|
Ridgeway -> RE: VPs that encouraged historical strategy (3/28/2011 9:10:25 PM)
|
This is a fascinating discussion, but it seems like it would be more fruitful if the underlying question were more specific.
The way I see it, the proposed VP changes (to the extent that they punish the Russians for failure to hold particular objectives) are only relevant if the Comrade Robinsky strategy gives the Russian player an insurmountable advantage, i.e. they are basically guaranteed a major or decisive victory no matter what the German does. In that case, it would seem logical that the VP structure would need to be tweaked. If it does not, however, and the Russian suffers genuine disadvantages in the game as it stands from Robinskying, I think we are discussing solutions to a non-existent problem. I do not see the point in reducing a player's flexibility as long as it does not grossly imbalance the game.
As an analogy, imagine that the best US strategy in WitP was to withdraw all forces to the West Coast and hole up until early 1944, whereupon the US could launch an unstoppable juggernaut that would steamroll across the Pacific and end the war in a decisive victory by Winter 1944 no matter what the Japanese did. One could argue for changing the victory conditions in that case, because most people would agree that (a) the game would be no fun, and (b) such a withdrawal would have been politically unacceptable in the US at the time and thus could not have happened, even if it were the "best" military strategy.
To sum up, I think one needs to balance fun, flexibility and realism.
|
|
|
|
