Matrix Games Forums

War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

GC Victory Conditions

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> GC Victory Conditions Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
GC Victory Conditions - 2/28/2011 5:35:25 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5579
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: online
Is there a lack of incentive in the Grand Campaign to occupy territory?

I tend to think there is, other than the impact to Soviet Manpower recruiting, there really isn't a point to taking ground (assuming the factories are moved). The Soviets need to get closer to Berlin, but all points in between are essentially meaningless, until the final bell sounds.

What if VPs were awarded on a PER TURN basis for geographic objectives in russia? Wouldn't that encourage more risk-taking on both sides, because you would be playing toward VP conditions?

As it stands, who cares if the Germans take Kharkov? Once you trash the Manpower and force the factories to move (which you only have to do by getting close), it doesn't matter, because you won't be holding it in 1945 when the bell rings. So, who cares if you capture it or lose it in 1943? Only the Real Germans and Russians did.

Anyone else feel this way?
Post #: 1
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 2/28/2011 6:26:08 PM   
Pawlock

 

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline
Yes, I been thinking the same, not enough intermediate incentives to keep the game more involved past spring/summer 42. Especially for the Axis, dont lose Berlin !!! so essentially 2-3 years of gradual retreat until either Berlin falls or not. Vp's are the way to go with cities etc, but this could be a very long balancing process to get right.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 2
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 2/28/2011 6:29:38 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6149
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Anyone else feel this way?

Yes.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 3
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 2/28/2011 6:55:57 PM   
Angelo

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Anyone else feel this way?

Yes.


Agreed. How difficult is it to to mod the GC to add victory points? Say 1 point per city/urban per turn. and a big bonus for Berlin/Moscoe?

Of course there woul need to be a few test to get the proper balance.

A very good Idea




(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 4
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 2/28/2011 7:57:31 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

Yes, I been thinking the same, not enough intermediate incentives to keep the game more involved past spring/summer 42. Especially for the Axis, dont lose Berlin !!! so essentially 2-3 years of gradual retreat until either Berlin falls or not. Vp's are the way to go with cities etc, but this could be a very long balancing process to get right.


Very very long indeed

And, what happens in the following situation?:

approaching the final turns, the Axis player does his maths and realizes that just by holding Bratislava a couple of turns more he can bag an advantage in points that cannot be reverted. Then he transfers almost all his divisions to protect Bratislava just during those magic two weeks. I feel that movement a little bit gamey (except if we are talking about Berlin).

The idea of a "per turn" benefit is already present in manpower not available to the enemy, and resources and oil availaible to the player holding the city (although I don't know the real impact of this last factor). Perhaps in some settings it could be considered the possibility of using "captured" manpower...(some recruitment at the Baltic states as anti-Soviet militias?). This could provide a (more?) visible and maybe more realistic incentive to hold some areas. (Or is it already included in the game?)



< Message edited by alfonso -- 2/28/2011 8:06:06 PM >

(in reply to Pawlock)
Post #: 5
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 2/28/2011 8:27:30 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5579
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: online
The problem for me was thinking about the German 1942 campaign.

What are my strategic objectives?

The only sure objectives is to kill Reds. If I can't kill Reds at a 3-1 or 4-1 rate, what's the point?

Let's say I list the re-capture of Kharkov among those objectives. IRL, that was a legitimate objective. Sure, trashing the Manpower again there would be "Nice", but after I captured it the first time, most of the Manpower fled. The remaining 4 Manpower is damaged already. Is it really worth expending any extra effort to take it? No. Taking it is very incidental to the "real" objective of just killing Reds. I could say the same about almost any city. Even taking the Caucausus OIL, (if I can get to it!), I can't use the OIL, because by the time I repair it and also the RR, I'm probably pulling out anyway. The real objective is to deny it to the REDS; but are they really that hurting for Fuel that occupying it is going to justify the huge expense and risk of getting there?

Why not just sit in 1942, and accumulate the Infantry and forts I know I'm going to need in 1943? Granted that's a boring game.

So, I'm struggling with that question. Adding VPs per turn would answer the question for me, because I need those to "WIN". If I sit there, I'll probably "LOSE".

All this applies the other way. If the REDS know I am trying to kill them in 1942, why defend forward?

Losing Manpower effectively you lose troops, but is it worth risking 200,000 guys pocketed to protect Kharkov? The math says definitely not. You may as well fall back again.

I'm pretty sure Hitler and Stalin would NOT be real cool with standing pat, or giving up territory to "conserve strength". They were not real easy-going about that. Why not force us to fight harder for territorial objectives, at sometimes extreme costs in blood?


< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 2/28/2011 8:43:48 PM >

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 6
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 2/28/2011 8:43:34 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6149
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pawlock

Yes, I been thinking the same, not enough intermediate incentives to keep the game more involved past spring/summer 42. Especially for the Axis, dont lose Berlin !!! so essentially 2-3 years of gradual retreat until either Berlin falls or not. Vp's are the way to go with cities etc, but this could be a very long balancing process to get right.


Very very long indeed

And, what happens in the following situation?:

approaching the final turns, the Axis player does his maths and realizes that just by holding Bratislava a couple of turns more he can bag an advantage in points that cannot be reverted. Then he transfers almost all his divisions to protect Bratislava just during those magic two weeks. I feel that movement a little bit gamey (except if we are talking about Berlin).

The idea of a "per turn" benefit is already present in manpower not available to the enemy, and resources and oil availaible to the player holding the city (although I don't know the real impact of this last factor). Perhaps in some settings it could be considered the possibility of using "captured" manpower...(some recruitment at the Baltic states as anti-Soviet militias?). This could provide a (more?) visible and maybe more realistic incentive to hold some areas. (Or is it already included in the game?)



Though Q-Ball did not specifically list this in his original post, I think that time-based VP's would need to be tied into a dynamic Automatic Victory index. Thus, the main use of this system would be to avoid this type of gamey last turn gambit that you are proposing as an issue. Indeed, the game may very well be forced earlier, due to the Axis/Soviets making better, or worse, progress over the course of the game than they did historically.

If the right balance was found, it would force the Soviets to be more tenacious in holding territory in the early game, as well as keeping the Axis from just falling back into some redoubt to wait out the game. Or, the First Winter, as the case may be, since some AARs have shown that to be a viable tactic - gamewise - yet utterly disassociated with any sense of the political reality of the time.

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 7
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 2/28/2011 8:57:07 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 12046
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

How difficult is it to to mod the GC to add victory points?



Go to the editor and switch to short scenario. Now you should be able to add VPs.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to Angelo)
Post #: 8
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 2/28/2011 9:29:17 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2395
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Perhaps some Automatic Victory Conditions for each year would be good. So that would force Germany to be agressive in 1942 and Russia to defend its territory. They seem to work well in many boardgames. They also put an early end to games that are clearly over. I really liked the way the Victory Conditions worked in the old AH game Russian Front. The game wasn't so great but the victory conditions really worked well. Basically there was a victory level set for every six months of the war. Loosely based on historical lines (city points). The city points were accumulated at the end of the six month period. If a certain thershold was reached/or not reached game over. Otherwise the game went on two the next six month period. Another check would be made an so on

The Germans would have to do exceedingly well to win in 1941 and conversely very bad to lose in 1941. It worked well. It forced the players to adopt more historical strategies and often created desperate struggles for cities when one side was close to a threshold.



_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 9
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 2/28/2011 10:05:00 PM   
EntropyAvatar

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 2/14/2011
Status: offline
I like the idea of a dynamic target. If say city hexes are 1 VP per week, light urban 2 VP per week, heavy urban 4 VP per week, you can compare accumulated VP to the history. End the game in favour of the Axis if they get X VPs ahead and in favour of the Soviets if the Axis fall X VPs behind. I think that would definitely motivate some fighting.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 10
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 3/1/2011 1:43:00 AM   
Wild


Posts: 307
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline
I play the game for the experience of it. I do not need victory points to motivate me to attack or defend objectives.
However as an optional rule it would be ok. I say optional as i fear that it might be able to be "gamed" by industrious players.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 11
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 3/1/2011 2:19:46 AM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 670
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
It is a bit "dark", but the Axis should be able to work all those SU prisoners into rebuilding capacity in captured territory e.g. Kharkov, thus making it worth holding. It is said there s a dead german under every railroad tie to Archangel so... If you isolate and capture a city before the factory is gone, you can make it yours, and functional, with enough captured labour. Similarly more Labour battalions. Also, if the Axis holds Ukraine, and expends some large amount of APs, then Ukrainian Divisions should become available.
Taking a different tack, perhaps holding certain swathes of territory could yield APs, representing political capital gained internationally. Go far enough east, and you can establish regular Air Service to japanese occupied China, thence Tokyo.

How about not having the manpower flee?

Then again, perhaps the territory means nothing after all :)

(in reply to Wild)
Post #: 12
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 3/1/2011 2:58:35 AM   
Stryker


Posts: 55
Joined: 8/9/2003
From: Los Angeles, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Is there a lack of incentive in the Grand Campaign to occupy territory?


Yes there is. It doesn't feel right to me and I'd prefer to be rewarded (in VP's) if I take Stalingrad even if it's only temporary.


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 13
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 3/1/2011 3:12:20 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

I think that the new restrictions on Soviets toting industry away might provide some incentive for objective taking. Time will tell.

The key thing IMO is whether with the new to the TOE and experience and morale after the first winter make a German offensive in 42 viable. That was one of the major problems early on.



_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Stryker)
Post #: 14
RE: GC Victory Conditions - 3/1/2011 9:27:45 AM   
micha1100

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 12/26/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
I strongly believe that in a campaign game the only thing that matters is the final result, so I'm against awarding vicory points for temporary gains, although I would not mind if this was implemented as an option.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> GC Victory Conditions Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.813