Matrix Games Forums

New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Vote for Sudden Death Rule-

 
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 >> Vote for Sudden Death Rule- Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/7/2011 10:29:11 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
There have been two threads that have taken up whether an Optional Sudden Death Rule would be used by players on either side.

See the "Is this what 2x3 games started out to design 5+years ago thread for the latest discussion on this.

You will note that Joel indicates a willingness to code something simple.

You will note also there is a lot of speculation whether anyone would use it at all, that few soviet players would and so on.

A proposal I floated is this:

1) First, it is an optional rule that will be coded. Does not bind anyone to use it. The idea is to create a test of a coded rule that can be evaluated by players and 2x3 alike.

2) The rule is simple. If a player holds all of the following cities (occupies all hexes with at least one combat unit)--Leningrad, Rshev, Moscow, Tula, Vorenezh, Voroshilovgrad and Rostov--at the start of the March, 1942---the player wins a decisive victory.

If this rule is used and it produces the intended result by creating an incentive to take or hold real estate in a way that is similar to how the combatants approached it historically, it will have achieved its purpose. It could also be expanded to create another set of SD cites for March of 1943.

Please respond (vote!) whether you would be interested in such an optional rule and whether you would use it playing either side in the game.

Here's mine: I vote it should be tried and I would use it playing either side (and I have played both sides).

Walt Dortch


_____________________________

Walt
Post #: 1
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/7/2011 10:48:01 PM   
Guru

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/13/2011
Status: offline
I am in favour

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 2
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/7/2011 10:50:36 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
NO

(in reply to Guru)
Post #: 3
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/7/2011 10:50:57 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1346
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
No thanks.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 4
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/7/2011 11:17:36 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4389
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
If it's optional, by all means go ahead. As a Soviet I will not play such a game though. Either a) I get to Berlin or b) my pixel e-troopov drop dead

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 5
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/7/2011 11:51:34 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline
NO

Besides, historically almost all the cities you mention were in Soviet hands after the 1941-42 Winter campaign (Rzhev was almost taken). If the Germans perform more or less historically during the first year, is that a decisive defeat?. What is then the purpose of playing a 1941-45 campaign? You are already condemning the Axis when it is its turn to avoid mistakes (Stalingrad, Kursk)

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 6
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 12:06:37 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2384
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I want a sudden death rule. But not that one.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 7
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 12:43:42 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6374
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
What if somebody made a sudden death rule and no Russian showed up to play it? Does it make a sound in the forest?



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 8
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 12:51:01 AM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
I'd play at as Soviets vs you as Axis. Would that be enough noise?

_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 9
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 12:52:37 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6374
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Sorry, but no thanks.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 10
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 1:02:16 AM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1676
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I want a sudden death rule. But not that one.


I agree. Yes, I think an automatic victory should be possible but needs to be more flexible and dynamic.

In fact sudden death is already possible, isn't it? Per 24.1.2, "the game will end in an automatic victory either when Germany surrenders (Soviet victory) or when the Axis controls sufficient points to meet the particular campaign scenario decisive Axis victory condition;" i.e., at any time the Axis controls 200 points. No option there, it's the rule. (Unless I missed a change?)

Problem is, that 200 VPs is a static number for the entire war (more applicable to late 1942) and doesn't provide intermediate goals. It should be easy enough to establish more dynamic numbers that change over time. Again, the Russian Front game model could be used to set comparable Axis decisive VPs for March and November months of each year up to the 200 max. If VPs are OK for the non-campaign scenarios, they should be equally OK for the campaigns, just staggered a little more by date based on historical performance.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 11
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 1:14:27 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
Something easier is wanted.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 12
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 1:16:32 AM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
Hello
I believe the auto-victory total for Axis is 290. Puts them way way east to achieve it. Problem with flexible and dynamic is that it could take a lot of work that 2x3 can't commit to now. Based on what I have seen in the AAR's, the SD condition proposed would not be at all easy for either side to achieve but could create the drive to go for it that would reflect the efforts made by both sides in 1941 and early 1942.
Walt

_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 13
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 2:02:50 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1539
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
Make your own sudden death rules if you want them. Stop distracting the devs from fixing the game.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 14
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 2:28:54 AM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline
They have advised they are not going to "fix" the game at this time. They also advise this kind of rule would be easy to code. I take it from your post that you are not among the supporters for such a rule which was the question posed at the outset. The point was and remains whether there are enough players out there willing to experiment with such an optional rule, that's it. Be great if the focus of replies could keep that target in view!

_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 15
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 5:05:03 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
The way I see events of the war in Europe ( not just the Eastern Front but everything ) the countries would surrender to Germany once they had passed the point of being able to recover.

The Soviet Union is just a much different animal.  The ability to pour reserve and replacement formations onto the field was something that Poland, France, Norway, etc just didn't have.

Sudden death for the Russians?  It should be more than Moscow and the major cities of west of it.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 16
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 9:12:31 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1225
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
No, thanks -- neither when playing Soviets, nor Germans.

I think if you add an optional 2 out 3 from Stalingrad, Baku, and Gorki, you could make a more reasonable case, speculative scenario for a Russian breakdown.  Test it at any time after 3/42.  But then you'd already be at the regular victory conditions.  And any Soviet player, who would be driven that far back, would likely already suggest ending the game and admit defeat on a true basis of reasoning.

The fun of the game gets lost when it ends early.  Rather than ending the game with Sudden Death, I would think a better incentive should be by adding more manpower, toys, or bumping up NM by 5 for such a success.  In turn, the Russians could get increased Lend-and-Lease as a representation of Allies to respond to the dire situation?  Also, what could the counter-incentive be if the Soviet say holds or retakes Smolensk, Leningrad, Kharkov, Kursk and Rostov by 3/42 or later?  Similar? 


< Message edited by janh -- 12/8/2011 9:13:11 AM >

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 17
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 9:45:00 AM   
alfonso

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

Also, what could the counter-incentive be if the Soviet say holds or retakes Smolensk, Leningrad, Kharkov, Kursk and Rostov by 3/42 or later?  Similar? 



The suggestion of Wadortch is that the Soviet side already wins if he holds the cities included in his list by 3/42. The Soviets do not need to retake Smolensk or Kharkov to win. Tula and Voroshilovgrad do the trick. See point 2) "...if a player...." not "if the Axis player". It is a rule "used by players on either side".

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 18
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 10:34:38 AM   
Jakerson

 

Posts: 508
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
I like the current scoring where player have total freedom take whatever towns and cities he like.  

If player want to take all VC locations in the south he can do it. If players want to take all VC locations in the center he can do it. If he wants push all fronts he can do it. Sudden death is already in the game if Germany can grab prober number of points.  

I do not like any type of scoring system where player is always forced to push toward same cities witch turns campaign always very predictable assault toward same cities every game, fortify same sudden death cities every game type.

< Message edited by Jakerson -- 12/8/2011 10:35:49 AM >

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 19
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 12:31:38 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1676
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

They also advise this kind of rule would be easy to code... The point was and remains whether there are enough players out there willing to experiment with such an optional rule, that's it.


Funny thing is that it's already coded and implemented for the non-campaign scenarios. AND, there's still the automatic sudden death victory condition in the campaigns, although it's a static number. It should be very simple to code some VP number for Germans for 1941 and 1942, and another VP number for Russians for 1943, 1944 and 1945. Or whatever. And all that could just be for a popup to declare a decisive victory and ASK players if they want to end the game at that point or continue playing. It's no biggie to offer another reasonable option. But to hear the arguments against such a simple thing is amazing. It used to be we could play with rules like this and nobody whined about it. Too funny.

(in reply to Jakerson)
Post #: 20
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 12:42:24 PM   
invernomuto


Posts: 957
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
I agree with the optional sudden death rule.




< Message edited by invernomuto -- 12/8/2011 1:31:46 PM >


_____________________________

Small Ship, Big War - the Voyages of the Hibiki
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1363103

Best AAR I've ever seen!!!

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 21
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 1:05:04 PM   
alfonso

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

I agree with a sudden death rule.





There is already a sudden death rule. What it is voted here is the alternative optional sudden death rule proposed by Wadortch.

(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 22
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 1:46:08 PM   
Commanderski

 

Posts: 324
Joined: 12/12/2010
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
NO. I wouldn't use it. However if it doesn't detract from other improvements being done and is only listed in the Game Options or Preferences section as a clickable feature then I would have no objections to it being done.

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 23
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 2:09:34 PM   
sajer

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

My vote is NO

(in reply to Commanderski)
Post #: 24
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 3:05:15 PM   
Cerion

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 9/16/2009
From: Europe
Status: offline
My vote is YES

(in reply to sajer)
Post #: 25
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 3:48:46 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

I like the current scoring where player have total freedom take whatever towns and cities he like.  

If player want to take all VC locations in the south he can do it. If players want to take all VC locations in the center he can do it. If he wants push all fronts he can do it. Sudden death is already in the game if Germany can grab prober number of points.  

I do not like any type of scoring system where player is always forced to push toward same cities witch turns campaign always very predictable assault toward same cities every game, fortify same sudden death cities every game type.


My math may be wrong but I don't think the 290 VP's are attainable without taking Leningrad, Moscow and there light urban location in the center and north.


_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Jakerson)
Post #: 26
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 3:58:08 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

... there's still the automatic sudden death victory condition in the campaigns, although it's a static number. It should be very simple to code some VP number for Germans for 1941 and 1942, and another VP number for Russians for 1943, 1944 and 1945. Or whatever. And all that could just be for a popup to declare a decisive victory and ASK players if they want to end the game at that point or continue playing. It's no biggie to offer another reasonable option. But to hear the arguments against such a simple thing is amazing. It used to be we could play with rules like this and nobody whined about it. Too funny.


This is good. Or why not have the option to set all these VP levels individually by players before start at both players discretion? If both agree that 290 VP is too high, it could be lowered to an agreed level.

Very important is to be able to continue an intersting game (even after standard deadline in 1945 is on wishlist) and that the thing is purely optional.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 27
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 4:45:14 PM   
horse1974

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 11/9/2011
Status: offline
yes, please.

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 28
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 8:06:15 PM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 2887
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline
Yes.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to horse1974)
Post #: 29
RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- - 12/8/2011 8:25:15 PM   
asdicus

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: online
No thank-you.

Having just bought this game I am slightly dismayed that the developers seem to have said that no further game balance changes are likely to be made. I am firmly of the belief that significant issues such as the Lvov opening and unlimited supply availability for offensives should be fixed/looked at before any other game coding issues are even considered.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Vote for Sudden Death Rule- Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
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

0.301