Ava and I chatted about the map today, mostly concerning her desire to put in a win condition. Initially she was thinking Kinshasa plus 4-5 cities, but myobjection was that historically, in the Congo wars, holding Kinshasa and a load of cities did not ensure a victor. Additionally, given that there are no land bonuses and the cities are the only means of getting extra troops, then it would be too easy for players to load up stacks on the cities as they autodeploy, then grab Kinshasa for the win. It wouldn't be a fair win condition.
So I'm proposing a couple different win conditions that I'd like for you all to weigh in on:
1) Control all land territories bordering the river - you win.
2) Adding an extra two territories of USA support and USSR support. These territories will be able to bombard cities on the map via their assumed airplanes (which aren't on the ma but support implies military support). The Superpowers would be attacked by Kinshasa and holding international support plus Kinshasa plus x amount of cities gives a win.
2a) Both the US and USSR attack a United Nations territory that represents International support. Holding Kinshasa, the US or USSR, the UN and x amount of cities = win.While the superpowers can bombard cities, the cities can also bombard the UN (which represents that if cities were rioting against a leader, the opinion of the leader in the UN would go down, eventually until the UN is bombarded to a stack of neutrals and no player has it).
Honestly, I favor either 2a) or no win condition at all. As he map is, it feels more like a map about the geographic experience of the Congo Basin and bringing the 20th century politics that have plagued the region into the game just ruins an otherwise beautiful and fascinating region.
You're thoughts are appreciated.