I'm thinking about changing the Victory conditions - making a rule that if you control both German capitals, they count as a single capital for Victory check. You will still need another capital to win the game (fe. Rome/Paris/Baku).
For a VP victory, both German capitals still give the normal VP value.
We play T&T in a 5 player group, and in all configurations we are focused more on war then long term planning and development. The result is war often starts early 1936-1937, and changes to focusing on military production, and pushing blocks forward into combat.
In my opinion this puts Germany in a very bad position, since both Ally and Reds just push aggressively into Germany, knowing that if they roll well, they can quickly get both capitals and get instant victory. We had 2 games where it was a question for Ally and Red "who has a earlier command card" to race for Ruhr.
In the end we see very little competition between Ally and Reds, the game turns into a race for Berlin, where the Germans can't do a two front war.
WHATS GOOD (POTENTIALLY)
The rule should force other players to search for other targets - maybe Delhi for Red, maybe Leningrad for Ally with the US invasion, maybe a race for Italy for both.
Knowing that taking Germany won't end the game, they will focus on other targets, potential increasing the conflict potential between them, giving Germany a little more breathing room, and forcing to seek other strategies.
WHAT BAD (POTENTIALLY)
This might increase the game length, making it more probable to end in 1945, and a end game VP check, which I believe might favor the Allies.
Did anyone try anything like this?
Have never seen this problem in the many games of T&T I have played. It sounds like a group think problem IMHO.
My initial reaction is I don't think your suggested fix is either necessary or a good idea.
Given the disparity in production between the West and Axis, I would be tempted to solve this problem as follows:
As Axis - build all military, attack West early, knock France out of War. With France gone, redeploy East.
Whichever side does *not* initiate hostilities doesn't bother attacking Axis, instead they just sit back and build their economy and collect peace chits while the other two beat each other up. They then get an economic victory or enter the war later with overwhelming force.
With only 1 side attacking the Axis, they won't be able to roll over the Axis like your group has been seeing. Thus the guy sitting out doesn't need to worry about an early military victory.
You get the same problem if:
A) Both sides attack Russia and ignore each other
B) Both sides attack West and ignore each other
- Last edited Thu Jul 6, 2017 2:04 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Thu Jul 6, 2017 2:01 pm
Agree with Brett.
You defenitely dont need a variant you neeed to develop your strategies.
Agree with above two.
Why always early war? The best we've seen the Axis do is when they've gone to war late. It kind of forces the hands of the other two factions, as the Axis economy and production can be pretty good without the need for RES.