Matrix : Please "tweak" the victory conditions.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Matrix : Please "tweak" the victory conditions.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Matrix : Please "tweak" the victory conditions.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Matrix : Please "tweak" the victory conditions. - 5/7/2003 10:26:59 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Ok, so victory conditions are simply a label that says "Yay, you won!" it doesn't really mean anything. Let me emphasize that I am talking about the actual -numbers- that determine victory. I am -NOT- talking about side balancing.

I'm just talking about the simple, raw victory pionts that are used to reflect who "won". While "Congratualations! You won!" is just a label, it -is- what players are striving for in UV. Nobody wants to "play a good game, to always lose" (again, even if it is just a label).

Presently, there appears to be VERY little chance for the IJN player to win the long campaigns by victory points. The best hope of the IJN players is to secure one of the bases that will allow him a auto victory in December 31, 1942.

I'm going to start with the auto victory option, I don't like it because :
a. It doesn't really simulate anything historic. If the IJN had caputred Luganville, there wouldn't be a world ending apocolypse that wiped out the Allies from the South Pacific. Neither would the US and Oz and simply give up on that supply route. Would it have been more challenging, and probably prolonged the war? Probably yes. But the Allies would -still- have kept coming.
b. Most importantly, it allows players to game the game. If you're losing as IJN, you can still throw all your toys togther into one massive collection of TFs, and dump as many men onto a southern base on December 29th and the game is yours. It doesn't matter that your fleet probably completely decimated, and your gambit should collapse by January 3rd; it doesn't matter because the Allies have mysteriously surrendered.
c. And no, I -didn't- lose because of anyone "gaming" the auto-victory situation.

So what do IJN players do to attempt to win the game? They forced into being EXTREMELY agressive in the first few months, in order to have any hope of attaining auto-victory and/or to buy time for a "fighting withdrawl" from PM, Luganville, or even Oz. The IJN player is FORCED into a stratagy of unhistorical aggressivness that relies upon alot of luck and a completely ridiculous foreknowledge of Allied deployments. IJN players -must- push PM and Luganville. And they know the defenses of these bases because they've played the game before. They often know how to "sweep the map" in the first few months, in order to set up a decenet defensive position in order to give them any hope of winning.

But the IJN player shouldn't -HAVE- to be this reckless in order to win. The IJN shouldn't -HAVE- to kill PM within the first 6 months or game over. The IJN shouldn't even have to consider building a TF to capture a southern base that you have to hold for thru New Years Eve of 1942, thus bringing down the wrath of the Great Samuri Warrior that smites all of the forces of the puny Allies at midnight. Beyond June 1942, the IJN player should be able to be on the defensive, and still be the potential victor in 1943 (as long as he surpasses what the IJN accomplished historically).

So we're back to victory points.

It seems to me that, if the IJN player plays a reasonably good game and thus approaches what the IJN accomplished HISTORICALLY, the game should be a DRAW. If the IJN does better than the ending situation on December 31, 1943; the game should be a victory for IJN. If he get's clobbered worse than the IJN did historically, it should be a USN victory. It's as simple as that.

Granted, in UV, players are ALOT more agressive than they were historically, and certainly have more ships and planes available, so things are bloodier. But that can be taken into account.

The control of bases and ships lost on December 31, 1943 is a matter of historical record. Wouldn't it be easy enough to allocate the VP distribution to create the situation where if the sitiuation in-game on December 31, 1943 was the same as it was historically, that the game would be a draw?

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Post #: 1

- 5/7/2003 11:28:44 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

This is not a bad idea, basing "game victory" on the historical time-line. More so since it is fact that Japan's "window of opportunity" in the SoPac theater is early on in the war, in fact even earlier to a degree than the period covered by UV. Once that window closes, they can only hope to make it costly for the Allies.

So given the inevitability of US victory except early on in the campaign, what else to base "game victory" on rather than to judge the players reletive position based on the actual timeline?

Reminds me in a way of VP generation in Grigsby games of old. Back then you did not have a running score to look at, it was generated at the end of the last turn and was based both on bases held but also at times on the points based on your side's #'s after the last turn (in this case, ships, planes and soldiers)

Course thats the spanner in the works too......you cant really just base victory on the front lines, but also have to take into account the condition of yours and the enemies's OOB's.

One thing that would help, i've always felt, was to make unoccupied base sites neutral, and not in the possession of either player. However this would require signifigant coding changes and i'm not confident it would be considered seriously.

I hate playing "dot wars" during a PBEM as it does not feel very realistic, but often feel i dont have a choice, esp since they can be used for scouting and secret base building and are worth victory points.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 2

- 5/7/2003 11:37:09 PM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

So by going to the historical record, you can tally the points for all ships, bases, lost or gained over time and establish a baseline for Japan which you could compare your present score at any point in time to see if you are doing better(winning) than the historical record? You could also do this for allies but I don't know how you could compare it against the Japanese score.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 3

- 5/8/2003 5:19:08 AM

Bradman

Posts: 47
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Good idea!

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 4

- 5/8/2003 5:27:37 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

To quote myself, my definition of a wargame is as follows:

My view of a wargame is this: It took the British �X� days to defeat the Argies in the Falklands. In a wargame:

-if the British player wins in X-1 days then he wins the game
-if the British player wins in X+1 days then the Argie player wins

In that manner, any conflict can be gamed and either player has a chance of victory. Even the Argis in the Falklands.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 5

- 5/8/2003 6:14:17 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

I get what you are saying completely as I am one of those folks who advocate strongly for the Auto Victory option as pretty much the only valid measure of your success.

Since we play scenario 17/19 pretty much exclusively you simply put can not escape from the fact that the air power from the B-17/B-24 in the game will completely remove Japan's navy in a matter of a few months. There is nothing that Japan can do to even take the edge off. This is completely non-historical. Even if you shuffle things around and deal with whether or not Midway happened or not, no single element makes or breaks this battle.

Each side has a fair chance at leaving it's mark UNTIL these bombers show up in numbers at which point in time, there is no chance at all. Base after base, ship after ship, all down the drain, no matter how good you have played, no matter how poorly the Allied player plays, as long as they have not lost Noumea or Brisbane, the game is over.

All the Allies need to win the game is 1 transport and their air power. Due to a combination of ENG dot overbuilding and the sheer number of bases that can be power built to grant score points, it becomes a mute point as the base point scores exceed ship/troop/plane scores in fairly short order.

I would much prefer a timed base VP, where each turn a base remained in your possession, you were awarded points, with the level of points being set by the actual strategic value (such as Luganville) OR set by the shock value (Japan owns Townsville???? OMG!!).

Cv's have nicely been toned down in 2.30 to make them no longer the "he shoots - he wins" weapon. Now we need to bring land based airpower down a few notches and get rid of auto-victory (an option switch?) ... how many of you would play onwards if it wasn't for the B17/24 nightmare?

The fact that any base at all including a size 9/9 can be closed by airpower in 2-3 turns of abuse is just too far out there. I know it is a balancing act when adjusting things like this but if this bleeds through to WitP, it will be a show stopper, just as it currently is a game ender in UV. Land based aircraft just didn't have that kind of power during UV's timeframe.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 6

- 5/8/2003 6:24:21 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

There have been many discussion re victory conditions in almost every wargame I played over the years, sometimes (as in case of TOAW) there were discussions re particular scenarios (not the game as a whole).

I'm against "let's measure the success against the history" school of thought in most cases.

It is OK to use it only in borderline cases, where we all know one side CANNOT win in "regular" manner.

Good example here is Operation Marita (and the namesake scenario for TOAW). It's about Axis attack on Yugoslavia and Greece in 41. It is perfectly understandable Allies cannot win (win, as in "beat the crap outta Germans") in this scenario, so the designer decided to measure the success of Allied player against historic results. Starting with historic date of fall of Athens - Allied player gains points for every turn he manages to stave off defeat.

But Athens will inevitably fall one day, only question is - when? So using the "better than history" rule is understandable.

In every situation where there MIGHT be a chance for "regular" campaign victory. however slim, I am against "you get the points for doing better than history" rule. Example: various Barbarossa scenarios. To me, if you do better than Germans did historically, but fail to take Moscov, Leningrad etc. - you STILL deserved to lose. Wargaming is not chess, and sides are not made equal.

Using the "better than history to win" rule in UV would, IMO; mean admitting that IJN cannot win under current rules, not even in #19, and I am still not convinced of that!

Still, I agree IJN auto victory rules are strange to say the least, and gamey. Allies would not simply abandon the theatre after the fall of Townsville, for instance - quite the contrary.

O.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 7

- 5/8/2003 7:29:14 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

Still, I agree IJN auto victory rules are strange to say the least, and gamey. Allies would not simply abandon the theatre after the fall of Townsville, for instance - quite the contrary.

O. [/B][/QUOTE]

-I agree with you too....those rules are very strange. Maybe they add playability (an a chance of IJN winning), but as far as history is of concern, I see no meaning in them.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 8

- 5/8/2003 8:40:20 AM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

Feinder and I were discussing this last night after I called off our game. I outlined why in one of the earlier posts, but here is my thoughts on what he wrote up above.

It is a very valid way to determine victory, and certianly one that is not all that difficult to implement. Just as the "auto-victory" coding probably is one of the simpler parts of that game.

In our ex-current game, my only hope was to make a very UNREALISTIC attempt to take a base and trigger the auto victory. I was in a marginally better position to sit back and react to his moves defensively, but as someone pointed out above, once the 4 engine allied bombers arrive on scene, no place is safe defensively.

So what choice does the Japanese player really have...? Only one...commit the Japanese troops in a manner in which they PROBABLY never would have been committed. Mass all my stuff for a final assault and hope that it works (does sort of sound Japanese like) but with very little hope of actually winning.

I may have been able to trigger auto victory had I been able to get my troops on the ground and keep them there long enough to take the base. Feinder built up a very large number of airfields early on in the game when we both assumed that when an airfield was taken, it would revert back to a smaller field. He told me he had about a division at each one, which I might have managed to overcome with a little luck, but personally I feel the auto victory just games the system a bit. No Japanese commander would have blaze into the middle of a hornets nest of 4-5 level 9 airfields just to take one of them on January 1 to trigger that auto victory.

Well,

Its a good idea Feinder, and hopefully they look at it and consider it as a viable means of victory. Even if its ONE way to win out of several.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 9

- 5/8/2003 9:22:10 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knavey
[B]Feinder and I were discussing this last night after I called off our game. I outlined why in one of the earlier posts, but here is my thoughts on what he wrote up above.

It is a very valid way to determine victory, and certianly one that is not all that difficult to implement. Just as the "auto-victory" coding probably is one of the simpler parts of that game.

In our ex-current game, my only hope was to make a very UNREALISTIC attempt to take a base and trigger the auto victory. I was in a marginally better position to sit back and react to his moves defensively, but as someone pointed out above, once the 4 engine allied bombers arrive on scene, no place is safe defensively.

So what choice does the Japanese player really have...? Only one...commit the Japanese troops in a manner in which they PROBABLY never would have been committed. Mass all my stuff for a final assault and hope that it works (does sort of sound Japanese like) but with very little hope of actually winning.

I may have been able to trigger auto victory had I been able to get my troops on the ground and keep them there long enough to take the base. Feinder built up a very large number of airfields early on in the game when we both assumed that when an airfield was taken, it would revert back to a smaller field. He told me he had about a division at each one, which I might have managed to overcome with a little luck, but personally I feel the auto victory just games the system a bit. No Japanese commander would have blaze into the middle of a hornets nest of 4-5 level 9 airfields just to take one of them on January 1 to trigger that auto victory.

Well,

Its a good idea Feinder, and hopefully they look at it and consider it as a viable means of victory. Even if its ONE way to win out of several. [/B][/QUOTE]Well I have lost as Allies to a better Japanese player and am losing one now to a good player who is perhaps using non-historical super CV TFs and I can't blame him because what you discuss above is true. One has to resort to any means available to win while the window is open. This shortens the game between experienced opponents and perhaps kills the gaming experience. I think a significant patch is required here or give us WitP sooner.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 10

- 5/8/2003 9:35:33 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]This shortens the game between experienced opponents and perhaps kills the gaming experience. I think a significant patch is required here or give us WitP sooner. [/B][/QUOTE]

WITP? I assume most scenarios in WITP are going to be even more to the tune of what you guys complain about (ie hopeless IJN rushing to win game on "auto victory" before allies mobilize immense resources to beat the hell outta Japs - of course, assuming there's going to be auto-victory in WITP scenarios).

Only balanced scenarios I can think of may be the ones based in China/India/Burma theatre, and dealing with a) ground units and b) Chinese units, in other words totally unglamorous aspects of UV/WITP engine.

IJN was historically lost from the very beginning. Yamamoto was well aware of that. You can't tweak this fact too much and still retain historicay realism we all want from these games...

O.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 11

- 5/8/2003 9:55:12 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
[B]WITP? I assume most scenarios in WITP are going to be even more to the tune of what you guys complain about (ie hopeless IJN rushing to win game on "auto victory" before allies mobilize immense resources to beat the hell outta Japs - of course, assuming there's going to be auto-victory in WITP scenarios).

Only balanced scenarios I can think of may be the ones based in China/India/Burma theatre, and dealing with a) ground units and b) Chinese units, in other words totally unglamorous aspects of UV/WITP engine.

IJN was historically lost from the very beginning. Yamamoto was well aware of that. You can't tweak this fact too much and still retain historicay realism we all want from these games...

O. [/B][/QUOTE] Oleg, historically both Germany and Japan were doomed from the beginning, so to hold to historical conditions is to condemn all operational and strategic games to historical outcomes or irrelevance. one of the best ways to hold on to history and to provide a bilateral gaming experience ( outcomes equal to both sides) is to adopt Feinder's suggestion of victory point conditions based on an historical timeline.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 12

- 5/8/2003 10:01:55 PM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

I think the victory beat-the-historic-clock balance idea has merit - and the present conditions could use a little tweaking - but not too much. I consider myself adept at the game and I'm 3000 points behind, it is 10/43, the IJN CVs are all safe in Tokyo, mine are all damaged, I have a total of 26 transport ships - 0 MSW (and thick minefields block my advance). I took (and really, really bled for) PM, Irau, Lunga, Tulagi, Russell Islands, and Munda. IJN still has everything else - and although a brilliant admiral, I'm a crappy general. Would you believe the best I can scrounge together from all across the map (SCN 17, 100%) is 930 assault points (not including Northern command units).

So I'm out of transports, out of troops, total air superiority and my CVs rule the seas - as does my small surface fleet (6BB, 2 CA, 14 DD in theatre, lots damaged), and barely able to supply my air war. I'd say the IJN is going to win this one on points. Especially since a big late game battle against his airforce went his way to the tune of two crippled CVs, two sunk CVEs and a damaged CVL.

My successes has been as brilliant as my defeats - and although a month ago I would have said I was going to wipe the floor with him, a few well timed sub attacks on my MSWs, then a damaged transport fleet, and an exhausted group of units that were pushed through invasino after invasion in an effort to "beat the clock" to the end of '43, with fewer transports, less escorts, less air power etc. etc. I landed at GG (enough points to tie the game up if I took it) and he pushed me back into the sea - TWICE massacring my troops.

Will be a nailbiter to the finish - and I think I'm going to loose.

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 13

- 5/8/2003 10:09:38 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]Oleg, historically both Germany and Japan were doomed from the beginning, so to hold to historical conditions is to condemn all operational and strategic games to historical outcomes or irrelevance. one of the best ways to hold on to history and to provide a bilateral gaming experience ( outcomes equal to both sides) is to adopt Feinder's suggestion of victory point conditions based on an historical timeline. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think so. Axis was doomed the moment US entered the war. Up to that point (and we're talking of almost 2,5 years of war) they had good chances of winning in every campaign (tactically and operationally) and in their overall goals (strategically).

So, I would never agree that, for instance, Barbarossa "was doomed from the start".

Japan was doomed from the start in WITP and UV, simply because these games deal with attack on the US (and IMO attacking the US means you're doomed in WW2). Otherwise I wouldn't agree with you, unless you think every wargame MUST deal with US one way or another :)

O.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 14

- 5/8/2003 11:50:00 PM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
[B]I don't think so. Axis was doomed the moment US entered the war. Up to that point (and we're talking of almost 2,5 years of war) they had good chances of winning in every campaign (tactically and operationally) and in their overall goals (strategically).

So, I would never agree that, for instance, Barbarossa "was doomed from the start".

Japan was doomed from the start in WITP and UV, simply because these games deal with attack on the US (and IMO attacking the US means you're doomed in WW2). Otherwise I wouldn't agree with you, unless you think every wargame MUST deal with US one way or another :)

O. [/B][/QUOTE] Not every wargame but every operational theater in WWII involved the US eventually. If the entrance of US forces dooms the enemy in whatever theater is being played, then why play that game unless conditions can be developed to give the axis side some chance of "victory" - however that is defined. And though Barbarossa was not doomed from the start, its chances of success were diminished when the Allies(US) started running supplies into Murmansk. I could also say that as long as Hitler was running things, Barbarrosa was doomed from the start.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 15

- 5/9/2003 12:51:14 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]Not every wargame but every operational theater in WWII involved the US eventually. If the entrance of US forces dooms the enemy in whatever theater is being played, then why play that game unless conditions can be developed to give the axis side some chance of "victory" - however that is defined. And though Barbarossa was not doomed from the start, its chances of success were diminished when the Allies(US) started running supplies into Murmansk. I could also say that as long as Hitler was running things, Barbarrosa was doomed from the start. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hm, depents on how long the campaign or scenario is. I can imagine realistic German victory conditions in Bulge scenario, since the scenario/wargame deals with pretty limited operation. If you mean "Bulge plus 6 months" - then of course Allies would win.

But we're talking UV/WITP and these games are LONG ("Bulge plus 1,5 years" so to speak), they allow for US industrial might to show very well (which is fine IMO).

As for Barbarossa, I guess some Russians and Brits would politely disagree with what you said, but I won't go there :)

Also, Hitler running things is non issue. In wargames you're Hitler, you're running things, so playing "better than history" from the Axis side (and thus winning, if we follow victory conditions sugested here) should be pretty easy.

O.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 16

- 5/9/2003 4:02:53 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Remember, all we're talking about here, is arbitrary assignment of Victory Points, and how many are necessary to win.

Strictly speaking, all you really have to to do adjust the "difficulty level" is to simply handicap the number of points.

The theater, battle, or even genra makes no difference. For example, lets step away from UV, and create Oleg's "Battle of the Bulge"...

Our made-up game is the Battle of the Bulge. There are multiple scenarios within the game. One is a quick training scenario that only includes Peiper's drive towards Malmady. Here is a paradox situation, because while the Germans lost the BotB, we can take this small snap-shot, turn it into a scneario for the German player, and allow the opportunity for "victory", because we don't actually play the entire BotB. This is an "easy" scenario for the German player, because historically, Peiper had no trouble at all reaching Malmedy. It was close to Stavelot where he actually started having problems. The game includes a historically accurate OB, so again it is basically a forgone conclusion that the German player going to capture Malmedy. For the Allied player however, it is an excersise in frustration. He knows he's very, extremely, almost certainly, -NOT- going to be able to hold Malmedy. The scenario terminates before Patton shows up. It's simply a matter of how long he delay the German player.

So how do you get anyone (besides the punishment freaks) to ever want to play the Allied player? You screw with the VPs and time required to achieve victory.

Let's say Pieper reached Malmedy in 4 days. The vanilla scenario requires Pieper to capture Malmedy in 3 days or less for the win, 4 for the draw. Or if the Allied player can hold Malmedy thru the 5 day, he is awarded the victory because he has managed to do better than his historical counterpart. The Allied player can "win" even tho he's doomed to ultimately lose Malmedy.

The next is handicapping.

Lets say whatever battle were representing was a total catasrophie for one side. Example, Fredericksburg. A Union player -KNOWS- not to "charge up the hill to the wall" and get his men slaughtered. The map is large enough so that, if he wants to he can march around and flank Lee every time and thus win because he didn't recreate a blunder of history. In this case, using history as a draw is lopsided for the Union, because the Union player knows not to be incredibly stupid, and by simply not being a moron, they now win every time.

This is where the playtesters come in. They've played the game, and know what is a reasonable outcome between 2 relatively equal opponents. The victory conditions are adjusted so that the Union has to capture MORE ground than historical, or perhaps in a shorter period of time.

In UV, we're at the point of handicapping. We've all played UV, and the general consensus is that pretty much, the USN wins all the time (against a reasonably matched human opponent). We're -all- playtestors, and most of us agree that the best chance for an IJN victory is thru the auto-victory, and most of don't even like that. The IJN player is like the Allied player in BotB game. It's an excersize in damage control. The weight of the USN will most likely crush him eventually. So how do you "keep the game interesting" for the IJN player?

Without ever changing his OB, there are all sorts of ways.

Just for example, you could :
Give IJN more points for holding his bases.
Give USN less point for caturing them.
Give IJN more points for killing an American CV.
Give IJN 2 points for every B-17 shot down (just an example, because they're so darned tough *chuckle*)
Make the point range such that, a larger margin is required by the US player to "win", and less for the IJN player.
Give IJN player a vp for every pilot at the end of the game with exp > 80.
The options are endless.

Again, all we're doing is playing with the numbers. The whole assignement of VPs is strictly arbitrary. The whole point is to help to create a situation where the IJN player is -ALLOWED- to play a defensive game (which makes total sense, because he's (likely) going to eventually be overwhelmed by the USN eventually), and still have a reasonable chance of winning. The IJN player should never have to to take PM or GG or Luganville in order to win. He should be able to make a "fighting withdrawl" up the Slot and NG, with the intent to bog down the USN player (and/or generate more casuaties), and have a chance at winning.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 17

- 5/9/2003 5:19:58 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

Very well put and very well explained. How do we get Matrix to do it?

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 18

- 5/9/2003 5:30:18 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Great stuff, Feinder. I hope that intelligent design of victory conditions will put an end to the "realism vs. playability" discussions in both the UV and WITP forums. The criteria for winning the game should not affect the underlying historical simulation design. There is no reason to make aircraft, ships, and men perform in ahistorical ways just to accommodate play balance.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 19

- 5/9/2003 8:51:42 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

I'd like to see bases worth a lot less and sunk ships worth more. Right now it is possible for the allied player to amass huge points just building bases. That's wrong. Players should be awarded points for taking bases that the other side started with but get very few points for building more bases. This is espicially true if the new base is redundant to an already existing base.

I'd also like to see planes worth zero points. Planes are a means to an end not and end by theirselves. Losing a plane only hurts you if you are unable to support your other operations.

I'd like to see points for ground troop losses increased with a bigger increase for the allied player. It's harder for a democracy to fight a war if they are loosing lots of young men than it is for a totalatarian militaristic country to do so.

All of the above should also have a time factor taken into account. The longer the war goes the greater the victory points a base should be worth and the greater it should hurt you if you lose ground troops.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 20

- 5/9/2003 11:03:58 AM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Feinder
[B]Remember, all we're talking about here, is arbitrary assignment of Victory Points, and how many are necessary to win.

Strictly speaking, all you really have to to do adjust the "difficulty level" is to simply handicap the number of points.

The theater, battle, or even genra makes no difference. For example, lets step away from UV, and create Oleg's "Battle of the Bulge"...

Our made-up game is the Battle of the Bulge. There are multiple scenarios within the game. One is a quick training scenario that only includes Peiper's drive towards Malmady. Here is a paradox situation, because while the Germans lost the BotB, we can take this small snap-shot, turn it into a scneario for the German player, and allow the opportunity for "victory", because we don't actually play the entire BotB. This is an "easy" scenario for the German player, because historically, Peiper had no trouble at all reaching Malmedy. It was close to Stavelot where he actually started having problems. The game includes a historically accurate OB, so again it is basically a forgone conclusion that the German player going to capture Malmedy. For the Allied player however, it is an excersise in frustration. He knows he's very, extremely, almost certainly, -NOT- going to be able to hold Malmedy. The scenario terminates before Patton shows up. It's simply a matter of how long he delay the German player.

So how do you get anyone (besides the punishment freaks) to ever want to play the Allied player? You screw with the VPs and time required to achieve victory.

Let's say Pieper reached Malmedy in 4 days. The vanilla scenario requires Pieper to capture Malmedy in 3 days or less for the win, 4 for the draw. Or if the Allied player can hold Malmedy thru the 5 day, he is awarded the victory because he has managed to do better than his historical counterpart. The Allied player can "win" even tho he's doomed to ultimately lose Malmedy.

The next is handicapping.

Lets say whatever battle were representing was a total catasrophie for one side. Example, Fredericksburg. A Union player -KNOWS- not to "charge up the hill to the wall" and get his men slaughtered. The map is large enough so that, if he wants to he can march around and flank Lee every time and thus win because he didn't recreate a blunder of history. In this case, using history as a draw is lopsided for the Union, because the Union player knows not to be incredibly stupid, and by simply not being a moron, they now win every time.

This is where the playtesters come in. They've played the game, and know what is a reasonable outcome between 2 relatively equal opponents. The victory conditions are adjusted so that the Union has to capture MORE ground than historical, or perhaps in a shorter period of time.

In UV, we're at the point of handicapping. We've all played UV, and the general consensus is that pretty much, the USN wins all the time (against a reasonably matched human opponent). We're -all- playtestors, and most of us agree that the best chance for an IJN victory is thru the auto-victory, and most of don't even like that. The IJN player is like the Allied player in BotB game. It's an excersize in damage control. The weight of the USN will most likely crush him eventually. So how do you "keep the game interesting" for the IJN player?

Without ever changing his OB, there are all sorts of ways.

Just for example, you could :
Give IJN more points for holding his bases.
Give USN less point for caturing them.
Give IJN more points for killing an American CV.
Give IJN 2 points for every B-17 shot down (just an example, because they're so darned tough *chuckle*)
Make the point range such that, a larger margin is required by the US player to "win", and less for the IJN player.
Give IJN player a vp for every pilot at the end of the game with exp > 80.
The options are endless.

Again, all we're doing is playing with the numbers. The whole assignement of VPs is strictly arbitrary. The whole point is to help to create a situation where the IJN player is -ALLOWED- to play a defensive game (which makes total sense, because he's (likely) going to eventually be overwhelmed by the USN eventually), and still have a reasonable chance of winning. The IJN player should never have to to take PM or GG or Luganville in order to win. He should be able to make a "fighting withdrawl" up the Slot and NG, with the intent to bog down the USN player (and/or generate more casuaties), and have a chance at winning.

-F- [/B][/QUOTE]

He's a smart one...yes he is...any thoughts from Matrix on this?

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 21

- 5/9/2003 11:15:20 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

Of course Feinder's points are applicable to all WWII wargames,since the Allies were destined to win. Except Pacwar was a japanese win due to unhistorical gameplay. It could have been modified according to Feinder"s ideas. i hope Matrix can incorporate this refined scoring procedure.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 22

- 5/9/2003 11:57:58 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]Of course Feinder's points are applicable to all WWII wargames,since the Allies were destined to win. Except Pacwar was a japanese win due to unhistorical gameplay. It could have been modified according to Feinder"s ideas. i hope Matrix can incorporate this refined scoring procedure. [/B][/QUOTE]

The perception is that all historical situations are inherently imbalanced. Somebody won. To simulate them in a satisfactory way for gameplayers means that you either have to superimpose victory conditions that make the game balanced or destroy the historical simulation in order to give the players an even chance to win.

It's not "scoring." It's "historical simulation gaming." Some of us have been at it now for 40 years and understand it. Give it a try. It works. The only failures are incompetent designers, indifferent players, and insufficient commentators.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 23

A point missing there - 5/9/2003 6:21:48 PM

rich91a

Posts: 51
Joined: 7/27/2002
From: Sydney
Status: offline

Pasternakski,

A major part of this thread is about challenge and competition leading to involvement and enjoyment.

This is competitive historical simulation gaming.

Trying to beat your opponent's performance and your own previous performances.

The aim here is to remodel the current victory points / conditions to enhance challenge and replayability, increasing involvement and enjoyment.

The best way I can think of doing this would be to:

Code the editor to allow victory point values to be editable.

Set the IJN auto-victory condition as an option.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 24

- 5/9/2003 6:31:28 PM

Subchaser

Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline

Sorry this is a little bit out of topic, concerning Drex statement

I think this is almost correct, if you�ll cut off �into Murmansk�. Soviet successes in 1942-43 relied on material basis, 60% of which were Allied supplies. Offensive abilities of Soviet Army in 1944 were almost on 50% based on US supplies (strategic raw-materials and transport vehicles primary).

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 25

- 5/9/2003 6:35:12 PM

Mike_B20

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Victory or defeat to me are measured in how successfully I can achieve my short term and long term objectives and how successfully I can deny my opponent his.

I've never really payed much attention to end of game victory/defeat status and the idea of picking up a base to trigger an automatic victory has absolutely no appeal to me.

One of the things making UV such a fun game is every turn contains many minor events adding up to a pretty convincing recreation of what it must have felt to be a commander in the South Pacific.
Can I build up that base and defend it?
Can I resupply another base without losing too many ships in the process?
etc

I think if both players can have a good challenging contest it doesn't really matter who officially wins. It is up to the players themselves to judge how they went.

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 26

- 5/9/2003 7:28:09 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Subchaser
[B]Sorry this is a little bit out of topic, concerning Drex statement

I think this is almost correct, if you�ll cut off �into Murmansk�. Soviet successes in 1942-43 relied on material basis, 60% of which were Allied supplies. Offensive abilities of Soviet Army in 1944 were almost on 50% based on US supplies (strategic raw-materials and transport vehicles primary). [/B][/QUOTE]

This is way off topic but I can't let it pass...

First off, I think better part of Allied Soviet supplies went in actually by the way of Vladivostok (not Murmansk), with silent consent of the Japanese (who didn't want to annoy the Soviets too much, they didn't need another enemy at the time). This is historically much less "glamorous" way of entry when compared with eventful and dramatical Murmansk run, but it was more useful. And let's not forget the Iran way too.

Some Barbarossa scenarios over-rate the German (possible) capture of Murmansk. Even if it was captured supplies would have been brought in via Vladivostok and Iran.

And as of Murmansk - Royal Navy bore the brunt of the action there (although most of supplies themselves were from US of course) so they deserve at least a "honorable mention", don't they? :)

Just to add - it is my belief Soviets would win eventually, even without US help, just as US would win the Pacific War evetually even if the Midway went the other way, or without atomic bomb. It would take longer but they would win.

O.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 27

- 5/9/2003 10:30:25 PM

kentaggie

Posts: 9
Joined: 5/5/2003
From: Katy, Tx
Status: offline

1) The auto victory conditions are ridiculous for the reasons mentioned in the previous posts - Just because Luganville or Brisbane is taken the US doesn't just pull out of SWPAC. Way too gamey.

2) Why does everyone play the ahistorical #17 & 19? Because they are the most balanced scenarios in the game! Even with that if the USN survives the uber-IJN CV TF for the first 3 months w/out losing much, they will slowly gain the advantage. By mid '43, for the most part, the writing is on the wall. I have read post after post and after action reports galore to know that once the Heavy bombers and Corsairs arrive in numbers - and are used correctly - than its all over exept the cryin'.

Don't get me wrong. I love this game! But the reason we play these games are to measure ourselves against history. I think I could do better, even against impossible odds. Base objectives on that, not some gamey move on December 31.

BTW, While I agree Japan was doomed, Germany came **** close to succeeding. What if Moscow fell?

_____________________________

"What in the wide, wide world of sports is a going on here?"

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 28

- 5/10/2003 12:40:09 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kentaggie
[B]1) The auto victory conditions are ridiculous for the reasons mentioned in the previous posts - Just because Luganville or Brisbane is taken the US doesn't just pull out of SWPAC. Way too gamey.

2) Why does everyone play the ahistorical #17 & 19? Because they are the most balanced scenarios in the game! Even with that if the USN survives the uber-IJN CV TF for the first 3 months w/out losing much, they will slowly gain the advantage. By mid '43, for the most part, the writing is on the wall. I have read post after post and after action reports galore to know that once the Heavy bombers and Corsairs arrive in numbers - and are used correctly - than its all over exept the cryin'.

Don't get me wrong. I love this game! But the reason we play these games are to measure ourselves against history. I think I could do better, even against impossible odds. Base objectives on that, not some gamey move on December 31.

BTW, While I agree Japan was doomed, Germany came **** close to succeeding. What if Moscow fell? [/B][/QUOTE] What if Moscow fell? Stalin already had contingencies for a new capital should Moscow fall. Look at the Soviet Union. Stalin had a lot of room to fall back and Germany could not have maintained a supply line with all the partisans in between. Remember Napoleon won Moscow but all he got out of it was a burning city and a long retreat.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 29

- 5/10/2003 1:31:05 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kentaggie
[B]- Just because Luganville or Brisbane is taken the US doesn't just pull out of SWPAC. Way too gamey.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I believe if Luganville was taken the US WOULD pull out of Noumea because that base would be unsafe as a base of operations. The war would continue but the South Pacific would belong to the Japanese...at least for the moment. Since this game is about warfare in the South Pacific it is quite reasonable to consider this a victory and end the game at that point.

[QUOTE][B]
2) Why does everyone play the ahistorical #17 & 19?
[/B][/QUOTE]

One of my friends also calls 17 and 19 ahistorical. They are, in fact, historical. They are historical right up to the point where you give your first order and then they diverge from history as any game does. I know what you mean - no Midway. Well, there is no way to assume Midway would have happened the way it did after one month of player-given orders and actions. Actually Midway was such a statistical anomaly (or act of God) that if it happened in a game and hadn't happened in real life people would demand that it be fixed.

[QUOTE][B]
Don't get me wrong. I love this game! But the reason we play these games are to measure ourselves against history. [/B][/QUOTE]

That may be the reason some people play these games but don't assume that is the case for everyone. While the history serves as a nice setting and backdrop I would be just as happy if the entire game system were set on a fictitious world with made up empires. Heck, you could even convert the whole thing to space if you wanted to and I'd still love it. After all, wasn't Battlestar Galactica just a CV in space?

Yamamoto

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Matrix : Please "tweak" the victory conditions.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>