Clearly, the majority would an additional scenario based on this- exactly what is in the details. Its not possible to please 100% of the people, as that will never happen, and as a basis for not doing anything, that is not a valid argument. In fact, if Joel presented 10 alternate scenarios, 100% of the people would still not be pleased.
And no, it is not easier for me to mod the game than the devs to present an alternate scenario, if that is what you meant.
Also, regarding polls in general: When many options are presented, you will get a wide variety of responses. If the poll had been worded "Would you like the VP for German auto-win lowered?" you would have seen roughly 78% say yes, so again, its really not valid to say we have no agreement because no single option was chosen by over 50% of the respondents.
Well, the latter is a bit of aproblem. It may be too early to interpret the polls. In fact, it bears some resemblance on the way the Nazi's got to power in 1933 -- too many small parties to choose from in the Weimar Repulic. In the end, no one was happy, no party could secure a majority to govern, and one party saw it's chance to dislodge the democratic processes...
You are certainly right, almost 4/5 of the voters desire some change. And as and optional additional rule or scenario as proposed, no one will reject it. I just hope picking one set of new VP conditions will not lead to just another such discussion a few weeks later, since it seems you'll make barely 1/3 of the people happy either way (and perhaps less in combination of both the VP value and end time factors, perhaps more if people are more flexible to compromise).
It would seem really the way to avoid further conflict to open these options in the editor. About a handful clicks and the VP level or deadline could be moved. That doesnt sound like a big effort to me. But neither do houserules.
I support such a change, more variety in scenarios and options can just make this game better and add more hours of fun. I would just read 270VP and late June into the poll, not 260 and late May. The latter seems to be a bit early, the Soviet player should also have a fair amount of extra time to catch up if he messes up earlier. And since these are purely "game" options, with not consideration of when the Western Allies could have overun Berlin, or whether the Soviets would truly have given up early, why not late June?
There is one other proposal that I find actually more interesting than any with a fixed, previously known VP amount, and that is the suggestion by 76mm proposed in the other thread. I really like that. His idea is not just about the game aspect of auto-victory, but also about using it as a tool to recreate the guiding principles of the struggle a little better. It acts as incentive for a more determined defensive fighting by both sides and offers rewards for Axis pushing harder on the offense instead of "early" force preservation or turteling:
VPs randomized for each game, say between 230 and 290, on averge 260. With no side knowing what exactly will trigger victory, this might be an incentive to for the Soviets to defend more determined despite bad odds, and the Axis to attack more rigorously, but not to overextend unreasonably in a purely rule-driven "victory" raid for the last points known to be missing. This kind of uncertainty not only sounds fun to me, it might also could avoid "strange gameplay", and ugly situations in which the Axis players forces are so weakened after a failed victory raid that he just quits.
If some coding changes need to be done anyway, and the GG team would be willing and able to do this, I think 76mm's suggestion would be something worth discussing...
< Message edited by janh -- 2/24/2012 8:20:10 PM >