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

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



Message

pzgndr -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 1:53:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
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.


No. No. No. It's obvious you and several others don't get this. It's not about Hitler or Stalin surrendering or anything else beyond a simple comparision of player performance to the historical record; you guys keep trying to make this into something more. It's about two people playing a game with established victory conditions that allow for a possible early decisive victory for either side. That's it, that's all it is. It provides BOTH players incentive to stretch for an early game victory or at least to deny their opponent an early game victory. While playing a game. What's so difficult to understand about that?? That's how a lot of us grew up playing these old Russian Front boardgames (which perhaps you never played?) so it's a reasonable expectation that a computer game version could provide comparable game victory conditions like we're used to playing with. For a game. [8|]



pzgndr -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 1:59:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

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.
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.


Bingo. +1

The one code change might be to add this check for the Soviet player? So both sides have decisive victory conditions. That's important; decisive victory is not just for Axis.



wadortch -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 2:43:27 PM)

Hello
I think you have it, Michael T, and suggest you flesh it out further. And, PG, I believe the way Michael has it constructed there would be checks for the Soviet win as well throughout the game.



janh -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 3:01:40 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!


Good point. As with so many other factors (enemy force statistics, leader values etc., combat returns, unit stats), there is a large fraction of FOW missing. In fact a player should perhaps not know exactly the "gamey"-value of a victory site. He will know that Leningrad is very important, or Moscow or Rostov. Much of this value will arise naturally from its strategic location, railway infrastructure, population, or industry anyway.

Maybe the VP values should be hidden and within a given range around the present values be randomized? Say by 10-25%? Then on average the victory conditions would be like they are now, but on occasion it would be easier to defeat either side, on occasion harder?
As an Axis player, for example, not knowing exactly what will trigger defeat except that it will have to do with eliminating the Red Army as a force in being and taking key centers, you may be surprised that the Soviets suddenly surrender after the fall of Moscow in autumn 41, although in another game you could take also Stalingrad and Baku and still the Red Bear will regain its balance and strength in the Urals and not fall apart?

Same for the Soviets, maybe you wouldn't even have to take Berlin in all games? Sounds much better than anything based on known, fixed VP conditions that will always send a player in a known fashion for the same targets, in all-or-nothing style.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DTurtle
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.


My thought... but I think what player want to affect here is to have a definite criterion to win by performing an excellent (not necessarily over-expansive) offensive in 41 or 42. Not only just a chance that the opponent might call it quits, but a tool to force the opponent to admit a virtual defeat. I would indeed support such a rule, but only if the final determination of the victor would come with a dice roll, i.e. even if all VP locs are taken and held, that only with a small-% chance per turn the other side really asks for a cease fire and admits a defeat. If there is a good chance that the fighting will go on, neither side will overextend his forces in a largely gamey fashion just because of a fictional rule that wouldn't have to do with the War on the East anymore...





Aurelian -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 3:50:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

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.





Exactly. Don't want to play a Grand Campaign of some 200 turns if it can end in 10. To lose because of bad play is one thing. To do so because of some arbitrary stop line is something else.



pzgndr -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 4:21:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
As with so many other factors (enemy force statistics, leader values etc., combat returns, unit stats), there is a large fraction of FOW missing.
Maybe the VP values should be hidden and within a given range around the present values be randomized?
for example, not knowing exactly what will trigger defeat


This is entertaining in its own way I guess. wadortch is arguing for apples, while others are arguing against oranges. Totally non sequitor. Too funny!



Flaviusx -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 4:34:16 PM)

Aurelian, I don't even want to win in 10 turns. This isn't very satisfying. Can we get in a dinner, flirting, and some foreplay here?




Rasputitsa -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 5:36:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

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.





Exactly. Don't want to play a Grand Campaign of some 200 turns if it can end in 10. To lose because of bad play is one thing. To do so because of some arbitrary stop line is something else.


Well if the German attack fails in the first 10 turns, such that it triggers SD criteria wouldn't that be an impressive Soviet performance worthy of a decisive victory. Likewise if the Germans get well beyond their historical lines (as they would need, to trigger SD) in 10 weeks, again that would also be well worth a decisive victory. Like to see the AARs on those games, be much more exciting than 200+ turns, grinding to an inevitable finale.[;)]



gradenko2k -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 6:00:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Exactly. Don't want to play a Grand Campaign of some 200 turns if it can end in 10. To lose because of bad play is one thing. To do so because of some arbitrary stop line is something else.

I would argue that losing so much territory in 10 turns that it triggers whatever revised auto-victory rule that has been hypothetically implemented may well be an indicator of being outplayed.



Gandalf -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 6:42:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso


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.



+1



johnnyvagas -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 6:51:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf


quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso


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.



+1


+2. Play testing of a new auto victory format for WiTE ten or so times is a good idea. And testing the above auto victory ten times probably represents ten more play tests than were conducted on the current WiTE victory conditions. [;)]



sillyflower -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 7:37:45 PM)

I vote no to original suggestion ie I would not use but don't care about what consenting adult players agree between themselves in the privacy of a server/pbem game.

Michael T's idea is an improvement. I don't want to play a game that only lasts 10 turns but if players are a mismatch, a short game is usual/kinder anyway. I've only had 3 games out of 15+ last as long as 1st winter mud -and that did not include me being thrashed by Michael T[sm=sign0063.gif]. Can just make it v hard to get early auto victory.

Actually I still prefer a points per VP hex per turn/month/whatever formula as being most likely to make players behave more 'realistically' as behaviour follows rewards. You can even add in VPs for G capturing HI/vehicle factories if you agree with Pelton's criticism of Russians who leave them behind.



Aurelian -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 7:55:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Aurelian, I don't even want to win in 10 turns. This isn't very satisfying. Can we get in a dinner, flirting, and some foreplay here?





I hope so. Throw in some breakfast too.



Michael T -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 9:27:20 PM)

I am happy to work out the numbers but we need concensus on dates for the checks as the dates obviously influence the required number of victory points. Also there will be debate on the numbers. But the dates need to determined first. I am still a fan of the AH Russian Front check points, end of November and end of May.



Michael T -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 9:28:18 PM)

Still waiting on those ashes David :)



sillyflower -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/13/2011 11:05:22 PM)

I've left them in the dogs' bedroom for you to collect whenever you want[sm=innocent0001.gif]

NB please remove any glasses, your watch etc first as those items are hard to digest



wadortch -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/14/2011 1:24:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Aurelian, I don't even want to win in 10 turns. This isn't very satisfying. Can we get in a dinner, flirting, and some foreplay here?



Hey, it would be simply great if you and Aurelian could go out to dinner and explore those other possibilities and leave this thread alone.

Neither of you are interested in the rule, neither of you have to use it and you can play 200 turns any time you care too.

What's up really with your nonconstructive and and provocative behavior here?

I really don't understand why there is such a huge concern that an such optional rule would be coded and tried. Give us a break please.

I'll send either one of your a Groupon deal for your dinner.





Flaviusx -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/14/2011 1:28:24 AM)

If you guys were doing it on your own, I wouldn't care. But you want this coded into the game, and that I object to.




wadortch -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/14/2011 1:38:29 AM)

Thank you for this straightforward answer.

Why do you object to such an optional rule being coded?




Flaviusx -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/14/2011 1:43:10 AM)

I think it's bad design and inconsistent with the purposes of the game. I think it is seriously ahistorical. I think it is gamey in the worst possible way, and the wrong way to address perceived problems in the game, which ought to be resolved by making it more accurate and historical rather than less.

I'm not against sudden death rules in different games and different contexts. I think it worked very well, for example, in Proud Monster. But that was more of a game than a simulation. This title leans towards the simulation (not enough, to be sure) and this proposed changed would dilute that goal.




Aurelian -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/14/2011 2:02:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Aurelian, I don't even want to win in 10 turns. This isn't very satisfying. Can we get in a dinner, flirting, and some foreplay here?



Hey, it would be simply great if you and Aurelian could go out to dinner and explore those other possibilities and leave this thread alone.



Ain't gonna happen. So deal with it.

This is more simulation than a game. I don't want "gamey" limits or crutches put in because one side can't win the way *they* think they should.

I may not articulate it as well as Flav, but I'm in agreement.



wadortch -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/14/2011 2:03:54 AM)

OK.

You have not convinced me that an optional rule that will be used by players who have different views about the simulation or the game than you do is harmful. Players who feel as you do, don't use the rule. Players who want to experiment with a rule that may very well increase the historical feel (in their opinion!) of the game can chose to use it.

Your most recent proposal to "fix" the game regarding assessment of more equipment losses during German retreats is a good example of what I understand would require complicated coding work by 2x3 games which they have indicated they are not ready to undertake at this time. And which could significantly affect the actual present mechanical balance of the game.

The optional SD rule has no such mechanical implications. It's influence will be on the behavior of the players who chose to use it, not on the underlying engine in the game itself--fixes to which can be considered by 2x3 games when their resources allow.










JAMiAM -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/14/2011 2:05:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Aurelian, I don't even want to win in 10 turns. This isn't very satisfying. Can we get in a dinner, flirting, and some foreplay here?



Hey, it would be simply great if you and Aurelian could go out to dinner and explore those other possibilities and leave this thread alone.



Ain't gonna happen. So deal with it.

Ahhh...why not? I thought you two would make a cute couple. I hear that if you nibble on his ear and call him "Konstantin" he's putty in your hands...[:D][X(][:-]



Aurelian -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/14/2011 2:09:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: wadortch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Aurelian, I don't even want to win in 10 turns. This isn't very satisfying. Can we get in a dinner, flirting, and some foreplay here?



Hey, it would be simply great if you and Aurelian could go out to dinner and explore those other possibilities and leave this thread alone.



Ain't gonna happen. So deal with it.

Ahhh...why not? I thought you two would make a cute couple. I hear that if you nibble on his ear and call him "Konstantin" he's putty in your hands...[:D][X(][:-]


[:D][:D]



gradenko2k -> RE: Vote for Sudden Death Rule- (12/14/2011 2:56:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I think it's bad design and inconsistent with the purposes of the game. I think it is seriously ahistorical. I think it is gamey in the worst possible way, and the wrong way to address perceived problems in the game, which ought to be resolved by making it more accurate and historical rather than less.

I'm not against sudden death rules in different games and different contexts. I think it worked very well, for example, in Proud Monster. But that was more of a game than a simulation. This title leans towards the simulation (not enough, to be sure) and this proposed changed would dilute that goal.


How would you rather address the freedom of movement that the Soviets currently enjoy? As I understand it, you either take control away from the Soviet player, or you give him victory conditions that oblige him to stick around, but on his own terms.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1