RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy

RE: 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

karonagames -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/24/2011 5:02:08 PM)
quote: I am going to put together an excel sheet just for fun to see what values one would arrive at using the historical capture and recapture dates of cities in the Soviet Union. For a start I am going to give each city hex 1 VP per turn, with certain exceptions: Why don't you use the existing VP system, so you could do a direct comparison - the current system shows the number of VPs held each turn, so you could work out the "historical" culmulative amount of VPs for each turn, so players could keep their own spreadsheet to see how they are comparing to the historical VP levels.

alfonso -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/24/2011 7:04:36 PM)
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. Why the WITE began? Because of Stalin?

Aurelian -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/24/2011 8:05:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso 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. Why the WITE began? Because of Stalin? I guess if Stalin went by his birth name, it would of never started. Jughashviligrad doesn't have the same ring to it though.

alfonso -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/24/2011 8:45:12 PM)
The OP argued that this game has the flaw from the historical point of view that the players play without historical political imperatives to force them to play “for something”. He subsequently throws history out of the window by proposing Simferopol or Stalingrad as a key points for the German campaigns since the start. I really have serious doubts about Simferopol being an important part of Hitler rationale for invading the USSR. I think that the easy willingness perceived in some posts for exchanging geographical locations for political imperatives (as if they were the same) shows some lack of consistency in the proposal. Each Axis player should have the option to choose what cities he wants (for depriving the other side of manpower, to grab resources, to “activate” the Finns…). If I think that the conquer of Crimea is a diversion I cannot afford to reach my ultimate objectives, why should I be forced, or even encouraged, to conquer it? Why not Engels and Saratov? If many players are already not willing to follow Hitler’s imperatives, with more reason they are going to be reluctant to follow Tarhunna’s imperatives. The game already rewards the possession of urban hexes at the end, and the player who holds them more turns has already the correspondent manpower and resource benefits. The VP system is a generous (albeit a little bit non-historical) attempt to give the Axis a fair chance to “win”. If we want to play a historical 1941 GC game, as stated by the OP, anything that is not the complete destruction of the Soviet will to fight is a German defeat. And if we want force us to reach historical geographical objectives, then everything short of the Murmansk-Astrakhan line is a German defeat. That said, I think that as option, or mod, or scenario, or whatever (optative) the proposal is interesting, but I don’t like the suggestion that those who are more or less OK with the victory points being earned only at the end turn are playing “for nothing” or playing a non-historical game. Summarizing, the proposal has its merits, but presenting it as more “historical” is unfair.

76mm -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/24/2011 9:34:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso The OP argued that this game has the flaw from the historical point of view that the players play without historical political imperatives to force them to play “for something”. He subsequently throws history out of the window by proposing Simferopol or Stalingrad as a key points for the German campaigns since the start...Why not Engels and Saratov? If many players are already not willing to follow Hitler’s imperatives, with more reason they are going to be reluctant to follow Tarhunna’s imperatives. I thnk you are being too harsh on Tarhunnas' proposal. The bottom line is that this game treats every city hex exactly the same (OK, other than industry), which completely ignores important political and diplomatic aspects which weighed on actual decisions to some extent during the war. His mix of cities might not be 100% correct, but his proposal hardly "throws history out of the window"; rather playing without any political context at all is rather unrealistic.

Tarhunnas -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/24/2011 9:41:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso The OP argued that this game has the flaw from the historical point of view that the players play without historical political imperatives to force them to play “for something”. He subsequently throws history out of the window by proposing Simferopol or Stalingrad as a key points for the German campaigns since the start. I really have serious doubts about Simferopol being an important part of Hitler rationale for invading the USSR. I think that the easy willingness perceived in some posts for exchanging geographical locations for political imperatives (as if they were the same) shows some lack of consistency in the proposal. Each Axis player should have the option to choose what cities he wants (for depriving the other side of manpower, to grab resources, to “activate” the Finns…). If I think that the conquer of Crimea is a diversion I cannot afford to reach my ultimate objectives, why should I be forced, or even encouraged, to conquer it? Why not Engels and Saratov? If many players are already not willing to follow Hitler’s imperatives, with more reason they are going to be reluctant to follow Tarhunna’s imperatives. The game already rewards the possession of urban hexes at the end, and the player who holds them more turns has already the correspondent manpower and resource benefits. The VP system is a generous (albeit a little bit non-historical) attempt to give the Axis a fair chance to “win”. If we want to play a historical 1941 GC game, as stated by the OP, anything that is not the complete destruction of the Soviet will to fight is a German defeat. And if we want force us to reach historical geographical objectives, then everything short of the Murmansk-Astrakhan line is a German defeat. That said, I think that as option, or mod, or scenario, or whatever (optative) the proposal is interesting, but I don’t like the suggestion that those who are more or less OK with the victory points being earned only at the end turn are playing “for nothing” or playing a non-historical game. Summarizing, the proposal has its merits, but presenting it as more “historical” is unfair. No, as I said in #59, my suggestion was that all city hexes would give 1 VP to the player posessing them at the end of the turn. Thus, Engels and Saratov, as cities, would give VP to the side that controlled them. I suggested 2 VPs per turn for some cities, among them Simferopol, not because the place in itself is important, but to simulate the political effect (on turkey and Rumania etc) of occupying the Crimea. This would give the player the option of either bypassing the Crimea to pursue other aims, foregoing the VPs, or taking it to gain the VPs, simulatiing the political imperatives for taking it.

alfonso -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/24/2011 10:00:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso The OP argued that this game has the flaw from the historical point of view that the players play without historical political imperatives to force them to play “for something”. He subsequently throws history out of the window by proposing Simferopol or Stalingrad as a key points for the German campaigns since the start...Why not Engels and Saratov? If many players are already not willing to follow Hitler’s imperatives, with more reason they are going to be reluctant to follow Tarhunna’s imperatives. I thnk you are being too harsh on Tarhunnas' proposal. The bottom line is that this game treats every city hex exactly the same (OK, other than industry), which completely ignores important political and diplomatic aspects which weighed on actual decisions to some extent during the war. His mix of cities might not be 100% correct, but his proposal hardly "throws history out of the window"; rather playing without any political context at all is rather unrealistic. Well, more than being harsh with his proposal, I strongly disagree with the claim that it is more historical. Which cities are most important a priori from a political point of view? The biggest? The national capital cities? Which are important now VP-wise? (not all of them are equally important, as far as I know). If you had to think of important political cities, which ones would you chose? I would probably choose the most important from the economical point of view...

76mm -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/24/2011 10:21:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso Well, more than being harsh with his proposal, I strongly disagree with the claim that it is more historical...Which cities are most important a priori from a political point of view? The biggest? The national capital cities? Which are important now VP-wise? (not all of them are equally important, as far as I know). If you had to think of important political cities, which ones would you chose? I would probably choose the most important from the economical point of view... Frankly, I have a hard time understanding your perspective. Some cities/locations had a political significance far greater than their economic value. While I don't claim to be able to give you a list of cities and reasons for their political significance, you seem to be basically saying that political considerations should play no role at all? The most important cities from a political/diplomatic perspective, are, well, the cities that had the greatest political and diplomatic significance, for reasons of prestige, etc. Sevastopol is one example, Stalingrad another. Moreover, I've read several posts on this forum that there is not much point in capturing Moscow, because "it is just another city". In the game this is correct, although IRL there was at least some chance (admittedly perhaps not very high) that capturing would lead to the fall of USSR--in the game this is absolutely not the case.

Aurelian -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/24/2011 11:41:42 PM)
Politics? Not in a game that neither is about nation building or even cover WW2. And why would Simferopol play any role? And just who would it effect? Not the Axis allies, as they are already in the war. Certainly not Turkey. Russia lost the whole Crimea. German troops got as far as Alagir, and Turkey stayed out. You want politics to play a role? Then the Axis have to get to the AA line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-A_line Alfonso is right. History is getting thrown out the window.

alfonso -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/25/2011 12:06:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso Well, more than being harsh with his proposal, I strongly disagree with the claim that it is more historical...Which cities are most important a priori from a political point of view? The biggest? The national capital cities? Which are important now VP-wise? (not all of them are equally important, as far as I know). If you had to think of important political cities, which ones would you chose? I would probably choose the most important from the economical point of view... Frankly, I have a hard time understanding your perspective. Some cities/locations had a political significance far greater than their economic value. While I don't claim to be able to give you a list of cities and reasons for their political significance, you seem to be basically saying that political considerations should play no role at all? The most important cities from a political/diplomatic perspective, are, well, the cities that had the greatest political and diplomatic significance, for reasons of prestige, etc. Sevastopol is one example, Stalingrad another. Moreover, I've read several posts on this forum that there is not much point in capturing Moscow, because "it is just another city". In the game this is correct, although IRL there was at least some chance (admittedly perhaps not very high) that capturing would lead to the fall of USSR--in the game this is absolutely not the case. Stalingrad was only a name in the map until the erratic moves of a gigantic war made a schwerpunkt of it. Just to cite an example. I would concede that some extraordinary cities may have some additional value, like Berlin. Leningrad and Moscow are possible additional examples. As these two Russian cities never were taken, there is no historical fact to base the consequences of their capture. The game assigns a role to Leningrad when activating the Finns (not a random event, but a certainty), so it seems a fair trade already.

alfonso -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/25/2011 12:20:15 AM)
The problem with turn based victory points is the following August 1944: A soviet huge offensive destroys in a single climactic blow Army Groups Centre and North. Nothing interposes between Zhukov and Berlin. After hitting F12, the Soviet player is informed that he has lost already because Simferopol was held by the Axis during 148 turns and the advantage in VP cannot be countered. I then would like to read the posts in the forum...

Thomas_B -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/25/2011 3:25:29 AM)
Actually, to address your immediate point Alfonso, I'd rather ask the Soviet player why he conducted this war winning offensive in the AGC/AGN area instead of where it apparently mattered with regard to determination of victory conditions - given that the VP conditions are transparent to both sides. Still, I think the debate is going a bit astray with this artifical focus on places like "Simferopol" or whereever. I don't think there is a need to invent victory points for arbitrary locations - key geographic/demographic/political/economical centers have already VP associated with them, (as does the destruction of the opposing military forces) - just award those points pro rata on a per turn basis instead of in one lump sum at games end. I believe this could very well change the dynamics of campaign games

Aurelian -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/25/2011 6:06:22 AM)
Awarding points on the Soviets on a pro rata basis works. Oh, wait. It doesn't matter how many points they get. Being that they don't get any. And the destruction of units has no point value in the campaign either. And it is the campaign some want to change.

matt.buttsworth -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/25/2011 9:10:17 AM)
It is a simple problem. In my games of WITP AE we always have agreed houserules before the beginning of the game. Why not do that with your opponent in WITE on a private basis? By memory the victory points in WIR were Moscow 3 points Leningrad 1 point Gorki 1 point Stalingrad 1 point The German player needed 5 victory points to win. Victory points for the Russian player were meaningless as by the time he reached Berlin he would be crushing everything. Victory points for the German player were thrilling as it gave him a good chance of winning if he gained Moscow and Leningrad (possible) and made the Soviet player desperate to hold Moscow at all costs. Quite an enjoyable scenario. Matthew Buttsworth

alfonso -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/25/2011 9:19:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thomas_B Actually, to address your immediate point Alfonso, I'd rather ask the Soviet player why he conducted this war winning offensive in the AGC/AGN area instead of where it apparently mattered with regard to determination of victory conditions - given that the VP conditions are transparent to both sides. Still, I think the debate is going a bit astray with this artifical focus on places like "Simferopol" or whereever. I don't think there is a need to invent victory points for arbitrary locations - key geographic/demographic/political/economical centers have already VP associated with them, (as does the destruction of the opposing military forces) - just award those points pro rata on a per turn basis instead of in one lump sum at games end. I believe this could very well change the dynamics of campaign games The question is that any system based in VP lends itself to gamey decisions. In the case of VP awarded at the end, we will find crazy fights around Bratislava (what shows, by the way, that political incentives are already included [&:]), but hopefully only in the last couple of turns. With a turn based victory system, I am afraid that the “gameyness” could extend earlier: in my example above, bypassing the chance of destroying the German Army and grabbing Simferopol instead.. In any case, there is the possibility for an Army without soldiers to win the war. It is bad that this can also happen now in May 1945, but in 1944…. Ok, you say, forget about special political incentives: just keep the points as they are, highlighting “important” cities, but in small pieces instead of a big cake at the end. I do not see why this would add historical flavour to the game, because in real wars it is the final result what tends to matter. Imagine, after the hard fought battle at Omaha Beach, that the American soldiers were informed that they have lost the war, because Germany has held Paris during 4 years already… The only city for which I could find that system appropriate is Berlin itself, expressed in a slightly different manner: if Germany holds Berlin until turn 200, (or 250, or whatever), Germany wins. It's the German player who decides where he wants to stand and fight.

alfonso -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/25/2011 9:32:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth It is a simple problem. In my games of WITP AE we always have agreed houserules before the beginning of the game. Why not do that with your opponent in WITE on a private basis? By memory the victory points in WIR were Moscow 3 points Leningrad 1 point Gorki 1 point Stalingrad 1 point The German player needed 5 victory points to win. Victory points for the Russian player were meaningless as by the time he reached Berlin he would be crushing everything. Victory points for the German player were thrilling as it gave him a good chance of winning if he gained Moscow and Leningrad (possible) and made the Soviet player desperate to hold Moscow at all costs. Quite an enjoyable scenario. Matthew Buttsworth Yes, I liked that too... Moscow and Leningrad are obviously important, and Gorki and Stalingrad were more or less the east edge of the map, rather than important cities by themselves. I think Saratov also gave 1 point, for the same reasons.

matt.buttsworth -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/25/2011 11:20:19 AM)
yes I forgot Saratov. That was doable. And made the second year German offensive more gripping. MB

Klydon -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/25/2011 2:17:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso The question is that any system based in VP lends itself to gamey decisions. In the case of VP awarded at the end, we will find crazy fights around Bratislava (what shows, by the way, that political incentives are already included [&:]), but hopefully only in the last couple of turns. With a turn based victory system, I am afraid that the “gameyness” could extend earlier: in my example above, bypassing the chance of destroying the German Army and grabbing Simferopol instead.. In any case, there is the possibility for an Army without soldiers to win the war. It is bad that this can also happen now in May 1945, but in 1944…. I would point to General Clark's decision to race for Rome after breaking the Gustav line instead of taking the opportunity to surround and destroy most of the 10th German army. (Obviously Rome was worth a lot of points). That he failed to destroy the 10th army meant the Axis were able to make a stand on the Gothic line and delay the Allies. It can be argued that destroying the enemy armies should be the chief objective, but that is just an opinion.

alfonso -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/25/2011 3:05:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso The question is that any system based in VP lends itself to gamey decisions. In the case of VP awarded at the end, we will find crazy fights around Bratislava (what shows, by the way, that political incentives are already included [&:]), but hopefully only in the last couple of turns. With a turn based victory system, I am afraid that the “gameyness” could extend earlier: in my example above, bypassing the chance of destroying the German Army and grabbing Simferopol instead.. In any case, there is the possibility for an Army without soldiers to win the war. It is bad that this can also happen now in May 1945, but in 1944…. I would point to General Clark's decision to race for Rome after breaking the Gustav line instead of taking the opportunity to surround and destroy most of the 10th German army. (Obviously Rome was worth a lot of points). That he failed to destroy the 10th army meant the Axis were able to make a stand on the Gothic line and delay the Allies. It can be argued that destroying the enemy armies should be the chief objective, but that is just an opinion. Yes, and I would not like a game that forces, or encourages me to make the same decision Clark made. Instead, I would prefer a game that might answer to this question: had Clark destroyed the 10th Army instead of taking Rome, could the Americans have arrived to Vienna before the Russians?

Pawlock -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/25/2011 9:36:28 PM)
Well I like the idea of some kinda VPs for the GC .Perhaps then maybe you may see some more games going past mid 1942 . Lets face it, good luck finding an Axis player who likes getting steamrollered for around 170 odd turns just to see if Berlin falls or not.

jwarrenw13 -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/25/2011 11:12:57 PM)
I think the idea of having variant scenarios that encourage or force a player to attempt to play as if being directed by Hitler or Stalin would be interesting, however that might be contrived.

Tarhunnas -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/26/2011 7:50:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso The question is that any system based in VP lends itself to gamey decisions. In the case of VP awarded at the end, we will find crazy fights around Bratislava (what shows, by the way, that political incentives are already included [&:]), but hopefully only in the last couple of turns. With a turn based victory system, I am afraid that the “gameyness” could extend earlier: in my example above, bypassing the chance of destroying the German Army and grabbing Simferopol instead.. In any case, there is the possibility for an Army without soldiers to win the war. It is bad that this can also happen now in May 1945, but in 1944…. I would point to General Clark's decision to race for Rome after breaking the Gustav line instead of taking the opportunity to surround and destroy most of the 10th German army. (Obviously Rome was worth a lot of points). That he failed to destroy the 10th army meant the Axis were able to make a stand on the Gothic line and delay the Allies. It can be argued that destroying the enemy armies should be the chief objective, but that is just an opinion. Yes, and I would not like a game that forces, or encourages me to make the same decision Clark made. Instead, I would prefer a game that might answer to this question: had Clark destroyed the 10th Army instead of taking Rome, could the Americans have arrived to Vienna before the Russians? With a per turn based VP system, Clarks decision would have been more like: Should I capture Rome now to gain more VP (= political kudos) in the short term, or should I surround the 10th army hoping for even bigger VP gains in the longer term.

Tarhunnas -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/27/2011 7:32:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak Why don't you use the existing VP system, so you could do a direct comparison - the current system shows the number of VPs held each turn, so you could work out the "historical" culmulative amount of VPs for each turn, so players could keep their own spreadsheet to see how they are comparing to the historical VP levels. Excellent suggestion! I didn't really think of using that, but that would work very well!Thanks!

alfonso -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/27/2011 10:06:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso The question is that any system based in VP lends itself to gamey decisions. In the case of VP awarded at the end, we will find crazy fights around Bratislava (what shows, by the way, that political incentives are already included [&:]), but hopefully only in the last couple of turns. With a turn based victory system, I am afraid that the “gameyness” could extend earlier: in my example above, bypassing the chance of destroying the German Army and grabbing Simferopol instead.. In any case, there is the possibility for an Army without soldiers to win the war. It is bad that this can also happen now in May 1945, but in 1944…. I would point to General Clark's decision to race for Rome after breaking the Gustav line instead of taking the opportunity to surround and destroy most of the 10th German army. (Obviously Rome was worth a lot of points). That he failed to destroy the 10th army meant the Axis were able to make a stand on the Gothic line and delay the Allies. It can be argued that destroying the enemy armies should be the chief objective, but that is just an opinion. Yes, and I would not like a game that forces, or encourages me to make the same decision Clark made. Instead, I would prefer a game that might answer to this question: had Clark destroyed the 10th Army instead of taking Rome, could the Americans have arrived to Vienna before the Russians? With a per turn based VP system, Clarks decision would have been more like: Should I capture Rome now to gain more VP (= political kudos) in the short term, or should I surround the 10th army hoping for even bigger VP gains in the longer term. Maybe it is more fun for some players in that way. Not me, I only hope that it is made as an option (if it is ever made). I cannot understand the rationale of player A being in a worse position (less hexes, less soldiers) than player B (both playing the Axis), but having more victory points because until the year before he was in a better position....Or the Soviet Union making an unstoppable advance towards Berlin in February 1945 and being defeated because the Germans held Kiev until May 1944. Nor can I understand the historicity of claiming a victory by anything different from the final result of the war.

Thomas_B -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/28/2011 1:55:59 AM)
Historically the war in the east ended in May 1945 with a crushing soviet victory, having conquered all of eastern Germany, including Berlin, and seeing Hitler die. Stating the obvious here, we all know that. But if we apply historical hindsight alone to the games' victory conditions, we forget that this outcome was not cast in stone in June '41, when the conflict began. The final outcome only came into its own because of the decisions and actions both sides took, and the temporary/shortterm/longterm objectives they pursued during these years. In the game though both sides now know the final victory conditions at the start and can engineer and min/max their strategy to achieve these from turn one. My concern is, that this might lead to a less interesting game play in the campaign, bacause (for most of the game) neither side would feel it was necessary to take any particular risks in order to achieve any particular objectives. Both sides could and probably would focus on force preservation, opportunistic attacks in sectors with significant temporary superiority followed by adjustment of optimised front lines. I'm not sure if there is a 'golden bullet' to solve this situation (probably not).

Skanvak -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/28/2011 7:22:52 AM)
quote: Ok, you say, forget about special political incentives: just keep the points as they are, highlighting “important” cities, but in small pieces instead of a big cake at the end. I do not see why this would add historical flavour to the game, because in real wars it is the final result what tends to matter. Imagine, after the hard fought battle at Omaha Beach, that the American soldiers were informed that they have lost the war, because Germany has held Paris during 4 years already… Well, victory in war a politcal matter which is concern only with the end results. BUT Glory is something more important. That why Blackbeard fought its last battle. I think that even if he get destroyed to the last man, ha had enough VP to call it a win on the History Glory index compare to its opponnent (who remind him). Same for Achille, he goes to war for Glory, so he earn VP for fighting the war (heroically with lots of oustanding success of course...) not for winning it. So for Germany taking Leningrad before november or a bit after was not that important in the grand scheme, but it was for the General in charge of the assault. If it has succeeded he would have obtain Marshall status and great fame. That is why with a historical start, I fthink given one time point in december relative to historical German objectives would be nice. It would make the game less I prepare for the onslaught and more I go for a bit of the win. This is in line with the historical set-up (I want free set-up whitout making a scenario) and give flavour. I would prefer one time, rather than occupation turn. This is more in line with the tempo of the war that was first : Try to reach Barbarossa objectives, then try to do as best as you can to win an attrition war. The system could and should be more fine tune, may be with same thing for Russian. Bottom line, yes, Axis could win a Glory victory if they succeed in Barbarossa and the soviet is too slow to reach Berlin early even though, ultimatly the Axis power will be crushed.

color -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/28/2011 9:36:40 AM)
Actually, what I think would work excellent to enforce a player to follow a more historical playstyle is to introduce sizeable VP locations that needs to be taken within a certain date and held for X turns. For instance, Take Moscow before 1. dec 41 and mantain control of it for 5 turns and you gain a huge VP sum. Failure to take it in time or hold it, will result in 0 VP's

von Beanie -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/28/2011 12:54:52 PM)
Going many years back, the good east front board wargames employed variable objectives. I recall one where each side would select a difficult objective for that year's campaigns, and the game would be determined by whether you could succeed while also preventing your opponent from doing so too. If both failed, new objectives for the next year would be determined and the game continued. If you could figure out your oppoents' objective early on you could often prevent him from succeeding, so the game often played very normally with both sides trying to defend and take all possible objectives. No matter how badly you would do in one year, you always knew you could theoretically win the next year. In another game Hitler and Stalin Directives were periodically issued. I liked this system the best because it often interfered with my carefully prepared plans. Such a system would be fairly easy to add to WITE as an option. For example, at the beginning of every month there would be a XX% chance of a directive being issued, such as "take Moscow in two months," "defend Kiev for two more turns," "take Stalingrad this month," or "don't surrender more than 30 hexes this month (i.e., no retreat)." Success would produce lots of VP while defeat surrenders VP based on the magnitude of the failure, and the objective would be unknown to your opponent (except for the grand pool of possible objectives). The directives could be scripted, and the pool of possibilities altered as the game situation changes, so it wouldn't be that difficult to add as an option. In WITE/AE I advocated a similar system, because otherwise there's never any reason for either side to try something like the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo (or a theoretical Japanese CV raid on Sydney/New Zealand). Those events, like some decisions on the eastern front (e.g., the Aug 20 order to encircle Kiev from the north), were major command decisions of a political nature that affected the war significantly. To eliminate all such high-level directives makes any wargame fairly unrealistic from a military command (OKW or STAVKA) perspective. It is my impression that each player operates as the military commander in this wargame, not as the political dictator, and so we should have to obey their (CPU) dictates or suffer the consequences.

Aurelian -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/28/2011 1:17:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: von Beanie wargame, The key word. It's a game. Not a simulation. I don't see why some want to "obey" CPU dictates, and yet want to run the war. You can't claim that lack of such CPU interference is not realistic while at the same time having the ability to put every unit from regiment to army hq where you want them. And just what consequence should you suffer? The only one that makes any sense since you're running all the peices is that if you don't do what CPU Hitler/Stalin says, then you get removed. Which means you lose.

color -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/28/2011 2:39:23 PM)
Another smart way to implement CPU dictactes would be not to hinge loss or victory on them, but let them give you bonuses or penalties... something that would really want you to follow them, but allowing you to ignore them. F.instance , complying with a certain dicate could give you: - a bonus 5 morale for XX turns. Failure would result in a -5 penalty for XX turns. General national morale is boosted by big success displayed all over press. - some new reinforcements/withdrawal of units, hitler decides to push further on the initial success - Improved supply or armament for XX turns, hitler decides to push further on the initial success - The removal of an important leader from the game. Failure to meet dicate means some high up leader pays for the failure it with imprisionment/execution. That would realistically allow a player to go against the dictacte without actually loosing the game, just suffering some negative consequence for a while. Political interference could also be used as a balancing tool. If you are having way too much success, the political leadership can decide to withdraw units to commit to operations elsewhere "since you are so close to victory you don't need that many and we can commit them open up other operations" Or viceversa, if you are having a hard time holding the invaders, additional previously unavailable reserves can be received as focus shifts to this front at the expense of others. That would make it a much more interesting situation. And it also holds some historical accuracy, in that troops where shifted back & forth between fronts according to where they were the most needed.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75