VPs that encouraged historical strategy

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Please, please you guys.  Can't we all just get along?

Not with trolls, no. That's what the green button is for. Carry on.

[Q-Ball]

I posted before that I thought a turn-based VP system, where you are awarded VPs per turn for holding certain objectives, would encourage more risks on each side, and increase the importance of VP Objectives. I would even make them include big bonuses for certain acheivements; for example, Germans take Kiev turn 6, you get a big bump in point. Soviets still hold Kiev turn 12, you get a big bump in points. That type of thing. Might encourage the Soviets to hold on to objectives longer, or Axis to push quicker.

I realize that would be very very tough to implement and then balance.

[karonagames]

I realize that would be very very tough to implement and then balance.

My guess is that if Joel dropped by this thread, we would see a similar response as in the weather thread. I am not an expert on the editor, but I don't think there is much flexibility in the current VP model.

[Aurelian]

The VP system works fine as is.

Don't see why some are trying to force players to act a certain way.

If I want to hold onto Kiev for who knows how many turns, it should be because *I* want to.

Maybe because I want to get the factories out. Maybe because it's because a defense line further back isn't done.

Maybe because I'm a masochist.

But it's for my reasons.

Not because some arbitrary "bonus" could fall my way.

[findmeifyoucan]

Whatever, the point is the defensive line was idiotic. How can you defend you flanks with pee shooters? i.e Rumanian and Hungarian forces. I may not have read about this battle extensively in fine detail but I know the historical layout of the forces on both sides when the Germans where holding Stalingrad before the Russian offensive to take it back

[Angelo]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I realize that would be very very tough to implement and then balance.

My guess is that if Joel dropped by this thread, we would see a similar response as in the weather thread. I am not an expert on the editor, but I don't think there is much flexibility in the current VP model.

That excuse is starting to wear thin with me. [8|]

I think it's the excuse of every IT department ever... Can't be done with the resoures/technology/personnel we have.

2by3 games is a good company and it has the resourses to add move detail to the game. It's a question of whether they wish to do so. And as I've stated in another post I'm quite willing to buy an expantion for a more detailed game.

[Tarhunnas]

The VP system works fine as is.

Don't see why some are trying to force players to act a certain way.

If I want to hold onto Kiev for who knows how many turns, it should be because *I* want to.

Maybe because I want to get the factories out. Maybe because it's because a defense line further back isn't done.

Maybe because I'm a masochist.

But it's for my reasons.

Not because some arbitrary "bonus" could fall my way.

Then why don't you play on a completely featureless map?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

The VP system works fine as is.

Don't see why some are trying to force players to act a certain way.

If I want to hold onto Kiev for who knows how many turns, it should be because *I* want to.

Maybe because I want to get the factories out. Maybe because it's because a defense line further back isn't done.

Maybe because I'm a masochist.

But it's for my reasons.

Not because some arbitrary "bonus" could fall my way.

Then why don't you play on a completely featureless map?

Make one and I will.

Better yet, why don't you spend the time and money to make a game that fits with your idea of how it should be played?

If I like what I see I'll buy it.

That is if you really believe in your idea.

And if your response is the best you can come up, then your idea had no merit from the get go.

[mikemcmann]

Geez.... It's like afternoon kindergarten class in here...


Expected to read something interesting and instead see children pulling each others hair....

This is an adult game.....right?

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

The VP system works fine as is.

Don't see why some are trying to force players to act a certain way.

If I want to hold onto Kiev for who knows how many turns, it should be because *I* want to.

Maybe because I want to get the factories out. Maybe because it's because a defense line further back isn't done.

Maybe because I'm a masochist.

But it's for my reasons.

Not because some arbitrary "bonus" could fall my way.

Then why don't you play on a completely featureless map?

Make one and I will.

Better yet, why don't you spend the time and money to make a game that fits with your idea of how it should be played?

If I like what I see I'll buy it.

That is if you really believe in your idea.

And if your response is the best you can come up, then your idea had no merit from the get go.

What I wanted to say was: We have the map, we want that realistic, we have the units and we want the OOB and their strenghts to be accurate, we have the production system, we have the weather and we want tat realistic. But the political imperatives that made it important to take or hold certain cities are also a part of the equation. The leaders that had to take the real decisions were bound by those constraints too. To take that away is akin to removing any of the other factors, for example the terrain features. I should have been more explicit in what I meant.

@ Aurelian: Sorry about being enigmatic, I meant no disrespect.

[Aurelian]

[>:]

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I posted before that I thought a turn-based VP system, where you are awarded VPs per turn for holding certain objectives, would encourage more risks on each side, and increase the importance of VP Objectives. I would even make them include big bonuses for certain acheivements; for example, Germans take Kiev turn 6, you get a big bump in point. Soviets still hold Kiev turn 12, you get a big bump in points. That type of thing. Might encourage the Soviets to hold on to objectives longer, or Axis to push quicker.

I realize that would be very very tough to implement and then balance.

That would turn off conservative players like me. A really fun game for everyone is if there is equal chance of success with both risky and conservative play styles. But of course how many historical situations have this characteristic?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: mikemcmann

Geez.... It's like afternoon kindergarten class in here...


Expected to read something interesting and instead see children pulling each others hair....

This is an adult game.....right?

Supposedly. But when the OP can't accept that not everyone is going to drop to their knees in praise....

And the best arguement he can come up with is "Play on a featureless map."

Well, said OP is not following the plea, how was it put "Please don't destroy my thread with bickering!"

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I posted before that I thought a turn-based VP system, where you are awarded VPs per turn for holding certain objectives, would encourage more risks on each side, and increase the importance of VP Objectives. I would even make them include big bonuses for certain acheivements; for example, Germans take Kiev turn 6, you get a big bump in point. Soviets still hold Kiev turn 12, you get a big bump in points. That type of thing. Might encourage the Soviets to hold on to objectives longer, or Axis to push quicker.

I realize that would be very very tough to implement and then balance.

That would turn off conservative players like me. A really fun game for everyone is if there is equal chance of success with both risky and conservative play styles. But of course how many historical situations have this characteristic?

The problem, as I see it, is that how the campaign is won gets tossed out the window. Then you have to come up with a way to not have one side sit down and do the math to see exactly what they have to do to win. (I take this much, then sit for the entire game.) Which can lead to boredom for one side or the other.

The most boring game I ever played was USAAF as the Germans. The American player did nothing but bomb Brest/Bourduex/whatever was closest. Only two raids a turn. That went on for 50 turns before I just gave up out of boredom.

[Pipewrench]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I posted before that I thought a turn-based VP system, where you are awarded VPs per turn for holding certain objectives, would encourage more risks on each side, and increase the importance of VP Objectives. I would even make them include big bonuses for certain acheivements; for example, Germans take Kiev turn 6, you get a big bump in point. Soviets still hold Kiev turn 12, you get a big bump in points. That type of thing. Might encourage the Soviets to hold on to objectives longer, or Axis to push quicker.

I realize that would be very very tough to implement and then balance.

That would turn off conservative players like me. A really fun game for everyone is if there is equal chance of success with both risky and conservative play styles. But of course how many historical situations have this characteristic?

The problem, as I see it, is that how the campaign is won gets tossed out the window. Then you have to come up with a way to not have one side sit down and do the math to see exactly what they have to do to win. (I take this much, then sit for the entire game.) Which can lead to boredom for one side or the other.

The most boring game I ever played was USAAF as the Germans. The American player did nothing but bomb Brest/Bourduex/whatever was closest. Only two raids a turn. That went on for 50 turns before I just gave up out of boredom.

I know what you mean. It seems that games are stuck in the old table top model where victory points are known and exploited by all.

A way to keep things going for both players is that each side picks at the start politically important cities that modify the victory points with a scorecard of the modified results displayed at the end of the year.

would be very hard to model so I'm just blowing smoke.

[Aurelian]

I don't have a problem with the victory model as it stands. It's simple. Easily understood by all.

I also see no reason to impose a system to force players to act like their historical counterparts.

The old Avalon Hill game France 1940 had a scenario called the Dyle Plan that did just that. The Allies had to follow the actual plan. You play it once, just to see how inept they were.

Not much fun for the Allied player.

There was a S&T article that listed a series of scenarios for Panzer Blitz that had a whole new dimension for the game. All you needed was a deck of cards. You drew a playin card, that told you how many points to spend, and what you needed to win.

The opponent did the same thing. Neither knew what the other to spend or what their objective was. You could have 200 points, I could have 1400, and you could win easily just by moving some units from one end to the other.

wouldn't work for this game though.

[Thomas_B]

From my point of view having any kind of victory points as measure of overall success only applied at the very end of the game turns the game itself into operational warfare for operational warfare's sake, which is pretty ahistorical.

Armies went to war and waged certain campaigns because the political leadership wanted to go to war and set them certain objectives - whether the military leadership liked that or not. It would be nice to see that reflected in the game.

One, relatively easy, even if not necessarily the most accurate way to achieve this, would be to award VPs for geographic objectives at the end of every turn, instead of at game's end.

So, if for example Moscow might be worth 450 VP at the end of a 225 game turn campaign, why not award the player holding the city 2 VP per turn. This would incentivise both sides by providing them with more of a rationale to fight for these objectives.

Don't get me wrong - I don't intend to badmouth the game, I really like it - but the current campaign VP conditions do not reflect this aspect very well.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815
I cannot argue with your comments because they are so uninfirmed that to do so would obviously not be worth the effort.

Congratulations, you win the "Most Patronizing Forum Member" Award! We are in the presence (virtual at any rate) of greatness, of one who knows the Truth about history...

[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Thomas_B

From my point of view having any kind of victory points as measure of overall success only applied at the very end of the game turns the game itself into operational warfare for operational warfare's sake, which is pretty ahistorical.

Armies went to war and waged certain campaigns because the political leadership wanted to go to war and set them certain objectives - whether the military leadership liked that or not. It would be nice to see that reflected in the game.

One, relatively easy, even if not necessarily the most accurate way to achieve this, would be to award VPs for geographic objectives at the end of every turn, instead of at game's end.

So, if for example Moscow might be worth 450 VP at the end of a 225 game turn campaign, why not award the player holding the city 2 VP per turn. This would incentivise both sides by providing them with more of a rationale to fight for these objectives.

Don't get me wrong - I don't intend to badmouth the game, I really like it - but the current campaign VP conditions do not reflect this aspect very well.

That was my reasoning too.

I am going to put together an excel sheet just for fun to see what values one would arrive at using the historical capture and recapture dates of cities in the Soviet Union. For a start I am going to give each city hex 1 VP per turn, with certain exceptions:

Moscow 2 (but maybe not for all hexes)
Sevastopol 2 (to account for political importance of the Crimea)
Simferopol 1 (even though it's not a city, same reason as above)
Stalingrad 2
Baku 2
Kiev 2
Kharkov 2
Leningrad already has several hexes, so needs no extra.

Probably 1 for each resource hex.

Any other suggestions for important locations?

[76mm]

Not sure, but maybe Stalino or Rostov for 1 pt?

Sverdlovsk for 5 pts? [:D]