$20.00
$5.00
$15.00
Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Triumph & Tragedy» Forums » Variants

Subject: unconditional surrender - an additional victory condition for the axis rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
leopold bloom

berlin
msg tools
mbmbmb
sometimes - at least in my group - the following happens;
the axis, after conquering France, invades the soviet union in the early 40s and suffers a major defeat, which leaves them without any realistic chance to win the game. this is what happened historically, so you should expect it in a game like this, but nevertheless it turns playing the axis into a pretty frustrating experience, as the only thing left to do is to recreate the desperate (and senseless) resistance of the axis until to the bitter end.

so, I thought of a VARIANT;

at the end of 1945 the axis player wins if the axis
- controls Berlin and Ruhr and
- has been in control of Paris during any of the earlier new-year victory checks and
- has been in control of at least one soviet city during any of the earlier new-year victory checks
if the axis does not win by this condition, the player with the most vps wins.

I think, this variant could add some tension to the play of an otherwise hopeless axis, as it now matters to defend Germany at all cost, while the allies will have to stay active until the end of the game in order to achieve the (historical outcome) of an unconditional surrender.
I did not playtest this variant yet (but will do this tomorrow) and I am not sure about the details in the named conditions (maybe two soviet cities instead of only one, maybe control of Berlin, Ruhr and Rome), but wanted to share the idea and learn about what you think.

regards,

leo


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools
Hi Leo,

Intersesting ideas but terribly complicated and long.

Attcking the West with the Axis seems not to be the best idea if you cant win the gane with it.

If you do and then arent strong enough the following endgame you described seems to be a fair deal.
But since this is a 3-player game it does not have to develop light this.
Compared to reality the Allies cant win together so it is your job as the Axis to subtly create a situation where one player ( probabely the Soviets ) threatens to win so the other Ally ( in this case the West ) has to fight with you against the Soviets.

If you keep the spirit of the 3-player gane going you will not need another victory condition.

Best of luck and lots of fun.

Jürg
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
leopold bloom

berlin
msg tools
mbmbmb
dear jürg,

thanks a lot for your reply.
first of all; I personally do agree - and feel absolutely comfortable with - the fact, that after poor play there is nothing wrong about finally loosing the game, even if this process of loosing will take you several turns (hours), in which you can do not much more than sitting about and watch yourself loosing the game. on the other hand, there are players that would not enjoy a situation like this and could therefore decide not to play the game anymore, as it might - at a certain risk - get them into spending multiple hours doing things that they do not like to do.
I also do agree to your point, that applying the variant would force the allies to cooperate more than it would happen in a game without the variant. but - as you said - still only one of them can win, so there should be enough needs for competition on other theaters; india, the colonies, southern europe, the a-bomb...however, i guess the game will become more 'scripted'. also, some people maybe do not like the possibility of one player almost loosing on the map, while still winning the game. it reminds me on the concerns people have with the victory conditions of churchill, that are also contraintuitive in a way.


and finally; i do not think the variant is too complicated, at least compared to other variants posted here on bgg. it is three conditions to remember, and each or them can occur olny one time every game - we have mastered harder things than this.

so thank you again and take care,

leo
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alberto Natta
Italy
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
This variant - for how historical can be - simply turns the game into a 2v1 the very moment the preconditions are met.

And by what I experienced, Axis in the regular game just shoots in its own feet if does West first and then Soviets next (unless the players are new and make big mistakes such as letting a Leningrad or so empty or poorly defended).

Which I feel it's quite a problem - that the game in its own design forbids the historical outcome (or makes it suicidal).

I'd rather add something to bolster Axis if they take Paris or so. Plundering, etc.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
When only one player can win, I think we should expect acts of desperation at the end. But maybe that's OK for a game.

AnimalMother proposed Tournament Points for several different types of victories. In addition to the ones that he proposed, other types of victories could include

- A "Survival" Victory worth 1 tournament point.

- A "Roman Victory" possibility for Italy, which would be control over Tunisia, Malta, Libya, Egypt, Albania, Greece, and Turkey (Izmir) worth 3 tournament points.

- The "Glorious Worker's Revolution of Europe" victory worth 10 tournament points to the Soviet player.

And so on.

Or maybe there could be a secret victory requirement worth a point or two.

Just a thought.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools
After thinking some more I came to the same conclusion as Alberto.

The variant seems to be counter productive in the sense that in the moment the conditions for the unconditional surrender victory are met, the other 2 have to destroy the Axis which guarantees a loos.

Not really what you inteded. Right ?

To me it seems to be better to let the 3 player mechanism and experience run its course.

Best regards

Jürg
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
leopold bloom

berlin
msg tools
mbmbmb
Cohen wrote:
This variant - for how historical can be - simply turns the game into a 2v1 the very moment the preconditions are met.


maybe it is just me, but I do not see a general problem here; in my experience, if the described conditions are met, the game turns into a kind of 2v1 anyway... at least as long as the axis threatens leningrad/moscow. on the other hand, regardless of using the variant or not, only one of the two 'allies' can win - so both of them will have to gain victory points or try to achieve sudden-death conditions on their own.
however, the variant makes the game easier for the axis and harder for the west and the su, which indeed might be a problem. I guess, I see this variant as something like an 'emergency exit' that groups can agree on to deal with this special situation I described. if the axis is on its way down by 1943 or so, it might be more attractive to have a semi 2v1 game than an actual 1v1 game, with the axis watching the other two struggling for victory.
(again; its totally fair to loose a game after a weak performance, even if this loosing lasts for hours, and I appreciate all players that can continue to play and enjoy a game in a situation where they can definitely not win it anymore. however, there are players that do not have the mind to stand out such an experience, which usually means that they might completely ruin a session - by getting into a bad mood, playing without inspiration, complaining constantly - or deny to play the game from the very beginning. one could say that such players simply should not play games like T&T, but I prefer to develop solutions to rather include them - I must confess, I am friend with some of them. that is why I posted this variant; to see what you folks think and earn from the richness of this community.)

Cohen wrote:
And by what I experienced, Axis in the regular game just shoots in its own feet if does West first and then Soviets next (unless the players are new and make big mistakes such as letting a Leningrad or so empty or poorly defended).


really? in my group - which consists of pretty experienced players - our paradigm is the exact opposite; beat the French early and as long as they are weak (to prevent the allies to mass forces in France later in the game), then take what you have to throw it towards Leningrad/Moscow.
I would be very much interested in how the axis can win at all without having taken France (and some minor european states as well) in the early game.

thanks a lot for your thoughts,

leo
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alberto Natta
Italy
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
I feel more the Axis is limited by geography.

To put it in simple terms the Axis needs -large- territorial gains to fuel their economics, which often is what brings them to VoN first (if we exclude Persia maybe just because Persia has a ton of stuff and few troops, and in many games I've just saw VoNs on Persia just to seize the unguarded oil fields)

The European resources are not that many.
Russia is a danger to enter because of their extra Winter Turn (which can mean -a lot- I've experienced on my own skin) and possibly a game breaker.

The West and Soviets can secure or have already a healthy amount of resources on their side. West if played well only and truly risks to lose the ones in France to the Axis. The one in India at worst go to the Soviets - and the Axis has troubles intervening there.

And Axis is in the middle - which means it will be regularly be the subject of the war from 2 sides to get its own resources eroded.

I am definitely not an expert player, but these seem the basics and the patterns has happened through all the 4 games I've had, whereas Axis ends up sandwitched by the other two powers sooner or later.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb

In a multiplayer game, as in a multi-party political system, the weakest player should try to act as a "kingmaker" between closely matched rivals, hoping to break up their coalition, and aim for a surprise, come-from-behind victory.

IMHO, that's where tepid support and mildly aggressive card play towards your "ally" comes in handy.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Sosa
United States
Newark
Delaware
flag msg tools
I will break him.
mbmbmbmbmb
I have been frustrated with the Axis fighting a losing two front war. I think you just have to remind your opponents that only one player can win and make sure it gets played until there is one winner. Next time around they may reconsider their options.

Granted if you play the Axis badly they can still make a rush for Germany and victory, but that's were your skill comes in. I've seen the Axis win early (Sea Lion, Paris/Leningrad) and late as in 1945. It can be a wild and open game depending on how things develop. I don't think we need a variant that will turn it into a 2 on 1. Just play Europe Engulfed instead.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.