Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21
- Joel Billings
- Posts: 33027
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Santa Rosa, CA
- Contact:
Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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).
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).
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
-- Soren Kierkegaard
- Redmarkus5
- Posts: 4454
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
- Location: 0.00
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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.
- '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.
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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.
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.
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
Like it like it is. Fairly unobtainable, given any reasonably matched opponents.
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
FYI: 290 is the equivalent of a little more than Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Gorky AND Baku.
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
Could i come with a suggestion. Spurred on by my reply in another thread.
See here for more here please.
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
See here for more here please.
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
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
I def think the number should be reduced to somewhere in the 250-270 range.
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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.
WitE Alpha Tester
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
That's what is about Flavio. A game mechanic, nothing more. No verdict on history.
Walt
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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.
For the record, I would be on board with a corresponding Soviet auto victory.
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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.
WitE Alpha Tester
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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.
Second, as to VP scenarios for an auto win by the Russians, there is such a proposal on the table as you know.
Walt
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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!
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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.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.
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.
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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!
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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
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
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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
- Attachments
-
- WITESDMap.jpg (484.32 KiB) Viewed 772 times
Walt
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
ORIGINAL: 76mm
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.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.
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.
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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
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
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory?
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
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer