RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule-

RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (Full Version)

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

Message

Aurelian -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/11/2011 8:20:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Y'know, citing a bunch of old wargames made during the Cold War based on extremely limited information is perhaps not the way to go. Maybe, just maybe, they all got it wrong? The victory conditions made in these relics need not detain us, let alone be used as a guide for a modern game. The one I brought up was designed in 2004.... But I'm still with you on SD rules.

Mehring -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/11/2011 9:39:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Y'know, citing a bunch of old wargames made during the Cold War based on extremely limited information is perhaps not the way to go. Maybe, just maybe, they all got it wrong? The victory conditions made in these relics need not detain us, let alone be used as a guide for a modern game. The one I brought up was designed in 2004.... But I'm still with you on SD rules. As you can see from certain of the forum's contributors, propaganda persists long after its aim is past. The relationship is fluid not mechanical.

Aurelian -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/11/2011 10:44:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mehring quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Y'know, citing a bunch of old wargames made during the Cold War based on extremely limited information is perhaps not the way to go. Maybe, just maybe, they all got it wrong? The victory conditions made in these relics need not detain us, let alone be used as a guide for a modern game. The one I brought up was designed in 2004.... But I'm still with you on SD rules. As you can see from certain of the forum's contributors, propaganda persists long after its aim is past. The relationship is fluid not mechanical. I know. Someday they'll wake up and see we're long past those days. Kinda reminds me of new IL2 players. They'd use German a/c, and complain alot that they kept getting waxed by the more experienced. "Where's the I win button." Allow me to dirgress abit. I was in Lancaster during the annual BPA a few years back. I spoke to the designers of both this and the newest edition of Russian Campaign. I bought RB based on, among other reasons, the far more accurate OOB.

wadortch -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/12/2011 2:57:36 AM)
You know, this has been a real strange exercise. From reading that asking people to vote yes or no (a situation not unlike delegates approving the US Declaration of Indpendence) being called fascist, now messages above talking about propaganda, etc. What this thread was and is about is to find out if there is a group of players who would like to see an OPTIONAL SD coded. I would suggest that purpose has been achieved despite all this distracting and sometimes ugly language by people who have said they are not interested in such a rule. There is a group of players that support such. I am working with several people to produce a SIMPLE and easy to code rule that does not involve significant redesign of the existing game and hope to post that on this thread soon. I am not interested in getting feedback on this from people who have no interest in such, having already voted simply or painfully they are not. It would be great if the posts here from now on are related to crafting this optional rule. [8\|]

gradenko2k -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/12/2011 4:12:48 AM)
At the minimum, you'd just be looking for lowering the amount of VPs needed to trigger the premature game end to a point where the German player can actually look forward to triggering it. A lot of the other fluff would just be about keeping the Germans "honest", such as preventing a mad dash for that last VP, putting some kind of time-based element so that you have to take AND HOLD the VP sites, a time-based element on the part of the Soviets with regards to losing a city now instead of later being worse, or factoring losses into the formula. Insofar as the current victory conditions would not always produce such behavior anyway

pzgndr -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/12/2011 2:50:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wadortch You know, this has been a real strange exercise... I would suggest that purpose has been achieved despite all this distracting and sometimes ugly language by people who have said they are not interested in such a rule. It has been enlightening to see some of the comments. Granted, I can't say the old boardgame victory conditions were perfect, but I don't recall spending all the many hours I enjoyed playing those games that we ever agonized over them. I guess we just didn't know any better... [8\|] quote: I am working with several people to produce a SIMPLE and easy to code rule that does not involve significant redesign of the existing game and hope to post that on this thread soon. Again, even if 2x3 doesn't make a simple and modest code change for such an OPTION, it is easy enough for players to manually determine alternate victory conditions. That's how we used to do it, yes? Worked fine then, and still works fine.

marty_01 -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/12/2011 3:11:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wadortch You know, this has been a real strange exercise. From reading that asking people to vote yes or no (a situation not unlike delegates approving the US Declaration of Indpendence) being called fascist, now messages above talking about propaganda, etc. What this thread was and is about is to find out if there is a group of players who would like to see an OPTIONAL SD coded. I would suggest that purpose has been achieved despite all this distracting and sometimes ugly language by people who have said they are not interested in such a rule. There is a group of players that support such. I am working with several people to produce a SIMPLE and easy to code rule that does not involve significant redesign of the existing game and hope to post that on this thread soon. I am not interested in getting feedback on this from people who have no interest in such, having already voted simply or painfully they are not. It would be great if the posts here from now on are related to crafting this optional rule. [8\|] Can the victory conditions of GCs be tweaked via the game editor to acheive something like the results you are looking for?

marty_01 -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/12/2011 3:22:28 PM)
Moreover... From the manual: "The game will end in an automatic victory either when Germany surrenders (Soviet victory) or when the Axis controls sufficient points to meet the particular campaign scenario decisive Axis victory condition." AND: "Decisive Axis Victory - At any time the Axis controls 290 points." Is it possible via the editor to develop some revised combination of victory points per city – like increasing the VP values of Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Rostov (or whatever) such that the ability for the axis to obtain 290 VPs doesn’t entail capture of every city west of the A-A Line (The so called Archangel – Astrakhan Line). Or are the VP values of cities hard coded and untouchable within the editor?

darbycmcd -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/12/2011 7:16:23 PM)
wardotch, normally I am in the 'it isn't based on history so no way' catagory. but one of the posters upthread did point out that the SD rules are a way to reward a player doing better vs historical, so I can see how some players could get something out of it. BUT, why do you need it coded? I really don't see the value of spending the resources on that. You and your op can agree to the conditions ahead of time, and then just look at the map. Sort of like the tabletop games we are talking about. It would be a more flexible system (what some people seem to want) and probably would make a German player more likely to push through if they don't get it, because they agreed to the conditions personally. why is it 'more real' if the computer says it rather than the players knowing it????

Aurelian -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/12/2011 9:03:40 PM)
There really isn't a need to code it. The people who don't want to use it will not. The ones who do will make their own. There is already an offical sudden win as marty_01 pointed out.

wadortch -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/12/2011 11:44:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian There really isn't a need to code it. The people who don't want to use it will not. The ones who do will make their own. There is already an offical sudden win as marty_01 pointed out. Hello Marty and Aurelian. The desire to have it coded is to establish a common optional rule that can be evaluated by players and 2x3 game'as described at the beginning of this thread. . Joel indicated that if it were something relatively simple, 2x3 would consider coding it (and this would not cause major resources from being diverted from other more complicated fixes since 2x3 has shifted its present focus to WITW. It could very well be that some tweaking of the VP's as you suggest Marty will do it. The present 290 trigger is impossible to achieve against a competent human player.

Aurelian -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 12:41:17 AM)
Which still doesn't change the fact you and the opponent can make their own. Which also doesn't change the fact that just because it does get coded, those in favor of it may not accept it. Which means that you and the opponent can make their own rule.

Michael T -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 1:02:26 AM)
Walt I have spent about 3 hours comparing the old AH Russian Front victory point system against WITE. While IMO the RF system is the best VP method in a East Front game I have seen it cannot be simply transposed in to the WITE game. You could use the same method but to work out the numbers and tailor it to WITE would be a big effort. Mostly because RF is a much harder game on the Germans so its numbers reflect that. If you simply used its numbers for WITE the game would be too easy for Germany to win. Therefore I think the most simple and easiest method to do would be similar to what I suggested in the other thread. Something easy to code. That is use the VP tally that WITE already keeps track of. Then simply check this tally every 6 months from end November 1941 (so again end May 42, Nov 42, May 43, Nov 43, May 44, Nov 44) You just need to come up with 2 numbers for each check. 1 for a German auto win and one for a Soviet Auto win. E.G. Nov 1941 you might calculate a German Auto win at 255 points, a Soviet win at ???. Then calculate for the next check and so on. This is not as hard as some think. I have already worked out Germany November 1941. I already have a spreadsheet with every city and its WITE VP value. See the attached image, I drew a line at what I considered would be a German Auto win (Game win, not War win) in Nov 1941 and added up all the VP west of that line. It came to 255. I really think this is the most favourable method to get this to fly. Very easy to code as it uses the existing victory tally mechanism. And its not to far removed from the existing method. Just adding a level for every 6 months rather than just the 290 pts that are beyond most to achieve. [image]local://upfiles/22630/623B97EF534B4BD285A57230C5A6600B.jpg[/image]

Michael T -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 1:03:31 AM)
And South [image]local://upfiles/22630/75EDC877686B483182BF6690830AC352.jpg[/image]

wadortch -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 2:28:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian Which still doesn't change the fact you and the opponent can make their own. Which also doesn't change the fact that just because it does get coded, those in favor of it may not accept it. Which means that you and the opponent can make their own rule. Quite true. What is your point? I take it does not matter what SD rule is arrived at you would not use it anyway, right? If that is so, why are you wasting your time here in this thread?

marty_01 -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 2:47:05 AM)
I think I'd vote yes to Michael T's approach to auto victory. Is there a way within GC scenarios to determine the victory points associated with each city hex? I dont get anything appearing in GC games when I click on the "Toggle victory locations" button -- no little flags showing VP locations and their associated points ala the "Road to Scenarios".

PaulWRoberts -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 3:01:56 AM)
I vote YES as an option. Perhaps other (stricter, less strict) options should be available too.

wadortch -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 3:15:56 AM)
Marty and Paul I think Michael is on the right track, too. I am talking with him off forum re some questions I have about fleshing it out further.

gradenko2k -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 3:56:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty_01 I think I'd vote yes to Michael T's approach to auto victory. Is there a way within GC scenarios to determine the victory points associated with each city hex? I dont get anything appearing in GC games when I click on the "Toggle victory locations" button -- no little flags showing VP locations and their associated points ala the "Road to Scenarios". I believe it's a constant 1 VP per City hex, 3 VPs per Light Urban hex and 5 VPs per Heavy Urban. Only Moscow has a special rule regarding it where it's worth an additional 5 VPs. I think scenarios have their own way of calculating VPs, but I don't know how radically they can be modded.

DTurtle -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 4:31:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty_01 Is there a way within GC scenarios to determine the victory points associated with each city hex? I dont get anything appearing in GC games when I click on the "Toggle victory locations" button -- no little flags showing VP locations and their associated points ala the "Road to Scenarios". From the manual: quote: 24.1.1. Victory Point Locations and Values Cities and urban hexes have the following point values: Heavy Urban - 5 Light Urban - 3 City - 1 National Capital - +5 (Moscow, Berlin, Bucharest, Budapest, Bratislava, Helsinki) quote: ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000 I think scenarios have their own way of calculating VPs, but I don't know how radically they can be modded. Yes, scenarios are different. The problem is that you can only add VPs to a total of 10 locations per side. Modifying the VPs for cities in the grand campaign scenarios is not really possible/easy, as a lot of the data seems to be hard-coded. To be honest, looking at most of the suggestions for auto-victory, they seem almost unachievable anyways - at least I haven't seen any AARs get all those locations in the map above in 1941. Basically, if you can achieve those goals in 1941, you will probably be able to either win with the already implemented rules in 42 or 43, or be so far in the east that the Soviet player doesn't have a chance anyways.

Michael T -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 4:36:39 AM)
This is an example of the Soviet win line in November 1941. Points total is 195. So if Germany has only 195 pts or less then the Soviets get a Sudden Death Victory. [image]local://upfiles/22630/F4D1C12D3C374851AFE571F641A72593.jpg[/image]

Aurelian -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 4:37:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wadortch quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian Which still doesn't change the fact you and the opponent can make their own. Which also doesn't change the fact that just because it does get coded, those in favor of it may not accept it. Which means that you and the opponent can make their own rule. Quite true. What is your point? I take it does not matter what SD rule is arrived at you would not use it anyway, right? If that is so, why are you wasting your time here in this thread? There already is one. And it seems that it isn't enough. That people are not happy with. Given that, any SD rule is going to be divisive. And, it is my time to waste. If you think people are just going to say yes/no and not discuss it, well, you're wrong.

Flaviusx -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 5:52:24 AM)
Micheal T...why on earth would any Soviet want a sudden death win in 1941? That's boring. That's before it even gets interesting. I just don't get this. You guys are trying to reinvent the Barbarossa campaign and stick it into the Grand Campaign and force a premature (and historically preposterous) ending to said GC. Hitler isn't throwing the towel in 1941 just because he doesn't reach this arbitrary stop line. Nor does Stalin. If I'm playing the Grand Campaign I want to be Grand. That is to say, to the bitter end. Be it to in the Reichstag or the Urals.

gradenko2k -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 5:59:11 AM)
Except the Urals isn't a feasible target, is it? The prospects of the German player in relation to his auto-victory is that this is almost a defensive war - all of the territory you take from Russia is there only to serve as a buffer zone between the Red Army and the Reichstag, and any casualties you inflict on him serve only to delay his march on Berlin. Is it realistic? Given the lopsided-ness of the German and Soviet war economies, yes. Is it also realistic to expect that the Soviets wouldn't surrender until the AA line was taken, and maybe not even after that? Also yes. Does it make for a good game? That's arguable.

Flaviusx -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 6:10:54 AM)
Look, I'm just having a hard time swallowing this even from the standpoint of the Soviet win. I mean, what we're saying here is Hitler counts up his VP at the end of 1941, sees he's got 195, and surrenders to the Soviet Union with his army hundreds of miles deep into the Soviet Union. Talk about a stab in the back! These conditions are fine if we're talking about strictly a 1941 scenario. (Which already is there.) But for determining the end of the war in GC context?

Michael T -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 6:57:03 AM)
Why all the fuss? It would be an optional. You don't like it fine. Don't use it. I would still play either way with or without it. But I have my reasons for liking the idea. It's not new to me. I have played plenty of games (inc CG types) that use sudden death. I especially like the way SD ends one sided games early. Who wants to spend months on end playing out a game that is clearly over yet an obstinate opponent refuses to surrender? Thats what I call boring.

alfonso -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 10:32:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wadortch I am working with several people to produce a SIMPLE and easy to code rule that does not involve significant redesign of the existing game and hope to post that on this thread soon. It is very laudable that you and your friends take the burden of responsibility and prepare a new optional rule that is supposed to be included in the game for everyone. But what if the line proposed by you does not work as intended with regards at “balance”, “historicity” and “interest”. Would you require a re-coding? I would like to suggest instead that before any coding requirement is made, and due that the rules (I see that there is already more than one suggestion) you propose are in principle calculable with a pencil and a paper, the players in favor of that new rule playtest such an option, playing among yourselves Grand Campaigns with ad hoc house rules. Once a minimum sample of AARs (let’s say, 10?) with such house rules are delivered to the gaming community, we players could vote in a more informed and responsible way.

Rasputitsa -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 11:25:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Look, I'm just having a hard time swallowing this even from the standpoint of the Soviet win. I mean, what we're saying here is Hitler counts up his VP at the end of 1941, sees he's got 195, and surrenders to the Soviet Union with his army hundreds of miles deep into the Soviet Union. Talk about a stab in the back! These conditions are fine if we're talking about strictly a 1941 scenario. (Which already is there.) But for determining the end of the war in GC context? What you could say is that when things start to go badly (measured by VP) for the Germans in 1941, but more likely 1942 and even more likely 1943, etc., someone puts a bomb on his plane, or under the map table and tries to negotiate a way out of the mess. Would the bomb go off, will the Soviets negotiate, we never got to see Nazi Germany without Hitler, so we will never know, but it is a possible outcome. The problem seems to be in giving both sides something to play for, as in reality and without hindsight, it was the hope of eventual victory that kept the forces in the field, during the early years.

DTurtle -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 12:35:31 PM)
Don't most games end prematurely anyway, with one side giving up? Isn't that already a win for one side or the other? If the situation is so hopeless (in the eyes of one player) that that player gives up, then the other player has already won a "sudden death" victory. Similarly, if both players are willing to fight on, then why should they be stopped? The Soviets didn't give up, and neither did the Germans (ok, some small areas were still unoccupied, but they were tiny). I just don't see what any additional sudden death rules would bring to the game.

gradenko2k -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 1:24:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Look, I'm just having a hard time swallowing this even from the standpoint of the Soviet win. I mean, what we're saying here is Hitler counts up his VP at the end of 1941, sees he's got 195, and surrenders to the Soviet Union with his army hundreds of miles deep into the Soviet Union. Talk about a stab in the back! These conditions are fine if we're talking about strictly a 1941 scenario. (Which already is there.) But for determining the end of the war in GC context? I would agree with you insofar as not liking the idea of a sudden-death situation on the part of the Soviets if the Germans don't hit their historical watermarks. My remarks were mostly aimed at the final sentence of your post with regards to a fight that lasts until the Reichstag or the Urals. The Soviets can look forward to the former. The Germans cannot look forward to the latter.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875