Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

[Poll]

Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?


No, like it as is.
  22% (26)
Yes, would like it to be 280
  1% (2)
Yes would like it to be 270
  9% (11)
Yes would like it to be 265
  5% (6)
Yes would like it to be 260
  26% (31)
Yes would like it to be 255
  2% (3)
Yes would like it to be 250
  10% (12)
Yes would like it to be 245
  7% (9)
Yes would like it to be 240
  13% (15)


Total Votes : 115
(last vote on : 3/4/2012 6:22:47 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


Joel Billings -> Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/16/2012 8:04:33 PM)

Poll as requested. Current rule requires 290 VP for a German auto-win.

FYI, with what the German's control in June 1942, if they also took the Leningrad area, Moscow, Rostov and Stalingrad, and no other cities, they'd have 243 (245 if you throw in Kaluga and Voroshilovgrad).




redmarkus4 -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/16/2012 9:29:48 PM)

In future games it would be nice to have an option for either:

- 'Auto Win' win 'n' points (players can agree and adjust the points level).
- 'Better than history win' (e.g. if the Axis get Moscow, then are driven back east but are still in Poland in '45, then they 'win', or if the Soviets take Berlin in '44 it's a win for them, regardless of how far the Axis go in '41/'42.




timmyab -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/16/2012 10:06:50 PM)

I think it's certainly too high at the moment.
There's so much that could be done with a VP system to make the game more interesting.
One option is to have a sliding scale.For instance:240 but you must hold it for 5 months, 250 but you must hold it for 4 months etc, right up to 290 instant win.
I also think that the capture of important cities should have an impact on national morale.
The game is crying out for good reasons to fight for territory and cities.




JAMiAM -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/16/2012 10:28:03 PM)

Like it like it is. Fairly unobtainable, given any reasonably matched opponents.




AFV -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 1:43:37 AM)

FYI: 290 is the equivalent of a little more than Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Gorky AND Baku.




Walloc -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 2:09:52 AM)

Could i come with a suggestion. Spurred on by my reply in another thread.
See here for more here please.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3040277

Why not make 2 set of victory conditions u can set as options before starting a game.

So leave 1 set of option as is now. IMO the more historical ones but ppl may well disagree.

I think in many the way the current VPs are very historical. The eastern front was a struggle to death between 2 ideological opposed giants.
They'd go to any length to win. I think that is reflected very well in the current VPs. More or less needing to be captured the entire map for the
germans to win. Through out military history it has been the trackrecord of russians to keep giving terrain if necesarry. Not get hung up on cities unless it had a explicit purpose. So i do not think that russian would have given up losing Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad for example. Not that that wouldnt have degraded their warfairing capabilties.Not teh same as giving up tho. So retreating should be a viable strategy. Neither would the russian have stopped in may 45 and said ok we give up 300 kms from Berlin.

They'd fought to the bitter end, again reflected in the current VPs levels. Unconditonal surrender. I didnt coin it [;)]


Many games have VP level by doing better than history. Why not add another set of VP levels reflecting that as an option.
There is a voiced number of ppl on the forums that seems to want that. I can certainly see how ppl can get a sense of accomplishemt doing better than history and wanting that in their game. Give ppl choices.

So the other option for victory levels is set per that. Lowering VPs as per recent polls or what ever is reached up on by designers, making them more in accordance of doing better than historical. Ending the game in May 45 or what ever. Where exactly a VP level for german auto victory is, is ofc debatebe, but every thing points to ppl want it lower for that type of game as i see it.

Ppl can then before starting a game decide what kinda game they want to play. Then acting according strategy wise.


Kind regards,

Rasmus




76mm -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 2:50:50 AM)

I def think the number should be reduced to somewhere in the 250-270 range.




Flaviusx -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 3:00:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

FYI: 290 is the equivalent of a little more than Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Gorky AND Baku.


And yet, they may have fought on even after losing all those. The alternative wasn't particularly good. This wasn't France with the Germans willing to make nice with a collaborationist regime and go easy on the locals.

Let's be quite clear about this. I can see the case for lowering the VPs from a gamesmanship standpoint, but only from that standpoint.




wadortch -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 3:38:11 AM)

That's what is about Flavio. A game mechanic, nothing more. No verdict on history.




AFV -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 3:45:54 AM)

Exactly what Dortchman said. They may have fought on (likely would have), but thats not the point. Its a game mechanic.
For the record, I would be on board with a corresponding Soviet auto victory.




Flaviusx -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 3:50:57 AM)

I'm not sure how a corresponding Soviet auto victory should be handled, tbh. If each side had one, this would be easier for me to swallow.





wadortch -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 4:09:27 AM)

Well first, I think this fix relates to just creating a realistic shift in the present auto VP which most would agree is akin to the Germans taking Mars to win. Hopefully it will create an incentive for the Germans to make the push for a win in 42 that really was out of reach at 292. That, combined with a shorter time for the Russians to get to Berlin may create some incentive for them not to run too far East. Not an unhistorical theme.

Second, as to VP scenarios for an auto win by the Russians, there is such a proposal on the table as you know.





AFV -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 4:52:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch

Well first, I think this fix relates to just creating a realistic shift in the present auto VP which most would agree is akin to the Germans taking Mars to win. Hopefully it will create an incentive for the Germans to make the push for a win in 42 that really was out of reach at 292. That, combined with a shorter time for the Russians to get to Berlin may create some incentive for them not to run too far East. Not an unhistorical theme.

Second, as to VP scenarios for an auto win by the Russians, there is such a proposal on the table as you know.




I dont laugh a lot on these forums, but I must admit, that got me good!




76mm -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 5:53:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Let's be quite clear about this. I can see the case for lowering the VPs from a gamesmanship standpoint, but only from that standpoint.

This is the main thing, but not the only thing. I thing you need to give the Germans some plausible auto-win conditions to encourage them to attack and not turtle in 1942. This could have far-reaching (and generally favorable) game-play effects.

For the Sovs I think you could come up something similar fairly easily: if you capture Berlin in 1044, you win. Once you slip into 1945, you need Berlin, and cities X, Y, and Z.




janh -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 10:29:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
...
Why not make 2 set of victory conditions u can set as options before starting a game.

So leave 1 set of option as is now. IMO the more historical ones but ppl may well disagree.

I think in many the way the current VPs are very historical. The eastern front was a struggle to death between 2 ideological opposed giants.
They'd go to any length to win. I think that is reflected very well in the current VPs. More or less needing to be captured the entire map for the
germans to win. Through out military history it has been the trackrecord of russians to keep giving terrain if necesarry. Not get hung up on cities unless it had a explicit purpose. So i do not think that russian would have given up losing Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad for example. Not that that wouldnt have degraded their warfairing capabilties.Not teh same as giving up tho. So retreating should be a viable strategy. Neither would the russian have stopped in may 45 and said ok we give up 300 kms from Berlin.

They'd fought to the bitter end, again reflected in the current VPs levels. Unconditonal surrender. I didnt coin it [;)]

Many games have VP level by doing better than history. Why not add another set of VP levels reflecting that as an option.
There is a voiced number of ppl on the forums that seems to want that. I can certainly see how ppl can get a sense of accomplishemt doing better than history and wanting that in their game. Give ppl choices.

So the other option for victory levels is set per that. Lowering VPs as per recent polls or what ever is reached up on by designers, making them more in accordance of doing better than historical. Ending the game in May 45 or what ever. Where exactly a VP level for german auto victory is, is ofc debatebe, but every thing points to ppl want it lower for that type of game as i see it.

Ppl can then before starting a game decide what kinda game they want to play. Then acting according strategy wise.

Kind regards,

Rasmus


Big thumbs up for this one!




Marquo -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 3:26:57 PM)

FWIW, it just occured to me that the autovictory levels should decrease in time for the Axis and increase in time for the Soviet player. This will avoid any tendency for either side to rest too easy in a trench stalemate situation.

So, if the Axis victory level is 260, in 1941 - 1942, it will drop to let's say 220 for the end of 1943; to 200; for the end of 1944, etc. In this manner the Soviet is forced to recover, fight and retake land back from the Axis and the Axis can't simply scamper back west.

I like this concept.

Marquo





wadortch -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 5:28:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

FWIW, it just occured to me that the autovictory levels should decrease in time for the Axis and increase in time for the Soviet player. This will avoid any tendency for either side to rest too easy in a trench stalemate situation.

So, if the Axis victory level is 260, in 1941 - 1942, it will drop to let's say 220 for the end of 1943; to 200; for the end of 1944, etc. In this manner the Soviet is forced to recover, fight and retake land back from the Axis and the Axis can't simply scamper back west.

I like this concept.

Marquo




I don't want to distract or derail the focus of this thread which is a simple to code adjustment of the present auto victory conditions to a reasonable total.

But there has been some thinking and discussion of the concept you describe Marquo, and I have posted the idea and map here that was the basis of that in the interest of longer term evolution of the victory conditions for the game.

Sudden Death (Auto Victory) Conditions

Optional Sudden Death Victory Rule
v. 12/15/11

Proposed Optional Rule:

A "sudden death (SD)" victory is achieved if a victory point total amassed by the German player equals or exceeds the total shown below at the end of the Soviet turn the last turn of March in 1942, 1943 or 1944. For example, if the German VP total is equal to or greater than 243 points at the end of the Soviet turn the last week of March, Germany wins a SD victory. If it is equal to or less than 194 points the Soviet player wins a SD victory.

Victory points are awarded based on the point values shown in Section 24.1.1 of the WITE manual.

SD Victory Conditions

End March 42 -  => 243 Germany wins, =< 194 Russian wins
End March 43 -  => 261 Germany wins, =< 189 Russian wins
End March 44 -  => 213 Germany wins, =< 163 Russian wins
 
Map Key

The attached map was used to establish the VP totals shown above as it reflects in a "landscape" way the scope of advance needed to achieve a SD victory. However, the VP total needed to achieve a SD victory is INDEPENDENT of the Map Lines, meaning any combination of occupied VP hexes that achieves the VP total needed for the SD win, triggers the win.
 
Red line German 3/42 Win
Dark Blue line Soviet 3/42 Win
 
Red line plus Orange line German 3/43 Win
Dark Blue line plus light Blue line Soviet 3/43 Win
 
Yellow line German 3/44 Win
Green line Soviet 3/44 Win

[image]local://upfiles/37896/18E384F1F8C7425F97B085D92F75B4A5.jpg[/image]




Pelton -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 7:36:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Let's be quite clear about this. I can see the case for lowering the VPs from a gamesmanship standpoint, but only from that standpoint.

This is the main thing, but not the only thing. I thing you need to give the Germans some plausible auto-win conditions to encourage them to attack and not turtle in 1942. This could have far-reaching (and generally favorable) game-play effects.

For the Sovs I think you could come up something similar fairly easily: if you capture Berlin in 1044, you win. Once you slip into 1945, you need Berlin, and cities X, Y, and Z.


Good ideas.




Pelton -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 7:40:00 PM)

Wow I like them auto win ideas, because games will generally get finished and much much more fighting will happen.

We will all have to be willing to have some give and take on the VP conditions. It will take a while to get them fair for both sides, unless the bulls eye is it the first time.

Pelton




pzgndr -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 8:02:17 PM)

quote:

SD Victory Conditions

End March 42 - => 243 Germany wins, =< 194 Russian wins
End March 43 - => 261 Germany wins, =< 189 Russian wins
End March 44 - => 213 Germany wins, =< 163 Russian wins


+1




AFV -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 9:04:40 PM)

End March 42 - => 243 Germany wins, =< 194 Russian wins
End March 43 - => 261 Germany wins, =< 189 Russian wins
End March 44 - => 213 Germany wins, =< 163 Russian wins


Pelton, do you have saves from some of the AARs that you could show how many VP the Axis had at those time frames?
And then give your opinion of what the victory level was (or was going to be), and compare?




LiquidSky -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 9:09:27 PM)



The reason to have an Auto Victory is to encourage proper play. For example, if taking Moscow before the end of Summer 1942 was a game ender, the Russians would defend it quite heavily (like they did historically). And the Germans may or may not go for it (like they did historically).

But for any Auto Victory condition to work, it should be possible for the defender to come up with a way to make it impossible to achieve.
Of course, this may make him weaker somewhere else for the long haul victory condition, which is the point of it.

The design purpose of an auto victory is not to reward an attacker, but to punish the foolish defender.

Otherwise, you are just designing half a game that ends at an earlier date. And if you want that, why play the campaign?




AFV -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 9:13:00 PM)

With all this said, auto victory conditions should be reached rarely against opponents of similar ability, in case anyone has lost track of that.
Rarely is still a lot more than never of course.




LiquidSky -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 9:28:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

With all this said, auto victory conditions should be reached rarely against opponents of similar ability, in case anyone has lost track of that.
Rarely is still a lot more than never of course.



Really? You would like to be the defender, who played a good game, but have it end suddenly, before you can really get going? Even 1 game out of 10? Random chance should not decide between two close to equal players on having the game end. Let them play it to the finish. Auto Victory should only punish the defender for a poor decision, so next time he plays, he won't make the same mistake twice.

The clever attacker should only be clever in overcoming a weak defense....the strategy will be in trying to make the defender weak.




Walloc -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 9:53:16 PM)

I like the idea.proposed. I would say i so think the either 3/42 is some what early for the game end or in case its done end I'd at leased i would adjust the lines some what.

Kind regards,

Rasmus




AFV -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/17/2012 10:14:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

With all this said, auto victory conditions should be reached rarely against opponents of similar ability, in case anyone has lost track of that.
Rarely is still a lot more than never of course.



Really? You would like to be the defender, who played a good game, but have it end suddenly, before you can really get going? Even 1 game out of 10? Random chance should not decide between two close to equal players on having the game end. Let them play it to the finish. Auto Victory should only punish the defender for a poor decision, so next time he plays, he won't make the same mistake twice.

The clever attacker should only be clever in overcoming a weak defense....the strategy will be in trying to make the defender weak.


If you played a good game, you wont get near AutoVictory conditions. Not sure what your thinking.
But yeah, if I played horrible enough to allow my opponent to reach those conditions, lets call it a day.

EDIT: Also, this is not random chance. This is when your getting an a$$ kicking, which is far from random.




LiquidSky -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/18/2012 1:12:35 AM)




There will be times you play a good game as a defender, but the opponent does a sudden "Pelton" type maneuver to thrust forward and suddenly end the game in his favour. In hindsight you should be able to prevent it with some sort of defence. Lesson learned.

Another reason that is should be impossible against a knowledgable opponent, is you dont want the game to revolve around this artificial date....you dont want the Germans to go all out for it, burning themselves out but making it in time to end the game..even though he may be so badly hurt from doing it, the war would be over next years with the Russians in Berlin..or even worse...having the Germans try, fail then quit as they know they won't win the long haul.

Better to know early that your Russian opponent isn't falling for your auto-victory thrusts and instead go back to the long haul game.


Frankly, the more I think about it, the more the auto-victory seems like a sham. Better to have different benchmark victories, and add them up at the end to see who won.
If you are badly beating your opponent, he will probably resign anyways. No need for autovictory for that.




Pelton -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/18/2012 2:30:15 AM)

The auto stuff is nice, but I would be happy with 250 to 260.

Which all things being equal will not happen.





wadortch -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/18/2012 2:42:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky




There will be times you play a good game as a defender, but the opponent does a sudden "Pelton" type maneuver to thrust forward and suddenly end the game in his favour. In hindsight you should be able to prevent it with some sort of defence. Lesson learned.

Another reason that is should be impossible against a knowledgable opponent, is you dont want the game to revolve around this artificial date....you dont want the Germans to go all out for it, burning themselves out but making it in time to end the game..even though he may be so badly hurt from doing it, the war would be over next years with the Russians in Berlin..or even worse...having the Germans try, fail then quit as they know they won't win the long haul.

Better to know early that your Russian opponent isn't falling for your auto-victory thrusts and instead go back to the long haul game.


Frankly, the more I think about it, the more the auto-victory seems like a sham. Better to have different benchmark victories, and add them up at the end to see who won.
If you are badly beating your opponent, he will probably resign anyways. No need for autovictory for that.



Point is this thread is simply whether or not to adjust the EXISTING auto VP total of 292 points. Right now in my opinion there is nothing for the Soviet player to fall for.




76mm -> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? (2/18/2012 6:45:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

You would like to be the defender, who played a good game, but have it end suddenly, before you can really get going?...Random chance should not decide between two close to equal players on having the game end.


If you have lost 260 VPs as Sov you have, by definition, not played a good game, and there is nothing sudden about it--you will have had your butt kicked, and good, for at least nine months. Also,there is nothing random about losing such a game, both sides would know what the VP conditions are, and the Sovs need to defend accordingly.

I agree that the Sovs would have never given up, but VP conditions should be changed for the sake of more interesting gameplay. Just because the Sovs would have fought on does not mean that the game should continue on if the Sovs perform much much more poorly than historically.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.3203125