VPs that encouraged historical strategy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room



Message

Tarhunnas -> VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/19/2011 4:20:37 PM)

There is some concern voiced here in the forums that the Germans are not pushing hard enough, or the Soviets are giving ground too fast or avoiding encirclemenst etc etc. Given that the players know that they are in for the long haul in the GCs, it is not surprising that players act rationally and try to preserve forces rather that risk encirclement to hold cities whose loss do not mean much anyway.

So, why not have victory conditions that encouraged the holding of cities for as long as possible. In the Road to scenarios, players are awarded points for holding cities each turn, why not do that in the campaigns as well. For example, if players were awarded one VP each turn for each city hex, perhaps 2 or 3 for important cities like Kiev, Kharkov, Rostov etc, or maybe VPs based on population. That would encorurage players to try to keep cities, and hopefully to risk more to take them. Resource hexes could also render points, like for example Krivoi Rog, which figured in Hitlers reluctance to retreat in the Ukraine.

Or to encourage more agressive play, the Axis could be awarded a one time bonus for capturing certain cities, like Stalingrad. To encourage Soviet defiance, there might be a bonus for all cities held on 31st december each year.

These are just a few suggestions, because I think a game should have a mechanism for rewards that encouraged players to have the same motives as their historical counterparts.



Lrfss -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/19/2011 4:43:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

There is some concern voiced here in the forums that the Germans are not pushing hard enough, or the Soviets are giving ground too fast or avoiding encirclemenst etc etc. Given that the players know that they are in for the long haul in the GCs, it is not surprising that players act rationally and try to preserve forces rather that risk encirclement to hold cities whose loss do not mean much anyway.

So, why not have victory conditions that encouraged the holding of cities for as long as possible. In the Road to scenarios, players are awarded points for holding cities each turn, why not do that in the campaigns as well. For example, if players were awarded one VP each turn for each city hex, perhaps 2 or 3 for important cities like Kiev, Kharkov, Rostov etc, or maybe VPs based on population. That would encorurage players to try to keep cities, and hopefully to risk more to take them. Resource hexes could also render points, like for example Krivoi Rog, which figured in Hitlers reluctance to retreat in the Ukraine.

Or to encourage more agressive play, the Axis could be awarded a one time bonus for capturing certain cities, like Stalingrad. To encourage Soviet defiance, there might be a bonus for all cities held on 31st december each year.

These are just a few suggestions, because I think a game should have a mechanism for rewards that encouraged players to have the same motives as their historical counterparts.


+ 1



Texas D -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/19/2011 5:41:32 PM)

I like the sound of that.



Klydon -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/20/2011 4:15:10 AM)

You can do that through the editor. The real trick is getting the point formula right as far as who had what when if you are looking to go historical with it. I would assume balance might be hard to achieve, but who knows.

I also am not sure that it will help with making either player defend something that much harder. If the Russians are playing a Sir Robinov defense, then their theory would likely be that since they have more army to work with, they will take things back sooner than they did historically. The Germans will likely figure along the same lines in many cases, although doing something like this makes it much more likely they do a summer offensive if you have your VP locations picked correctly. Hermann will likely not have a big issue retreating from a location during the first blizzard however.



runyan99 -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/20/2011 7:42:43 AM)

I think the whole point of wargaming is to do your own thing and try out best strategies, not always to be encouraged to do the same foolish things the real guys did.

With that in mind, I'd rather see other variant scenarios that balance the game score through other means. Easier VP conditions for the Germans, or hypothetical full mobilization production for the Germans, or whatever.



Tarhunnas -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/20/2011 10:25:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: runyan99

I think the whole point of wargaming is to do your own thing and try out best strategies, not always to be encouraged to do the same foolish things the real guys did.



But my point is that the real guys did the foolish things they did because they had incentives to do so. If we as players are allowed to act without the any of the incentives and constraints of the real "players", then we are not playing a historical game.



alfonso -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/20/2011 10:40:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas


quote:

ORIGINAL: runyan99

I think the whole point of wargaming is to do your own thing and try out best strategies, not always to be encouraged to do the same foolish things the real guys did.



But my point is that the real guys did the foolish things they did because they had incentives to do so. If we as players are allowed to act without the any of the incentives and constraints of the real "players", then we are not playing a historical game.


Well, then, anything the player does different from their historical counterparts makes the game "ahistorical". If the OKH guys deployed the 143th Inf Div south of Vitebsk (imaginary example) they probably had their motives (incentives and constraints). If one choses any other hex, is it not a historical game anymore?

I find much more interesting the concept of, given a pre-determined situation (as found at initial date), be as free as possible to try any new strategy.





Aurelian -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/20/2011 10:49:21 PM)

The real guys did the foolish things because they were told to by bigger fools.

What incentive is there to not capture Leningrad? You're not playing a historical game if you do take it.

What incentive is there to drive on Moscow instead of diverting Guderian south to pocket 600,000+ Russians? You're not playing a historical game if you don't divert him.

If the Germans win, well, wait for it..................................................... You're not playing a historical game.

Big waste of time and money to buy such a game. Being that I already know how it worked out for the "real guys".



Tarhunnas -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/20/2011 11:09:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas


quote:

ORIGINAL: runyan99

I think the whole point of wargaming is to do your own thing and try out best strategies, not always to be encouraged to do the same foolish things the real guys did.



But my point is that the real guys did the foolish things they did because they had incentives to do so. If we as players are allowed to act without the any of the incentives and constraints of the real "players", then we are not playing a historical game.


Well, then, anything the player does different from their historical counterparts makes the game "ahistorical". If the OKH guys deployed the 143th Inf Div south of Vitebsk (imaginary example) they probably had their motives (incentives and constraints). If one choses any other hex, is it not a historical game anymore?

I find much more interesting the concept of, given a pre-determined situation (as found at initial date), be as free as possible to try any new strategy.



What I am suggesting is not to pre-determine things, but to give the same incentives and rewards the real "players" had, but also of course to chose to do something different, thereby foregoing some advantages or rewards. That is just weighing pros and cons, not at all predetermining things. If we disconnect the military operations of the east front from its political and economic framework and think we are doing something smart or selecting our own strategy, we are just acting out a fantasy.



Aurelian -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/21/2011 5:44:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
So, why not have victory conditions that encouraged the holding of cities for as long as possible. In the Road to scenarios, players are awarded points for holding cities each turn, why not do that in the campaigns as well.


Because the campaign is not decided by who has the most points, but by how many the Axis player has.

Only they get points for heavy/light urban, citiy, and national capitals that they take.

Only they lose points for losing them.






alfonso -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/21/2011 9:00:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas


If we disconnect the military operations of the east front from its political and economic framework and think we are doing something smart or selecting our own strategy, we are just acting out a fantasy.


Well, imagine the following possible German strategies at the start:

a) Disregard territory, and concentrate basically in destroying the Red Army, wherever it is

or

b) Go as crazy for Leningrad, the craddle of the Revolution, and in the process "liberate" the Baltic countries

or

c) Go as crazy for Moscow, the nervous centre of the Soviet Empire

or

d) Grab Ukrainia and its vast reserves of resources (and Crimea for making holliday resorts for the Übermenschen)

(or any combination thereof)

Each has its own historical flavour, but they are widely divergent. As a matter of fact, they were considered at one moment or another. So what is wrong with following any of them, or even another completely new?

As a matter of fact, a lot of decisions taken during the war were heavily discussed at the time, and alternatives were proposed for many of them. I think this illustrates that the pathway eventually chosen was not the only one available at the moment. For instance, Stalin could not be convinced of the idoneity of retiring from Kiev in late summer 1941 until it was too late. But imagining that he could be convinced a week, ot two, earlier does not seem to me grossly ahistoric.

Grossly ahistoric would be to imagine, for exemple, that the Nazis could think of the Slavic peoples as their equals and treat them humanly (and eliminate partisans from the game under this assumption).




jomni -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/21/2011 10:07:52 AM)

I actually hate the 'road to' scenario because it ends up like a puzzle where you must capture X city in turn 1, Y city in turn 2, etc.
Putting pressure to the Germans (Attackers). 

And the attacking and defending side is fluid and dynamic depending on which date of the war and also the theater... so these victory cities must change along the way depending on the situation.

To make the game interesting why not some semi-random "quests" like in Eropa Universalis 3 or Shogun Total War 2.  Where you must capture X city in X turns to obtain bonus points.  You can opt to not do it if it's counter to your plan.  But if it might just give you some advantage in points despite the potential losses that you will incur then it might just be worth it. Some people have refered to this as "Hitler and Stalin Directives".



alfonso -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/21/2011 11:26:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

I actually hate the 'road to' scenario because it ends up like a puzzle where you must capture X city in turn 1, Y city in turn 2, etc.
Putting pressure to the Germans (Attackers). 

And the attacking and defending side is fluid and dynamic depending on which date of the war and also the theater... so these victory cities must change along the way depending on the situation.

To make the game interesting why not some semi-random "quests" like in Eropa Universalis 3 or Shogun Total War 2.  Where you must capture X city in X turns to obtain bonus points.  You can opt to not do it if it's counter to your plan.  But if it might just give you some advantage in points despite the potential losses that you will incur then it might just be worth it. Some people have refered to this as "Hitler and Stalin Directives".


Well, in that case please be that an optional rule, because I find the game interesting already. I like the concept of Tullius Detritus: Stalin is in the gulag, TD is the boss. He is the one making the directives. For the Germans it is not so clear (you are in the game a theater commander only) but anyway I prefer freedom of choice...And somehow, even the whole concept of bonus, or victory points (even in its present form), seems to me a little bit gamey. Besides, the players can always agree whatever victory conditions they like. For instance: Berlin falls, Russian victory. Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad fall, Axis victory. All other situations, draw.



Aurelian -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/21/2011 4:41:59 PM)

The whole concept of bonus points is gamey.

The Soviets don't *get* points, Period.

The Axis needs a minimum of points, 140 something, plus Berlin, to win.

Thus he has the incentive to take as many urban hexes as possible. The more he takes, the more he can give up if necessary.

The Soviets need Berlin and to drive the Axis down to 39 points by game end.

Thus he has all the incentive he needs. The more he holds, the less he has to take back. And he can't win by running away.

And if you going to go the route of "quests", then you should have a real incentive. The Axis player is removed form command if he fails in his "quest." Game over. He loses.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/21/2011 5:29:50 PM)

I want quests! I want to win Vorpal Panthers.



karonagames -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/21/2011 5:43:06 PM)

Instead of victory points, let's have "fun points" (FPs) at the end of each turn each player adds between 0 and 9 points to his FP total- his choice. The player with the most FPs at the end of the game wins.

I'm using this system, and have won nearly every game I have played so far, a couple were tied.



Aurelian -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/21/2011 8:04:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I want quests! I want to win Vorpal Panthers.


My Golden Dragons, aka T-34/85s, will destroy them!!



Aurelian -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/21/2011 8:05:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Instead of victory points, let's have "fun points" (FPs) at the end of each turn each player adds between 0 and 9 points to his FP total- his choice. The player with the most FPs at the end of the game wins.

I'm using this system, and have won nearly every game I have played so far, a couple were tied.


Now *that* I can support!!!.



findmeifyoucan -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/22/2011 5:49:39 PM)

During this discussion a famous quote comes to mind. Remember that crazy guy called Hitler who was in charge of the armed forces and should not have been. Stalingrad- "Hold at all costs" How many Germans died after that order was given unneccessarily??? lol

Now why would you want to repeat that kind of huge mistake? Never mind the idiotic deployment of weak German allied forces to cover the flanks of strong German forces defending Stalingrad. Wow, the whole defence on that entire front was plain and simply all wrong.



bdtj1815 -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/23/2011 1:10:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: findmeifyoucan

During this discussion a famous quote comes to mind. Remember that crazy guy called Hitler who was in charge of the armed forces and should not have been. Stalingrad- "Hold at all costs" How many Germans died after that order was given unneccessarily??? lol

Now why would you want to repeat that kind of huge mistake? Never mind the idiotic deployment of weak German allied forces to cover the flanks of strong German forces defending Stalingrad. Wow, the whole defence on that entire front was plain and simply all wrong.


But your comment above shows a complete lack of historical knowledge. The Germans were not defending at Stalingrad in early November but were still attacking, although fruitlessly, at the time of the Soviet counter-offensive. Yes the strategy was proven wrong by history but even Hitler was aware of the risks he was running. Don't forget in Stalingrad they were down to measuring success by hundreds of yards. If the city had fallen very many German troops would have been released to support the flanks, not to mention the debilitating effect on Soviet morale, very likely a war changing situation. Many German forces were left in Stalingrad after it was encircled, which was when Hitler refused permission for them to be extricated (read about his prevarication about "Operation Thunderclap" etc.), although some military historians argue that by the refusal to withdraw 6th Army the resultant tying up of so many Soviet forces to keep it pinned down it gave Manstein time to develop his later defence of the southern Ukraine.



Mynok -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/23/2011 2:30:30 AM)


Um...going for Stalingrad was a mistake, hindsight or not. It would have gained the Germans nothing.



bdtj1815 -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/23/2011 2:50:30 AM)

Someone else who has never read his history! Taking Stalingrad would have closed down the Volga which was a major transport artery, obviously not represented in the game. More importantly, and why it became so important, remember its name and why the WITE began.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/23/2011 2:53:02 AM)

Please, we have had people here state that others have not read history since day one.  Such attacks should not be in the tenor of this forum.  The best assumption is that others have read sufficient history but perhaps have a different take on just what those facts actually mean...



bdtj1815 -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/23/2011 3:11:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Please, we have had people here state that others have not read history since day one.  Such attacks should not be in the tenor of this forum.  The best assumption is that others have read sufficient history but perhaps have a different take on just what those facts actually mean...


My comment is not an attack, merely a statement of fact. If you were actually to read "findmeifyoucan" and "Mynoks" posts you will not find any resemblance to historical accuracy in either. Sorry if you are offended but I did think we were discussing a game that was intended to be based on history.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/23/2011 3:33:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815
My comment is not an attack, merely a statement of fact. If you were actually to read "findmeifyoucan" and "Mynoks" posts you will not find any resemblance to historical accuracy in either. Sorry if you are offended but I did think we were discussing a game that was intended to be based on history.


You do realize the irony in attacking someone when you say you are not?



Mynok -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/23/2011 3:34:45 AM)

I don't claim to be a huge student of eastern front history, but there's little evidence that Stalingrad would be a death blow to the Soviets. In fact, there's none. It was a death trap, which was directly due to Soviet intent to make it so. And the Germans took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

The real prize was the oil fields of the Caucasus and the Germans hamstrung their ability to take those by diverting units to the pointless taking of Stalingrad. History doesn't lie. It just gets misinterpreted by those with pre-judged opinions.



bdtj1815 -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/23/2011 3:47:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch


quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815
My comment is not an attack, merely a statement of fact. If you were actually to read "findmeifyoucan" and "Mynoks" posts you will not find any resemblance to historical accuracy in either. Sorry if you are offended but I did think we were discussing a game that was intended to be based on history.


You do realize the irony in attacking someone when you say you are not?

quote:

You do realize the irony in attacking someone when you say you are not?


No "attack" from me as far as I can see. Can you suggest a reason it is?



bdtj1815 -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/23/2011 3:50:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

I don't claim to be a huge student of eastern front history, but there's little evidence that Stalingrad would be a death blow to the Soviets. In fact, there's none. It was a death trap, which was directly due to Soviet intent to make it so. And the Germans took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

The real prize was the oil fields of the Caucasus and the Germans hamstrung their ability to take those by diverting units to the pointless taking of Stalingrad. History doesn't lie. It just gets misinterpreted by those with pre-judged opinions.



I cannot argue with your comments because they are so uninfirmed that to do so would obviously not be worth the effort.



Aurelian -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/23/2011 4:04:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Someone else who has never read his history! Taking Stalingrad would have closed down the Volga which was a major transport artery, obviously not represented in the game. More importantly, and why it became so important, remember its name and why the WITE began.


IIRC, the origional objective was to bring it under long range artillery fire. But the effort diverged into both that and a drive for the oilfields.

There is a Russian proverb that states that if you chase two hares, you won't catch either. And it was true.

There was no need to take the city. If the objective was to cut the Volga, that could of been done either north or south of the city.

If the idea was to take the oil fields in way down toward Turkey, then 4th Panzer would of been much better used to do that than to head for Stalingrad.

Said city only became an objective in and of itself because the two big bubbleheads made it so.

And Stalingrad had nothing to do with why the war was started. Or Stalin either.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/23/2011 4:08:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815
I cannot argue with your comments because they are so uninfirmed that to do so would obviously not be worth the effort.



See! You did it again!



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.546875