Kill Points or VP Points

[Marquo]

I trying to get back into this great series, playing, "Not One Step Back_Alt" as the Soviet and find a nagging frustration resurfacing. My opponent asked me why I was retreating, and not staying put (Not one step back).

As for moving back, the one thing that has always annoyed me about TOC games is that players seem to lose too many point for losing men, and are not rewarded enough for holding or taking objectives. I have won most of my games by pocketing and destroying units merely for the points; why even go after the objectives if one can win by destroying units? What incentive do I have for staying put and acting like a Soviet, when I will gain nothing but defeat by this behavior?

Yes, some will opine that there should be several ways to win a game, and I agree. I beleive the way to solve this conundrum is have the VPs for capturing objectives vary over time, so that if a player wants to try to win by simply annhilating his opponent and ignoring objectives, then he better do it because the geographical VPs will be decreasing over time, and switching to capturing them later will be much less lucrative. Conversely, if I want to dash to the Meuse and capture Namur but not destroy every battalion in my way, then give me megapoints for capturing it very early, and do not take them all back if the Americans recapture it.

Imagine: the Axis captures Namur on turn 40 and is awarded 5,000 VPs. The Americans retake it on turn 50 but it then worth only 3,000 points. So the Americans regain 3,000 and the Axis player nets 2,000 points for having even captured it, even if lost later. The static, "All or None" aspect is boring. Why should I even risk such as drive to the Meuse when I can easily win by simply decimating every Allied unit and advance only half way across the map and digging in?

As it stands, the TOC games are too cut and dry/black and white in terms of VPs. I really enjoy playing GMT's East Front Series board game because it awards dynamic VPs, and this forces players to engage in riskier behavior and take more measured chances to win.

TOC is one of my all time favorites, and it could vastly improve with more dynamic and fluid VPs to force more exciting play.

Marquo :soap:

[raizer]

my advice is to play the grand campaign game of kharkov 43. you simply get vps for locations you capture and the more you capture the sooner, you get more points. Losses mean nothing for either side-and the soviet player is forced to go balls out

its 449 turns ;-)

[jonnymacbrown]

my advice is to play the grand campaign game of kharkov 43. you simply get vps for locations you capture and the more you capture the sooner, you get more points. Losses mean nothing for either side-and the soviet player is forced to go balls out

its 449 turns ;-)

Only 449 turns? Gee, I'm not doing anything for the next three years, how about a game?

(just kidding). :smoke:

[Dog Soldier]

Static VP points does have the big drawback for scenario design in that it can not simulate a particular actions very well. The first side receives the same VP points if they capture the objective in the first 10% of time in the scenario or if they capture the objective on the last turn. Objectives changing hands on all but the final turn does not matter.

In many medium size scenarios and up depicting two days or more fighting, the first side can easily pursue a strategy of destroying the enemy army on ground of their choosing. The defender (second side) is the only side motivated to hold any ground at all. In this case, I am speaking to the defender feeling he is tied to a stake where ever there is an objective. This "dog chain" liability applies only to the defender. It limits the choices for an active defense.

A sliding non-linear scale for objectives awarding victory points each turn based on which side controls the location at the end of two player turn, would put some pressure on the attacker to go for the objectives. Separate scales would be figured in for each side thus the attacker could have objectives which decline in value and the defender could have objectives which increase in value as time progresses. Casualty VP are awarded to each side each 1/2 turn as incurred. Total points for each side is compared and the difference is compared to the victory conditions. This would be something going forward and not retrofitted, since it would require some rewrite of the every published scenario so far in the series, a daunting task. However, JTS could retro fit the mechanics in patches so new VC could be made for existing scenarios using the scenario design tools that exist to create a set of modified scenarios.

The strategy of destroy the defender's forces first, then scoop of the objectives on the last few turns would come with risks to the attacker they do not currently have to take into consideration. This kill first then walk to the objective strategy would still be a choice for the attacker, but have a different set of risks due to a declining value to the attacker for objective VP over time.

Dog Soldier

[Volcano Man]

Losses in men versus the emphasis on holding and taking objectives can usually be differentiated with larger or smaller point values for the objective hexes themselves. Generally speaking, in a scenario that has small point value objectives, losses play a greater role on the outcome and also make it more difficult to balance (there is a greater set of unknown variables involved). Larger point objectives take the emphasis away from losses and put the emphasis more on the objectives themselves.

Having said that, most scenarios that have VP / objectives on the front line are not intended to be held by the defender. They exists (usually) as "bread crumbs" you could say, that is, guiding the attacker down a path. The other reason they exist is to give the attacker a bit o' points to make up for any losses and to make him feel like he is accomplishing something. I mean, theoretically every scenario could have just one single objective behind the front line worth a lot of points, but what would be the fun in that? Of course I am not saying that it would not be nice to have an alternate method of determining point values, that perhaps the scenario designer could specify in the header (traditional or cumulative methods). Perhaps even a third method where losses are not factored at all, just the objective values (this might be best for a campaign like Stalingrad for example). ;)

[Compass Rose]

Perhaps even a third method where losses are not factored at all, just the objective values (this might be best for a campaign like Stalingrad for example). ;)

A very interesting idea.

VM, since you are a designer and know the PzC very well, would allowing a game to be programed for method number 3, be a difficult move, since none of the PzC are modeled that way or would it just take some tweaking?

Thanks

[Volcano Man]

Well, that would be a question for others more in the know than me. Any change to the game takes work and tweaking and I do not suspect that a change of any sort would happen here at all (and if it did, older scenarios would not be changed I am sure). Since everyone else was day dreaming / fantasizing I figured I would do the same.

[Marquo]

Well, that would be a question for others more in the know than me. Any change to the game takes work and tweaking and I do not suspect that a change of any sort would happen here at all (and if it did, older scenarios would not be changed I am sure). Since everyone else was day dreaming / fantasizing I figured I would do the same.

I have spent hours trying to come up with a system of VPs which vary over time. Here is what I tried:

1. Develop "VP" units which are initially set up at the objectives. As time go by the unit is Withdrawn, and another VP unit arrives as a Reinforcement at the objective site. The sequential units have more or less value when attacked. This I have done.

2. The VP units have no MPs i.e. are fixed; and they also need to have zero defense/as low as possible. Gets hard....

3. The challenge has been to develop such a unit with OOB generator; the VP unit much be worth 100s - 1,000s of point: How can that be done??? Sigh....so far impossible.

4. Of course someone who knows the code could do this in a heart beat...

Marquo :)

[Volcano Man]

No, actually what you describe is possible right now without any changes. I have done this before actually -- I worked on a Middle East '67 campaign in the Lebanon area that was set in the far future of 2015 (I was working on it back in 2004 or so), and the goal was for there to be no objectives per se, rather there were only a very extremely valuable units on the enemy's side that represented hi value personnel/people. Those units would have a speed of 0 (so they could not run away) but the units would get deployed according to strategy | operation selections, or through random spawning at the start (to keep the other side guessing). Then the Israelis would have to work against time to find and kill the valued people, while the other side would use the militia units, irregulars and some regulars to defend the most important targets, or to mislead the enemy (ie. heavily defending areas with no commanders present). I had the idea when the US was looking for the "playing cards" people of Saddam's regime in Iraq.

I managed to accomplish this by creating 52 units that had Arabic sounding names, each with different point values for each card. The Ace of Spades was the leader who was worth something like 1000 VPs. The high VP levels for units was accomplished by arbitrarily boosting an insignificant unit value to an extreme level, thereby giving it a point boost. So, for example, the Ace o' Spades, lets say Saddam, was a unit of 1 man, Unit Class: Foot, Unit Type: HQ, defense of 16, and the AA range was 5900. This made the unit exactly 1000 VPs. The reason I did this for the AA range is because with an AA attack strength of 0, the AA range plays no effect on gameplay other than to boost the VP value of the unit.

Sadly I never finished the scenario, it is one more project that never saw the light of day. Obviously after some play testing it probably would turn out the defense value of the above unit would have to be very high to keep the 1 man from dying from stray artillery barrages, but something would have been figured out there.

I only mention this because a lot of things are possible, you just have to experiment. Maybe you can put this info to use and make a scenario. I have to admit though, I just don't see a problem with the standard scoring technique for this approach to be worth the effort or to make a lot of sense.

[Marquo]

Great idea, Ed. My problem was that I could not figure how to make a high value but easy to kill VP unit; I will look into what you describe.

To me the static nature of the VPs is a major avenue for improvement. As I described above, given the "Kill VPs" and static nature of the geographic VPs, there is little need to acheive rational, historical objectives, and most players recapitulate very predictable, dull, unimaginative moves every time. There is no incentive to do otherwise.

Most campaigns quickly degenerate into a series of multiple small tactical engagements with but one objective: envelope and destroy enemy units. There is no real pressure of a timetable to take tactical objectives, and the overall strategy for the engagement/campaign really only takes a backseat. Killing enemy units becomes an addiction like eating pistachio nuts...and this ruins the appetite for the main course aka the strategic objectives. :soap: