New Alt 1941-45 CG Scenario Request

[AFV]

Janh

Clearly, the majority would an additional scenario based on this- exactly what is in the details. Its not possible to please 100% of the people, as that will never happen, and as a basis for not doing anything, that is not a valid argument. In fact, if Joel presented 10 alternate scenarios, 100% of the people would still not be pleased.
And no, it is not easier for me to mod the game than the devs to present an alternate scenario, if that is what you meant.

Also, regarding polls in general: When many options are presented, you will get a wide variety of responses. If the poll had been worded "Would you like the VP for German auto-win lowered?" you would have seen roughly 78% say yes, so again, its really not valid to say we have no agreement because no single option was chosen by over 50% of the respondents.

[marcpennington]

I'm all for variants of the grand campaign game being available, and I would also really like to see the addition of shorter roughly year- long "chunks" of the GC: i.e. scenarios based on 1941 through spring '42, 42-3 etc. These could have different VP schemes similar to the current "Road to" scenarios that encourage (IMHO) both all-out German attack and forward Soviet defense, and allow for experimentation with how alternate victory conditions might effect the grand campaign game itself.

Plus, as someone who has never gotten past around turn 10 of the GC without opponents disappearing (my guess being that they only then realized how long a 200 turn game would really take), I feel having these shorter chunks might actually lead to quite a few games lasting longer. At the least, I think a scenario with "balanced" victory conditions that lasts from the start of Barbarossa to the end of the Russian winter offensive would be rather entertaining...

[pzgndr]

Unfortuantely the campaign victory conditions are hard coded, so they won't work. Of course, you could agree to what they are ahead of time as a house rule, in which case there is no need to create the scenario. That's the basic issue here. In the ideal world this would be in the editor, but it isn't, so any changes in victory conditions require coding changes. I wish campaign victory conditions were in the editor like the scenario victory conditions because then you could make all the changes you wanted and create alternate scenarios, but they aren't, and getting them into the editor is not a trivial task.

I suspect that the necessary code changes Joel alludes to in this other post will prevent any meaningful change in the victory conditions in this game. A trivial VP number reduction from 290 to 260 or whatever in the code may help make an Axis Decisive Victory possible in 1942, but doesn't do anything to implement further reductions for 1943 and 1944, nor address Soviet Decisive Victory possibilities for anything sooner than 1944. A house rule to implement the old AH Russian Front victory conditions or something comparable may be the way to go. Those could be easily enough drafted up, agreed upon by both players at the start of a game, and checked manually at the appropriate dates.

At this point it might be best to look ahead to the WITW game engine and work to ensure flexible victory conditions are in the editor and not hard coded like they are now.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: AFV
Janh

Clearly, the majority would an additional scenario based on this- exactly what is in the details. Its not possible to please 100% of the people, as that will never happen, and as a basis for not doing anything, that is not a valid argument. In fact, if Joel presented 10 alternate scenarios, 100% of the people would still not be pleased.
And no, it is not easier for me to mod the game than the devs to present an alternate scenario, if that is what you meant.

Also, regarding polls in general: When many options are presented, you will get a wide variety of responses. If the poll had been worded "Would you like the VP for German auto-win lowered?" you would have seen roughly 78% say yes, so again, its really not valid to say we have no agreement because no single option was chosen by over 50% of the respondents.

Well, the latter is a bit of aproblem. It may be too early to interpret the polls. In fact, it bears some resemblance on the way the Nazi's got to power in 1933 -- too many small parties to choose from in the Weimar Repulic. In the end, no one was happy, no party could secure a majority to govern, and one party saw it's chance to dislodge the democratic processes...

You are certainly right, almost 4/5 of the voters desire some change. And as and optional additional rule or scenario as proposed, no one will reject it. I just hope picking one set of new VP conditions will not lead to just another such discussion a few weeks later, since it seems you'll make barely 1/3 of the people happy either way (and perhaps less in combination of both the VP value and end time factors, perhaps more if people are more flexible to compromise).
It would seem really the way to avoid further conflict to open these options in the editor. About a handful clicks and the VP level or deadline could be moved. That doesnt sound like a big effort to me. But neither do houserules.

I support such a change, more variety in scenarios and options can just make this game better and add more hours of fun. I would just read 270VP and late June into the poll, not 260 and late May. The latter seems to be a bit early, the Soviet player should also have a fair amount of extra time to catch up if he messes up earlier. And since these are purely "game" options, with not consideration of when the Western Allies could have overun Berlin, or whether the Soviets would truly have given up early, why not late June?

There is one other proposal that I find actually more interesting than any with a fixed, previously known VP amount, and that is the suggestion by 76mm proposed in the other thread. I really like that. His idea is not just about the game aspect of auto-victory, but also about using it as a tool to recreate the guiding principles of the struggle a little better. It acts as incentive for a more determined defensive fighting by both sides and offers rewards for Axis pushing harder on the offense instead of "early" force preservation or turteling:
VPs randomized for each game, say between 230 and 290, on averge 260. With no side knowing what exactly will trigger victory, this might be an incentive to for the Soviets to defend more determined despite bad odds, and the Axis to attack more rigorously, but not to overextend unreasonably in a purely rule-driven "victory" raid for the last points known to be missing. This kind of uncertainty not only sounds fun to me, it might also could avoid "strange gameplay", and ugly situations in which the Axis players forces are so weakened after a failed victory raid that he just quits.

If some coding changes need to be done anyway, and the GG team would be willing and able to do this, I think 76mm's suggestion would be something worth discussing...

[ragtopcars_slith]

janh

+1 [&o] on the above post

[tigercub]

late may for me...

Tigercub

[Meteor2]

janh

+1[&o]

I am following this forum for a long time now, but less and less I can understand, why changes (as Michael T suggests and others supports) are so hard to implement.
At the end, the customer is demanding a change of something (although the 100 person based poll, is not that big, I know).
And here, it is an easy change. Lets see afterward, if the majority of players is pleased...

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

janh

+1[&o]

I am following this forum for a long time now, but less and less I can understand, why changes (as Michael T suggests and others supports) are so hard to implement.
At the end, the customer is demanding a change of something (although the 100 person based poll, is not that big, I know).
And here, it is an easy change. Lets see afterward, if the majority of players is pleased...

Because as Joel pointed out, it isn't an "easy" change because the campaign victory conditions are hard coded.

From Joel in the other poll thread:

"Sure, you can make the scenario yourself. Unfortuantely the campaign victory conditions are hard coded, so they won't work. Of course, you could agree to what they are ahead of time as a house rule, in which case there is no need to create the scenario. That's the basic issue here. In the ideal world this would be in the editor, but it isn't, so any changes in victory conditions require coding changes. I wish campaign victory conditions were in the editor like the scenario victory conditions because then you could make all the changes you wanted and create alternate scenarios, but they aren't, and getting them into the editor is not a trivial task."

[jazman]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Unfortuantely the campaign victory conditions are hard coded

This game looks at modders and tweakers with a brutal, ruthless gleam in its eyes.

[Wild]

delete

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: jazman

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Unfortuantely the campaign victory conditions are hard coded

This game looks at modders and tweakers with a brutal, ruthless gleam in its eyes.

And yet, quite a lot can be edited. One can even add, say, a Maus.

Or: tm.asp?m=2998371

[Oloren_MatrixForum]

Aurelian:
Unfortuantely the campaign victory conditions are hard coded

Just because it's hard coded doesn't mean it's difficult to implement, especially if we are only talking about a single total value like VP.

[jazman]

ORIGINAL: Oloren

Aurelian:
Unfortuantely the campaign victory conditions are hard coded

Just because it's hard coded doesn't mean it's difficult to implement, especially if we are only talking about a single total value like VP.

Didn't I see somewhere someone say that optional rules are hard to implement here? So we're left with one-size-fits-all?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Oloren

Aurelian:
Unfortuantely the campaign victory conditions are hard coded

Just because it's hard coded doesn't mean it's difficult to implement, especially if we are only talking about a single total value like VP.

So take it up with Joel. Being that they are his words. Words such as "and getting them into the editor is not a trivial task."

So something that is not a trivial task is easy?

[Oloren_MatrixForum]

Clone the scenario and edit the new one. The program is likely very well written and organized. It should not be rocket science, assuming they have resources available to work on it.

[AFV]

I find it quite hard to believe that changing a "292" to a "260" would be a major undertaking. I'm not saying they will do it, should do it, or want to do it- but certainly if they decided to, it would be rather routine. The length of the scenario might be more difficult.
I doubt they would have even made the posts if it was not possible to make those type changes.

[gradenko2k]

I don't think it's the difficulty of changing 292 to 260. It's probably all the re-coding involved in moving that particular variable from being in the executable to instead being read off a user-defined setting in the editor.

Having said that, I do agree that they probably wouldn't have asked if they didn't think it was a plausible venture, even if for something that would only come into play by War in the West.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: AFV

I find it quite hard to believe that changing a "292" to a "260" would be a major undertaking. I'm not saying they will do it, should do it, or want to do it- but certainly if they decided to, it would be rather routine. The length of the scenario might be more difficult.
I doubt they would have even made the posts if it was not possible to make those type changes.

Nobody said it isn't possible. Just not a trivial task.

But I think it will be in WiTW.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Oloren

Clone the scenario and edit the new one. The program is likely very well written and organized. It should not be rocket science, assuming they have resources available to work on it.

Yeah, sure. If was that easy, it would be a trivial task. And yet "it is not a trivial task."

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

I don't think it's the difficulty of changing 292 to 260. It's probably all the re-coding involved in moving that particular variable from being in the executable to instead being read off a user-defined setting in the editor.

Having said that, I do agree that they probably wouldn't have asked if they didn't think it was a plausible venture, even if for something that would only come into play by War in the West.

IIRC, it is supposed to be in WiTW.