I just finished (well sorta) my first GC, vs AI, normal, 1.05.
As the Axis, I totally mangled the SU (not bragging, it was just normal, but hey, my first game).
For the hell of it, I took Baku. I also took Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, and I have still not gotten 290 points, Any human SU player would have quit long ago.
Point is, 290 VP is ridiculous high for Axis auto victory- seriously.
Someone in another thread, or maybe this one, said well if the Axis have an auto victory point, so should the Soviet, and I agree. When a game is at that point, and you know it when you see it, its not fun anymore, the game is over, and should be coded as such. Don't make me "fix" it myself with house rules. I bought the game, you fix it!
Depends on whether PBEM or AI? If playing PBEM, I can see how players want a fair game with even a criterium that allowed a chance of success rather than replaying some kind of alternative history with the well-known, and realistically inevitable end -- i.e. be able to win by delaying and performing better than history or such.
I guess for PBEM a shorting of the campaign to late June would make most sense, since at least by then the Western Allies would have waited no longer and occupied Berlin themselves (whatever implications for the relationship with Stalin might follow).
However, best would indeed be avoiding to fix the Victory to some deadline, but rather to some "holding VP sites for X turns" rule, since that would also avoid "VP raids". Also, assume that the Soviets would by some chance get to Berlin several months earlier than assumed by the victory rules -- then the game ought to be over after a few turns (in which Axis fails to retake it, showing it is on its knees...).
If there is an option to continue after the victory screen, any change to victory rules would be fine with me since players can still themselves decide how long to slug it out.
Against AI, I would not ask for any change of V rules. That would simply be unnecessary. And any time spent by the devs on coding new victory rules that could as easily be covered by house-rules will simple be time that could have instead been spent on coding significant improvements to the engine. In that sense, a consensus on house-rules for those that are unhappy with the present V conditions would seem most desirable...
From the poll it seems anyways that there would be no compromise that would make everybody happy, perhaps half of the players at best... Maybe Joel should have differentiated in the poll between PBEM and AI players?
< Message edited by janh -- 2/16/2012 10:12:50 AM >