you have to defeat Japan first.

Yes, the Allies need more of a naval presence in the Pacific, that's why the US buys ships there, thats the point of the game. The mechanism in forcing the US player to fight in the Pacific is perfectly right. The US player ignoring *** aggression 'totally ignore Japan' in the basic revised edition is totally wrong as the best winnable strategy.

Im not saying that totally ignoring Japan coudn't be a strategy in the 15 VC variant, but it won't be the best winning strategy.

I thought we have all talked about this issue already. Check out my poll on this subject.

[Doctor Strategy]

With the 15 VC variant, there is nothing wrong with trying to defeat Germany first while defending the Pacific at the same time. What makes you think that just because Hawaii and Australia are VCs that you have to defeat Japan first.

Yes, the Allies need more of a naval presence in the Pacific, that's why the US buys ships there, thats the point of the game. The mechanism in forcing the US player to fight in the Pacific is perfectly right. The US player ignoring *** aggression 'totally ignore Japan' in the basic revised edition is totally wrong as the best winnable strategy.

Im not saying that totally ignoring Japan coudn't be a strategy in the 15 VC variant, but it won't be the best winning strategy.

I thought we have all talked about this issue already. Check out my poll on this subject.

This all goes back to the arguement that capital capture is too great to even want to go after VCs. Get rid of the great reward and you may see VCs fought over.

You force the US and UK to defend the Pacific but do nothing for JTDTM. Yes, it will surely come more easily under these rules.

Let's look at 15 VCs from a logical point of view. Japan and Germany only need four more VCs. Russia is looking like a big juicy T-bone with Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow within striking range. The UK can't be expected to help Russia out and keep Calcutta and Sydney from the Japanese player. The US, letting up on Germany to defend the Pacific will be a disaster for the Allies. It just can't be done. Game over by rd 5 to the Axis via conquering Moscow and holding one other VC that is easily taken by Japan.

Don't most enhanced games go to the Axis players? Now hopefully you will see why that is so.

[DocD]

This all goes back to the arguement that capital capture is too great to even want to go after VCs. Get rid of the great reward and you may see VCs fought over.

You force the US and UK to defend the Pacific but do nothing for JTDTM. Yes, it will surely come more easily under these rules.

Let's look at 15 VCs from a logical point of view. Japan and Germany only need four more VCs. Russia is looking like a big T-bone juicy with Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow within striking range. The UK can't be expected to help Russia out and keep Calcutta and Sydney from the Japanese player. The US, letting up on Germany to defend the Pacific will be a disaster for the Allies. It just can't be done. Game over by rd 5 to the Axis via conquering Moscow and holding one other VC that is easily taken by Japan.

Don't most enhanced games go to the Axis players? Now hopefully you will see why that is so.Well doc, the great thing about AAR:E is that the Japanese cannot afford to fight Russia, US/UK on the Asian mainland, and wage an offensive war in the pacific for hawaii or Australia.
They don't have the capability or the units. They must choose (and fairly early in the game) which strategy they plan on pursing. Because the US goes after Japan in the game, it will always have an idea of what Japan is up to, and can then act accordingly. Trust me, the quickest way for the Axis to lose, is for Japan to try and invade Hawaii, while at the same time invading Russia, while at the same time, trying to take down China and India. They will be very overstretched and foolish to attempt such a thing.

Now, have the Axis won the few games of enhanced that I have played, YES. But only barely, the Allies were always just about to turn the tide when Axis grabbed their tenth VC. (I will tell you, in my last game, Japanese Kamikazees were the only thing that prevented the US from taking the Phillipines and preventing the Axis their last winning VC. If the Axis had not won on that round, they weren't going to.)

DocS, you have to print the enhanced rules along with LHTR, then set up the game and give it a try. I'm sorry brotha, but you are woefully uninformed about enhanced and it really makes it hard to try and point things out if you are unwilling to even give it try.

[Doctor Strategy]

The whole point of this thread was actually sarcasm. It was aimed at the supporters of capital capture money. I guess a lot of you didn't see it. Got a lot of replys and posts however. The way I see it gratuitous money for capital is still the same as money even 1/2 for victory cities.

How about income divided by the number of starting VCs? Any takers? :D

Ha HA.