Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

 
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 >> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
[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: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/22/2012 11:00:54 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 151
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The curious thing about your claim Micheal T is that you have yet to lose a game as the Germans. You have never even played a game into 1943 as the Axis -- your opponents seem to resign each and every time. Obviously you haven't found the Axis impossible to play or needed to rely on autovictory conditions to win.

The poll is telling us nothing new here: the Axis side is more popular than the Soviet. We have a lot of older grognards who were fed a steady diet of old war literature and have not assimilated the scholarship of the last 20 years. Vox populi, vox dei...well, not in this case.



This really has gotten out of hand. Your second paragraph Flaviusx is pompous and offensive. Many of us who have invested energy in this and other threads have agreed that it likely the Soviets would have won the war. So why not leave that alone.

Many of us older grognards by games such as this to game it out not spend 800 or so hours to watch a soviet steamroller pound its way in to Berlin 5 months later than the war ended. Or to manage the German in essentially a defensive posture throughout the war to prevent that outcome. It really is not clear to me what bothers you so much about reducing reducing a ridiculous auto victory condition point level to something that will produce a better game. Repeat, BETTER GAME. What would be the great harm in game terms to try this? If the change produces a big run of auto wins (which I do not believe it will) then as per other changes to the game that have been made on AAR's, change it again.

Your notion that the poll of players, of consumers, of customers of 2x3 games should be ignored because they favor the Axis side is unfounded and 2x3 ignoring the results in both polls is bad business at best. Come on Joel, end this increasingly frustrating circle and code the changes. Let the subsequent AAR's be the source of additional adjustment.

_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 91
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 12:44:29 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 895
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


If you want play a game where you can pound the Axis for the first 200 hours, then call it quits, then play a scenario. Rather then put arbitrary game over spots in the campaign game, just make smaller campaigns.

1941 campaign...ends Jan 1, 1942. If Moscow falls you win. There...wasnt that simple? And both sides know ahead of time what the fight is really about....taking Moscow. Rather then trying to hide it behind 600 more hours of 'useless' Axis defense.

_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 92
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 12:48:57 AM   
demjansk

 

Posts: 547
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
I read this post and chuckled, I was at the orange and red line and my opponent was rolling over me, so he had like 270+ point in july 1942, Am I good or what? I am the worst player ever at this game

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 93
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 1:06:13 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2319
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



If you want play a game where you can pound the Axis for the first 200 hours, then call it quits, then play a scenario. Rather then put arbitrary game over spots in the campaign game, just make smaller campaigns.

1941 campaign...ends Jan 1, 1942. If Moscow falls you win. There...wasnt that simple? And both sides know ahead of time what the fight is really about....taking Moscow. Rather then trying to hide it behind 600 more hours of 'useless' Axis defense.


And you don't even need it coded.

Or for a 1941-45 game, if you take Berlin, Russia wins. If not, they lose.

But, I suspect that there are those who are looking to play a 200+ turn game for maybe 20 turns.

Guys, play the Barbarossa scenario and leave the CG alone.

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 94
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 1:31:34 AM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 151
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



If you want play a game where you can pound the Axis for the first 200 hours, then call it quits, then play a scenario. Rather then put arbitrary game over spots in the campaign game, just make smaller campaigns.

1941 campaign...ends Jan 1, 1942. If Moscow falls you win. There...wasnt that simple? And both sides know ahead of time what the fight is really about....taking Moscow. Rather then trying to hide it behind 600 more hours of 'useless' Axis defense.


And you don't even need it coded.

Or for a 1941-45 game, if you take Berlin, Russia wins. If not, they lose.

But, I suspect that there are those who are looking to play a 200+ turn game for maybe 20 turns.

Guys, play the Barbarossa scenario and leave the CG alone.


Guys
What is the downside for you two associated with ending the game in late May or June and a change to 260 instead of 290 VP's for auto victory in the GC?
Be good to know why you guys think those are bad things in game terms generally and in balance terms in particular??



_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 95
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 2:14:45 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 861
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
I voted for a reduction in auto-victory points AND a shortening of the Grand Campaign because it didn't seem fair to the Germans. Not only do they have to do far far better than history just to "win" the game insofar as ending it prematurely, but the Soviets don't need to do better than history with a GC that ends in late 1945. Even if the Germans lose Berlin later than they historically did, the Soviets still "win"!

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 96
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 4:09:36 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2319
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



If you want play a game where you can pound the Axis for the first 200 hours, then call it quits, then play a scenario. Rather then put arbitrary game over spots in the campaign game, just make smaller campaigns.

1941 campaign...ends Jan 1, 1942. If Moscow falls you win. There...wasnt that simple? And both sides know ahead of time what the fight is really about....taking Moscow. Rather then trying to hide it behind 600 more hours of 'useless' Axis defense.


And you don't even need it coded.

Or for a 1941-45 game, if you take Berlin, Russia wins. If not, they lose.

But, I suspect that there are those who are looking to play a 200+ turn game for maybe 20 turns.

Guys, play the Barbarossa scenario and leave the CG alone.


Guys
What is the downside for you two associated with ending the game in late May or June and a change to 260 instead of 290 VP's for auto victory in the GC?
Be good to know why you guys think those are bad things in game terms generally and in balance terms in particular??




What's the upside? Oh, BTW, I favor it ending by the end of May 45.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/23/2012 4:10:57 AM >

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 97
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 6:44:30 AM   
Zebedee


Posts: 525
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline
As long as I can just ignore whatever is done and continue playing within the current dates without having the game halted or borked by the autovictory triggering, I couldn't be more indifferent to whether the Germans win by crossing the border or the Soviets win by holding Baku on turn 2. It's an arbitrary number which I'm happy to ignore where possible.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 98
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 9:16:13 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2319
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
Ending by the end of May 45 or early/mid June 45 would be fine. I really doubt that the Western Allies would of sat on the Elbe if the Soviets were at the Polish border then.

But no matter what number that is coded in, if any, the cry of "pro redneck Soviet bias on the part of designers/testers who don't let the Axis do anything" will continue if the Axis don't win.

(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 99
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 10:47:27 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1227
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
1941 campaign...ends Jan 1, 1942. If Moscow falls you win. There...wasnt that simple? And both sides know ahead of time what the fight is really about....taking Moscow. Rather then trying to hide it behind 600 more hours of 'useless' Axis defense.


Who says playing on the defense is not fun? Yes, it is a bit static and you get the feel to be out of control since there is nothing that allows a reaction move on a time scale of a week. But still, given all the heavy toys like the heavy Panzerkorps after 43 I also like playing the defense.
I can, however, see that this must be difficult for the Soviets in 41 and 42. They have a hard time to scrape together units with enough experience and CV to perform a counterstrike on a tactical level (outside of the core blizzard months). So why spare them the fun by early a game early before that can come up with a competitive force?

There is simply two different schools of thought for the VP level and VP deadlines. Some people, who want to play this game for winning, and want the winning chances to be evened out. Then there are those, who derive the fun from the journey, like most WiTP/AE players obvouisly do. For the latter, VP conditions based on historical goals like Weisung 21 are just fine since it doesn't matter, you want to play it out to the bitter end. There is fun and skill in defending, too, not only in attacking with vastly superior army. Look at the skillful German defenses in the Gids and Tarhunnas game, or IdahoNYer's AAR, just to name a few random ones.

The best solution to this whole discussion I would say is opening the VP levels and deadlines to modifiction in the editor. The VP levels in some way are already open since you increase the VP value of target hexes, which is in effect the same. Changing deadlines, or even better: moving from fixed dates (and certainly wiht that rule to be occuring "victory raids") from holding xx VP for 4 turns or so to win, would be nice as well, but the latter could be done easily with a houserule. Finally, if one could chose also to play on after the early victory conditions were met, and slug it out to the end, everything would be set for a compromise.
In principle everyone could shape his own set of conditions, which seems dearly necessary as the two polls show that the opnions are rather all over the place.

So why are people not already modifying the campaign file, or playing by houserules? And what happened with this sudden death rules that were widely discussed and shaped on this forum a while ago for testing as houserules? Did any PBEM ever play along these? Or do most players in the end still want to play it out rather than loose or win early?

< Message edited by janh -- 2/23/2012 11:00:40 AM >

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 100
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 11:51:16 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2219
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
There is simply two different schools of thought for the VP level and VP deadlines. Some people, who want to play this game for winning, and want the winning chances to be evened out. Then there are those, who derive the fun from the journey, like most WiTP/AE players obvouisly do.
**************
There is fun and skill in defending, too, not only in attacking with vastly superior army.


Actually, there is a third school of thought, which is that introducing achievable auto-victory conditions will lead to more interesting gameplay, by causing German players to take more risk (so far I seem to be the only student in this school however).

As to your second point, I get the distinct impression that many (certainly not all) of the German players just are not very interested in the defensive phase of the war and lose interest after 50 or 100 turns of a slogging, rather tedious Sov offensive. This is kind of understandable, because it takes a long time for the Sov army to create the offensive capabilities to do anything but slowly push the Germans back hex-by-hex, which frankly must be rather boring for the Germans. I think that part of this tediousness is caused by conservative German play in 1942-1943, since they have no incentive to attack.

Therefore, my thesis is that introducing easier auto-win conditions will make the game more fun for everyone...

< Message edited by 76mm -- 2/23/2012 11:53:41 AM >

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 101
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 12:18:29 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1449
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
There is simply two different schools of thought for the VP level and VP deadlines. Some people, who want to play this game for winning, and want the winning chances to be evened out. Then there are those, who derive the fun from the journey, like most WiTP/AE players obvouisly do.
**************
There is fun and skill in defending, too, not only in attacking with vastly superior army.


Actually, there is a third school of thought, which is that introducing achievable auto-victory conditions will lead to more interesting gameplay, by causing German players to take more risk (so far I seem to be the only student in this school however).

As to your second point, I get the distinct impression that many (certainly not all) of the German players just are not very interested in the defensive phase of the war and lose interest after 50 or 100 turns of a slogging, rather tedious Sov offensive. This is kind of understandable, because it takes a long time for the Sov army to create the offensive capabilities to do anything but slowly push the Germans back hex-by-hex, which frankly must be rather boring for the Germans. I think that part of this tediousness is caused by conservative German play in 1942-1943, since they have no incentive to attack.

Therefore, my thesis is that introducing easier auto-win conditions will make the game more fun for everyone...


It's not that I do not want to play the 1943-45 phase of the game.
It is that I do not look forward to the 1943-45 phase of the game GIVEN the a-historical advantages that the Soviet player enjoys with facile simplicity.

BECAUSE the Soviet advantages arrive so early and generate ever-increasing cumulative advantage over history (aided in no small part by the rails Germany is bound to), I just gave the **** up.

Until Matrix starts dealing with the down-stream consequence of the major advantages that the Soviets get in 41/42, I see no point in playing 1943 as Germany, and since I see no point in playing 1943-45 as Germany, I see no point in playing Germany at all (unless it's versus AI).

Auto-victory is immaterial to me.

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 2/23/2012 12:19:50 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 102
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 12:26:28 PM   
Meteor2

 

Posts: 128
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
I support the idea of unknown victory levels for both sides (between 220 and 260 ???; changing from game to game).
That would eliminate the predictability a lot. Both dictators fought without knowing, what the future brings (that e.g. blizzard 41 would strike hard against the Wehrmacht).
So, to increase the element of uncertainty, this can help to force both sides to think twice about changing ground for time.
At the moment, I think, the game has not the right "feeling" of a struggle...

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 103
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 2:50:35 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1698
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
A retro moment. From page 32 of the manual for Gary Grigsby's War in Russia: The Matrix Edition

quote:

VICTORY CONDITIONS
Players receive points for capturing certain
enemy cities. Victory conditions are
checked at the end of each turn. The game
will end automatically whenever either
player has captured enough cities to
guarantee victory. The campaign games
end in July 1945 if neither player has
captured enough cities; the shorter
scenarios have various ending dates.


Automatic victory was possible for either side, back in the day. Players played accordingly, and all was well. Now, all is not well??

< Message edited by pzgndr -- 2/23/2012 2:51:35 PM >

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 104
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 3:48:09 PM   
RedBunny

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/8/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
There is simply two different schools of thought for the VP level and VP deadlines. Some people, who want to play this game for winning, and want the winning chances to be evened out. Then there are those, who derive the fun from the journey, like most WiTP/AE players obvouisly do.
**************
There is fun and skill in defending, too, not only in attacking with vastly superior army.


Actually, there is a third school of thought, which is that introducing achievable auto-victory conditions will lead to more interesting gameplay, by causing German players to take more risk (so far I seem to be the only student in this school however).

As to your second point, I get the distinct impression that many (certainly not all) of the German players just are not very interested in the defensive phase of the war and lose interest after 50 or 100 turns of a slogging, rather tedious Sov offensive. This is kind of understandable, because it takes a long time for the Sov army to create the offensive capabilities to do anything but slowly push the Germans back hex-by-hex, which frankly must be rather boring for the Germans. I think that part of this tediousness is caused by conservative German play in 1942-1943, since they have no incentive to attack.

Therefore, my thesis is that introducing easier auto-win conditions will make the game more fun for everyone...



+1 from me. This is exactly what I've been meaning to post -- thanks!

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 105
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 4:06:55 PM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 861
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Actually, there is a third school of thought, which is that introducing achievable auto-victory conditions will lead to more interesting gameplay, by causing German players to take more risk (so far I seem to be the only student in this school however).

As to your second point, I get the distinct impression that many (certainly not all) of the German players just are not very interested in the defensive phase of the war and lose interest after 50 or 100 turns of a slogging, rather tedious Sov offensive. This is kind of understandable, because it takes a long time for the Sov army to create the offensive capabilities to do anything but slowly push the Germans back hex-by-hex, which frankly must be rather boring for the Germans. I think that part of this tediousness is caused by conservative German play in 1942-1943, since they have no incentive to attack.

Therefore, my thesis is that introducing easier auto-win conditions will make the game more fun for everyone...

You are not alone in this. I believe in this school of thought as well. The current victory conditions are way too far out to entice the German player to stick his neck out after the ~17th turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
A retro moment. From page 32 of the manual for Gary Grigsby's War in Russia: The Matrix Edition
quote:

VICTORY CONDITIONS
Players receive points for capturing certain enemy cities. Victory conditions are checked at the end of each turn. The game will end automatically whenever either player has captured enough cities to guarantee victory. The campaign games end in July 1945 if neither player has captured enough cities; the shorter scenarios have various ending dates.

Automatic victory was possible for either side, back in the day. Players played accordingly, and all was well. Now, all is not well??

It bears noting that the victory condition in War in Russia are quite different from War in the East:

The German player needs 5 victory points to win. Moscow is worth 3 points. Gorki, Leningrad, Saratov, Stalingrad, Grozny and Baku are all worth one point each.

A German War in Russia player would have triggered his auto-victory condition just by taking the "Big Three" - Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad.

A German War in Russia player, in the event of not being able to pull off an auto-victory, would also not need to hold on for as long as he would have in War in the East, given that WIR ends in July 1945 while WITE ends in Sept 1945

EDIT: For completeness' sake, the Soviet player needs 4 victory points to win. Berlin is worth 3 points. Hamburg is worth 2 points. Nurnberg, Vienna and Prague are worth 1 point each. WIR's Soviet victory conditions are arguably harder than WITE's, as making it past the pre-war borders will generally give the WITE Soviet a minor victory, but anything less than taking Berlin herself in WIR will result in a draw.

< Message edited by gradenko_2000 -- 2/23/2012 4:26:19 PM >

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 106
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 6:35:15 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

I support the idea of unknown victory levels for both sides (between 220 and 260 ???; changing from game to game).


+1. I really like the idea of a more unknown\randomized approach to victory conditions.

(in reply to Meteor2)
Post #: 107
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 6:38:03 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 151
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



If you want play a game where you can pound the Axis for the first 200 hours, then call it quits, then play a scenario. Rather then put arbitrary game over spots in the campaign game, just make smaller campaigns.

1941 campaign...ends Jan 1, 1942. If Moscow falls you win. There...wasnt that simple? And both sides know ahead of time what the fight is really about....taking Moscow. Rather then trying to hide it behind 600 more hours of 'useless' Axis defense.


And you don't even need it coded.

Or for a 1941-45 game, if you take Berlin, Russia wins. If not, they lose.

But, I suspect that there are those who are looking to play a 200+ turn game for maybe 20 turns.

Guys, play the Barbarossa scenario and leave the CG alone.


Guys
What is the downside for you two associated with ending the game in late May or June and a change to 260 instead of 290 VP's for auto victory in the GC?
Be good to know why you guys think those are bad things in game terms generally and in balance terms in particular??




What's the upside? Oh, BTW, I favor it ending by the end of May 45.

Well you have seen many posts as to the upside. On my list is renewed enthusiasm for Axis players to make a run similar to the effort made historically--turtle out of its shell if you like.

Creates more incentive for the Soviets to fight for territory than they presently must have. Again, similar to the effort they made historically. Turtle out of the shell again.

The proposed shift to auto VP in the neighborhood of 260 is not an easy total to achieve given competent Soviet play.

All that said, I have inquired of Joel whether it would be easy to code an alternative GC scenario that has the game end in late May 45 and the auto VP total changed to 260. Players could pick to stay with the existing VP and end game conditions or elect to play the alternative scenario.



_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 108
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 7:00:52 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 895
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


What I think needs to happen is that the whole game needs to be broken up into chunks, with benchmark victory checks.

Each stage earns either 2 or 1 point for some kind of win...(or denying a win).

By the end of the game, you tally up the points...most points win.

For example: Opening Stage. Ends Dec. 1/ 1941.
Winter Offensive. Ends April 1/ 1942
Case Blue Ends Nov 1/ 1942
Winter Offensive. Ends April 1/1943

and so on.

One happy coincidence is that it can become mathmatically possible to achieve an auto victory halfway through the game. But it is not an arbitrary ending since both sides control their own destiny, and as the game progresses, a sense of urgency can develop for the side that is losing.

Of course the devil is in the details. Trying to find appropriate victory for each stage...



_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 109
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 7:30:46 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1698
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

It bears noting that the victory condition in War in Russia are quite different from War in the East:


I'm certainly not advocating adoption of those simplistic WIR victory conditions, just noting that Gary Grigsby did in fact have automatic victory conditions in the previous game. This is consistent with other boardgames that many of us grew up playing and enjoying. The dream was always to have more realism and historical accuracy as the computer game versions matured, not necessarily to screw around with the victory conditions that allowed for attainable automatic victories for both sides. Not 'easy' to be sure, but at least attainable to make the games interesting to play for both sides.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 110
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 8:39:48 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 1024
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
What I think needs to happen is that the whole game needs to be broken up into chunks, with benchmark victory checks.

Of course the devil is in the details. Trying to find appropriate victory for each stage...

This is where I think the game should be going as well.With computers being such powerful number crunchers I don't see any reason why the checks shouldn't be monthly, (or even weekly).Roughly speaking the number of victory points that were held historically at any particular time would be totted up and compared with the VPs held by the Axis player at the same time and the difference added or subtracted from their VP total.Once you reached a certain number, either positive or negative, the game would be over.This would be set to a level which would only affect unevenly matched players.
It would also make the game more interesting for evenly matched players as well though because the capture of victory point locations would become urgent and not something that only needed to be achieved by the end of the war.This would go some of the way towards solving the game's running away issue.Players could also choose to play shorter Campaigns if they wanted to.Say from June 41 to Dec 43 for example, or any other end date.
As you say, the devil's in the detail.No doubt there would be plenty of anomalies in that sort of system that would need sorting out.I think this is one of the things that the game really needs though to make it more exciting.

< Message edited by timmyab -- 2/23/2012 8:42:29 PM >

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 111
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 9:16:01 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2319
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



If you want play a game where you can pound the Axis for the first 200 hours, then call it quits, then play a scenario. Rather then put arbitrary game over spots in the campaign game, just make smaller campaigns.

1941 campaign...ends Jan 1, 1942. If Moscow falls you win. There...wasnt that simple? And both sides know ahead of time what the fight is really about....taking Moscow. Rather then trying to hide it behind 600 more hours of 'useless' Axis defense.


And you don't even need it coded.

Or for a 1941-45 game, if you take Berlin, Russia wins. If not, they lose.

But, I suspect that there are those who are looking to play a 200+ turn game for maybe 20 turns.

Guys, play the Barbarossa scenario and leave the CG alone.


Guys
What is the downside for you two associated with ending the game in late May or June and a change to 260 instead of 290 VP's for auto victory in the GC?
Be good to know why you guys think those are bad things in game terms generally and in balance terms in particular??




What's the upside? Oh, BTW, I favor it ending by the end of May 45.

Well you have seen many posts as to the upside. On my list is renewed enthusiasm for Axis players to make a run similar to the effort made historically--turtle out of its shell if you like.

Creates more incentive for the Soviets to fight for territory than they presently must have. Again, similar to the effort they made historically. Turtle out of the shell again.

The proposed shift to auto VP in the neighborhood of 260 is not an easy total to achieve given competent Soviet play.

All that said, I have inquired of Joel whether it would be easy to code an alternative GC scenario that has the game end in late May 45 and the auto VP total changed to 260. Players could pick to stay with the existing VP and end game conditions or elect to play the alternative scenario.




Haven't seen any upside for a Soviet player. Rather I see people trying to force the Soviet player to allow a recreation of the massive pockets that don't happem with correct Soviet play.

Now, if I see something along the lines of "Where a German soldier stands he will not retreat", then I might be swayed.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 112
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 10:06:15 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2410
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
We have close to 70% of respondants calling for a reduction in VP to at least 265.

This is still an impossible target against competent Soviet play.

Can we please get this reduction implemented.

Surely its simply a matter of changing no more than one number in the code.

Forgot to add this parameter really should be in the editor. Then we could have it in with an 'alt' scenario with the end point in May 45 as well.

That would keep us all happy. The sovio-philes can play the Oct/290 game and the majority an alt May/265 version.

Surely this is a reasonable and easy to implement request.

< Message edited by Michael T -- 2/23/2012 10:10:41 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 113
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 10:20:13 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Nobody really wants to play the October game, Micheal T.

The real dispute here is between those of us who do not believe in sudden death mid war VP conditions and those who do.

If you believe, as I do, that this war, maybe more than any other in history, was war to the knife, a genuinely do or die existential war for both sides (yes, I think early German surrender is just as ridiculous and gamey), then you will necessarily find these VP conditions preposterous. It was going to end in utter defeat for one side or the other, and not before.

The 1941-5 grand campaign is for the whole enchilada.







< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/23/2012 10:21:46 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 114
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 10:29:03 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2410
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
The proposal offered will keep both camps happy. What on earth is wrong with that?

Do you really beleive that your minority view should hold sway over the majority when you would still be able to play your version?

This is getting ridiculous

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 115
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 10:30:28 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2520
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
There is simply two different schools of thought for the VP level and VP deadlines. Some people, who want to play this game for winning, and want the winning chances to be evened out. Then there are those, who derive the fun from the journey, like most WiTP/AE players obvouisly do.
**************
There is fun and skill in defending, too, not only in attacking with vastly superior army.


Actually, there is a third school of thought, which is that introducing achievable auto-victory conditions will lead to more interesting gameplay, by causing German players to take more risk (so far I seem to be the only student in this school however).

As to your second point, I get the distinct impression that many (certainly not all) of the German players just are not very interested in the defensive phase of the war and lose interest after 50 or 100 turns of a slogging, rather tedious Sov offensive. This is kind of understandable, because it takes a long time for the Sov army to create the offensive capabilities to do anything but slowly push the Germans back hex-by-hex, which frankly must be rather boring for the Germans. I think that part of this tediousness is caused by conservative German play in 1942-1943, since they have no incentive to attack.

Therefore, my thesis is that introducing easier auto-win conditions will make the game more fun for everyone...


+1

I agree 100%. Over six months ago I posted that the game would be more interesting if there was some incentive, like AV conditions similar to WitP, that forced the Germans to advance in 42 and the Russians to hold. The response then was not favorable to say the least so I dropped the idea.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 116
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 10:37:10 PM   
wadortch

 

Posts: 151
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Nobody really wants to play the October game, Micheal T.

The real dispute here is between those of us who do not believe in sudden death mid war VP conditions and those who do.

If you believe, as I do, that this war, maybe more than any other in history, was war to the knife, a genuinely do or die existential war for both sides (yes, I think early German surrender is just as ridiculous and gamey), then you will necessarily find these VP conditions preposterous. It was going to end in utter defeat for one side or the other, and not before.

The 1941-5 grand campaign is for the whole enchilada.







Thank you Flaviusx for pointing out the obvious difference of opinion here. And thank you for not pointing out this time that those of us (some 70%) who do want such conditions are old and poorly indoctrinated with non-revisionist history. But of course, the rules should remain unchanged for the 20% of people such as yourself and the purity of your view of history preserved because being responsive to a poll is improper.

Do you have any objection to what Michael actually proposed?

Two GC scenarios--one with the present conditions for you to play with whoever you can get to play Axis and; two, another scenario with reduced auto VP conditions and a May end date for those who prefer that approach?

Would you just answer that question PLEASE Mr preposterous?



_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 117
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/23/2012 10:59:06 PM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 861
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Nobody really wants to play the October game, Micheal T.

The real dispute here is between those of us who do not believe in sudden death mid war VP conditions and those who do.

If you believe, as I do, that this war, maybe more than any other in history, was war to the knife, a genuinely do or die existential war for both sides (yes, I think early German surrender is just as ridiculous and gamey), then you will necessarily find these VP conditions preposterous. It was going to end in utter defeat for one side or the other, and not before.

The 1941-5 grand campaign is for the whole enchilada.

The histrionics are really quite unnecessary. The Hakko Ichiu scenario of War in the Pacific did not replace the original historical Dec 7 start, the Dec 8 scenario existed alongside both of them. The Quiet China scenarios do not tread upon those who want to play a 'full' game.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 118
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 12:21:00 AM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 1698
Joined: 3/18/2004
Status: offline
quote:

The real dispute here is between those of us who do not believe in sudden death mid war VP conditions and those who do.

If you believe, as I do, that this war, maybe more than any other in history, was war to the knife, a genuinely do or die existential war for both sides (yes, I think early German surrender is just as ridiculous and gamey), then you will necessarily find these VP conditions preposterous. It was going to end in utter defeat for one side or the other, and not before.


Flaviusx, you just don't get it, do you? There is no dispute; it's already in the game per Rule 24.1.2, unless of course you choose not to believe in the game rules. For a game. Not real life.

(in reply to wadortch)
Post #: 119
RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for ... - 2/24/2012 2:16:52 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 895
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


It is not 70%. Such a silly thing to say. It is 70% of the people who bothered to vote. Not 70% of the people who play. And how many of those who voted, did so knowing all the facts? Thought it through? To suggest that this is a mandate for change is simply ludicrous. This vote should be only used as fuel for discussion.

Flaviusx is correct. This really is a discussion between having and not having an auto victory. The people who want one, want it set low enough so that any German player can achieve it. Will the German player fight so hard trying to achieve it, that he burns himself out, and can no longer continue the game?

And what exactly do all those numbers mean? If I remember correctly, the devs based it on the ACTUAL Barbarossa plan of Archangel to Astrakhan. Which as Flaviusx said probably wouldnt have mattered, as this was a fight to the death. And the Russians would have fought as long as they had any means to do so, and probably guerrila warfare if they didnt.

In a game this long, does it matter what the final score is? There will be many triumphs and losses on the road to the end. And if there is no way to tally those up, at least fight to see if you can better the final historical end.

_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Would you like to see a change in VPs required for Auto Victory? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.123