Campaigns and Playtesting

[Marquo]

From the introduction to K 43, "It was decided to create a base campaign for each of these periods, rather than one 450 turn game. The reasoning behind this decision was the extremely fluid situation and the fact that building victory conditions for each side in a ‘mega campaign’ where the objectives changed over time was next to impossible."

I am bemused at the suggestion that "building victory conditions for each side in a ‘mega campaign’ where the objectives changed over time was next to impossible." Guys, this is true for all of the PzC campaigns.


For the record, I disagree. My "The Flashing Sword of Retribution (FSR)" mod of 421 turns was extensivey researched and adjusted to account for the flow of the entire campaign. I assigned values to cities and geographic vps in a very measured and reasoned manner. It takes alot of time, reading and tinkering but it can be done.

The core problem is that the PzC engine is very rigid, and does not lend itself well to creating dynamic vp values. This has been extensively discuused in the past. VPs could increase or decrease over time to add an exciting temporal element to the game; i.e. the capture of Kharkov could mean more or less vps depending on when it is taken - not just one absolute value no matter when it is taken. There is no reward for acting quicker or deterrent to acting slower. I have experimented with vp reinforcement unit markers which come on and withdraw at appropriate times, but no joy so far. The problem is not the fluid campaign, rather the rigid, adynamic game engine.

Marquo

[Jazman]

From the introduction to K 43, "It was decided to create a base campaign for each of these periods, rather than one 450 turn game. The reasoning behind this decision was the extremely fluid situation and the fact that building victory conditions for each side in a ‘mega campaign’ where the objectives changed over time was next to impossible."

I am bemused at the suggestion that "building victory conditions for each side in a ‘mega campaign’ where the objectives changed over time was next to impossible." Guys, this is true for all of the PzC campaigns.


For the record, I disagree. My "The Flashing Sword of Retribution (FSR)" mod of 421 turns was extensivey researched and adjusted to account for the flow of the entire campaign. I assigned values to cities and geographic vps in a very measured and reasoned manner. It takes alot of time, reading and tinkering but it can be done.

The core problem is that the PzC engine is very rigid, and does not lend itself well to creating dynamic vp values. This has been extensively discuused in the past. VPs could increase or decrease over time to add an exciting temporal element to the game; i.e. the capture of Kharkov could mean more or less vps depending on when it is taken - not just one absolute value no matter when it is taken. There is no reward for acting quicker or deterrent to acting slower. I have experimented with vp reinforcement unit markers which come on and withdraw at appropriate times, but no joy so far. The problem is not the fluid campaign, rather the rigid, adynamic game engine.

Marquo

I would suggest players feel free to add house rule victory conditions. The boardgames had verbal victory conditions all the time: "Capture X or Y or Z, and have N units across the river."

Making victory point-based is a bit rigid. I played someone in Market Garden, and though I won a "victory" because I held the Arnhem hex, my Allied opponent did have a bridge across the Rhine, and a viable bridgehead. It's hard to picture that as a loss for him.

[Liquid_Sky]

The real trouble with assigning victory, is the ends justifies the means.. and the balance between objective hexes and casualty points.

I have played a few scenerios where the total objective hexes didnt add up to a victory for the attacker. In one of them, the defending Germans where mostly panzer divisions, and could easily retreat from combat, thereby winning by not fighting.

Of course, I see no reason why the scenerio notes cant put an automatic victory condition in it. Like the Russians capturing Kharkov in Kharkov '42. Game over. No need to play further. Or the allies losing a beach in Normandy '44. The engine doesnt have to tell me, or my opponent, our eyes can see it.

And jazzman beat me to it :)

[Strela]

Of course, I see no reason why the scenerio notes cant put an automatic victory condition in it. Like the Russians capturing Kharkov in Kharkov '42. Game over. No need to play further. Or the allies losing a beach in Normandy '44. The engine doesnt have to tell me, or my opponent, our eyes can see it.

Spot on Liquid Sky. This is why we built the separate campaigns with clear, mainly singular goals. In the case of the Soviet's in Operation Star it's capture Kharkov - do that and you win. The time limit is setup so it ends on the evening of the day that happened, so again there is a tie back to the historical.

Whether there is a numerical measurement or a gut feel, most people know when they have won or lost. As a scenario designer we try and provide the history behind the situation you are playing and then setup the forces and other parameters to match your historical counterparts.

For me (and it was the key focus of the scenarios released in Kh43) was to have players understand why the path taken by the protagonists was taken. It drove the need to have exhaustive history notes included with the game so the scenarios could be understood in the overall context.

[Volcano Man]

Yes, this is also exactly why F14 has two separate campaigns for "early" and "Race to the Sea". If objectives were placed in Flanders in a full, mega campaign, where Race to the Sea objectives were, then the "early" advance would lead into Flanders and into places it did not historically go. In this regard, I can see exactly why the approach was made to break Kh43 into separate campaigns, because each campaign represents a specific phase with its own defined objectives.

Still, isn't this the great thing about these games -- that a designer can put their own unique spin on something to have it play out as they envision and that there is no end to what can be done with a different perspective? Some can make a mega campaign that may not play out perfectly historically, but instead provides a unique encompassing feel.

[Strela]

Marquo got me thinking on how to have a moving victory point total over time - how is this for an idea?



Allows you to pop up a dialog at the appropriate time so that the points applicable for that date are shown.

In the Kharkov '43 example this might be after Kharkov has fallen to the Russians. You can then pop up a box at a later date showing the new range of victory points based upon whatever events you expect such as the Germans recapturing Kharkov.

Just an idea to make victory point targets more dynamic...

[Marquo]

Marquo got me thinking on how to have a moving victory point total over time - how is this for an idea?



Allows you to pop up a dialog at the appropriate time so that the points applicable for that date are shown.

In the Kharkov '43 example this might be after Kharkov has fallen to the Russians. You can then pop up a box at a later date showing the new range of victory points based upon whatever events you expect such as the Germans recapturing Kharkov.

Just an idea to make victory point targets more dynamic...

This is good if the points are are actually appropriately added to the tally. I tried making reinforcements units that would appear fixed in the vp hex - they could could appear and withdraw as needed but the problem was getting the appropriate values.

BTW, I also came up with the idea of posting fixed, very weak picket units well in advance of large fixed formations to act as triggers so that the formation could be release because of the rapid approach of enemy formations rather than when they closed right in for combat. This better simulates the ability to plan and react on a higher level than tactical.

"This is why we built the separate campaigns with clear, mainly singular goals. In the case of the Soviet's in Operation Star it's capture Kharkov - do that and you win. The time limit is setup so it ends on the evening of the day that happened"

I can understand this - but remember that the lesson of the battle was that Hausser defied Hilter and and abandoned Kharkov - and thus helped set the stage for Manstein's backhand blow. For FSR I choose to do the entire campaign including Star-Gallop and the Backhand Blow all the way to the recapture of Byelgorod - and in FSR, if you look at the vps, this city is worth more than the others because retaking this city was really the end of the campaign and set up Kursk.

Some people like shorter campaigns and others like longer ones. When I did FSR my ambition was to recreate the entire campaign - and it seems to work quite well. Imagine, the Axis can lose Kharkov but then retake if if they have not squandered the Wehrmacht on the frozen steppes before having enough troops to launch a devastating counter attack.

Marquo

[Strela]

Hi Marquo,

I don't think you understand what I am suggesting. Currently the way victory points works is that they are only applicable at the end of a game.

By using the dialog I showed here, you could show a DIFFERENT victory target applicable at that time. A player would know if he was ahead or behind of where he should be.

So using the 3 major periods for Kharkov, you could roll that into one campaign and have a pop up victory score at the end of each period i.e. when the Soviets should be advanced as far as possible, a second when the Backhand Blow had started etc.

With this approach in a monster campaign, the Soviet player would have to push forward to at least to have a win for the first portion - putting him in a position that the backhand blow would have some effect,

I only used the strategic dialog as a way to display a message at a particular point of time - but I hope you get the idea.

David