EP '14 mechanics/balance

[Nitram Draw]

ComradeP,
I agree with you on the incentive point. In many scenarios there just isn't enough incentive to make you take chances to pull out a win. It's like you start the game planning on how you can get a draw.

What these games really need is a variable VP location ability. That way you could offer the incentive to take risks. For example in France 14 Home Before the LEaves Fall, there is no reason for the Germans to attack Namur. The forces inside will be withdrawn eventually, the German forces opposing Namur will be withdrawn eventually, it is difficult to assult the forts and there are no VP hexes in the city. Why bother attacking the city? But if there was a 1000 point VP hex somewhere in Namur that would disappear after a certain date then maybe you would risk assaulting the fortress to capture it.

[ComradeP]

The Namur situation you describe is present in a different shape in how the value of Koenigsberg (city and fort) is represented (also compared to Russian forts: the Germans can literally walk into Lomza, the VP is not in a fort but in the open. Osowiec' VP is also in the open but at least ZOC protected by forts).

Whereas a siege or investment of Koenigsberg would at the least have made it less likely that the Germans would move south into Poland until the siege is lifted, there is no incentive for the Russians to go after Koenigsberg: the high VP hexes are all inside the fortified ring, you get no particularly high points for isolating the city and the only "high" single VP location aside from Koenigsberg's center is Allenstein at 500 VP's. All the smaller point gains add up over time, but getting there is very difficult.

With the alt assault rules and without siege artillery, attacking forts against an organized defender is pointless, which means taking Koenigsberg isn't going to happen. It took one of my brigades over a day to remove two detached, isolated, low ammo F/no morale cavalry units from a redoubt as one of them refused to disrupt. From what I understand based on literature and from what the design document states and implies, 1st Army would hopefully isolate Koenigsberg so follow-up forces could take it later. There is no particular reason for 1st Army to go there at all at the moment.

The Russian penalties are so severe currently that the only hope they have of pushing back a good German defense is a combined attack by 1st and 2nd Army in more or less the same area, and both armies have a fairly large front to cover. The historical intention of advancing roughly west and then south with 1st Army and roughly northwest with 2nd Army is likely to end in a Russian defeat.

It's telling that the comments about the Russians refer to getting a draw in the discussion and the comments on the completed games so far, nobody really thinks about a victory at the moment. A German victory is a "natural" result at the moment, even though historically it should be difficult to achieve any kind of victory unless the Russians are seriously weakened. If the Russians were pushed out of East Prussia with relatively light losses, they could just have another go later on in a situation that wouldn't favour the Germans as much, but the German player only needs to recapture/hold most of East Prussia for a minor victory. The destruction of a large part of the Russian forces opposing them is necessary for a major victory, which looks like it's as out of reach as a Russian victory at the moment due to the ability of both sides to simply withdraw when threatened.

-

As an additional comment on attacking: due to moving units not actually blocking LOS until the start of the next turn, German players can spot or guess where Russian brigade HQ's are and shell that hex. The lack of dawn and dusk turns hurts in that regard, as both sides can normally spot the follow-up units as well as the screening infantry battalions due to the decent to good visibility.

[jim pfleck]

I agree that the Russians have little incentive to advance, especially 1 Army. With 2 Army you can hope to beat up the Germans a bit before running for the hills. In my long game I had success against Landwehr but it still took three days for the Russians, with maybe a 3 to 2 advantage in numbers (at least) to break the Landwehr (who were in a good position behind obstacles..)..

[Nitram Draw]

The Namur situation you describe is present in a different shape in how the value of Koenigsberg (city and fort) is represented (also compared to Russian forts: the Germans can literally walk into Lomza, the VP is not in a fort but in the open. Osowiec' VP is also in the open but at least ZOC protected by forts).

Whereas a siege or investment of Koenigsberg would at the least have made it less likely that the Germans would move south into Poland until the siege is lifted, there is no incentive for the Russians to go after Koenigsberg: the high VP hexes are all inside the fortified ring, you get no particularly high points for isolating the city and the only "high" single VP location aside from Koenigsberg's center is Allenstein at 500 VP's. All the smaller point gains add up over time, but getting there is very difficult.

With the alt assault rules and without siege artillery, attacking forts against an organized defender is pointless, which means taking Koenigsberg isn't going to happen. It took one of my brigades over a day to remove two detached, isolated, low ammo F/no morale cavalry units from a redoubt as one of them refused to disrupt. From what I understand based on literature and from what the design document states and implies, 1st Army would hopefully isolate Koenigsberg so follow-up forces could take it later. There is no particular reason for 1st Army to go there at all at the moment.

The Russian penalties are so severe currently that the only hope they have of pushing back a good German defense is a combined attack by 1st and 2nd Army in more or less the same area, and both armies have a fairly large front to cover. The historical intention of advancing roughly west and then south with 1st Army and roughly northwest with 2nd Army is likely to end in a Russian defeat.

It's telling that the comments about the Russians refer to getting a draw in the discussion and the comments on the completed games so far, nobody really thinks about a victory at the moment. A German victory is a "natural" result at the moment, even though historically it should be difficult to achieve any kind of victory unless the Russians are seriously weakened. If the Russians were pushed out of East Prussia with relatively light losses, they could just have another go later on in a situation that wouldn't favour the Germans as much, but the German player only needs to recapture/hold most of East Prussia for a minor victory. The destruction of a large part of the Russian forces opposing them is necessary for a major victory, which looks like it's as out of reach as a Russian victory at the moment due to the ability of both sides to simply withdraw when threatened.

-

As an additional comment on attacking: due to moving units not actually blocking LOS until the start of the next turn, German players can spot or guess where Russian brigade HQ's are and shell that hex. The lack of dawn and dusk turns hurts in that regard, as both sides can normally spot the follow-up units as well as the screening infantry battalions due to the decent to good visibility.

I know it is extremely hard to design incentive into these games. I do think the effort was made to get that into the game. With the long scenarios it is particularly hard design as there are so many possibilities to consider.

Even with early termination available as an incentive I don't see the Russian ever trying to achieve it.  Perhaps if the Early Termination level was lower (maybe a marginal victory level) and existed for only a set number of turns they would try, the thinking being with a minor victory at this point in time would change the overall high command thinking and compel a German withdraw even if the local commanders thought they could hold out.

[ComradeP]

As a scenario designer, I've only designed scenarios for more casual wargames thus far with a small number of turns. People sometimes called them puzzle scenarios, but with a limited number of turns the moves people can make become easier to predict, so it's easier to make a challenging and entertaining scenario. They might feel like a puzzle to some, but the trick is to find just the right balance between making sure they can be won and making sure they require good play to be won

With a campaign scenario for a fairly complex wargame like this, pretty much anything can happen and you can never cover every possibility. Even though I'm often critical about some parts of a scenario or a particular mechanic, I can only applaud the effort and research that goes into these titles to make them function at the level they're functioning now.

After giving it some more thought, the balance does seem to be suitable for smaller scenarios (where the primary problem tends to be running out of time rather than some particular flaw). The 1st Masurian Lakes scenario, for example, might be entertaining to play with the current low Russian supply level as all the German units are in their historical position so there's a limited number of things the German can do within the turn limit as they can't waste too much time moving men around.

In a longer campaign game, particularly one where the attacker is slow, the defender knows where his forces are is, you know how capable those forces are and you know about mechanics that work in favour of the attacker, something that might work well in a smaller scenario can become a problem. Receiving no replacements isn't much of an issue for a scenario with just a couple of days worth of fighting, but it can quickly become an issue if it occurs for over half a campaign game in a scenario where you should be attacking and the defender has the first half of the campaign game to prepare for that point where the attacker no longer receives replacements or only very limited replacements.

[Nitram Draw]

As a scenario designer, I've only designed scenarios for more casual wargames thus far with a small number of turns. People sometimes called them puzzle scenarios, but with a limited number of turns the moves people can make become easier to predict, so it's easier to make a challenging and entertaining scenario. They might feel like a puzzle to some, but the trick is to find just the right balance between making sure they can be won and making sure they require good play to be won

With a campaign scenario for a fairly complex wargame like this, pretty much anything can happen and you can never cover every possibility. Even though I'm often critical about some parts of a scenario or a particular mechanic, I can only applaud the effort and research that goes into these titles to make them function at the level they're functioning now.

After giving it some more thought, the balance does seem to be suitable for smaller scenarios (where the primary problem tends to be running out of time rather than some particular flaw). The 1st Masurian Lakes scenario, for example, might be entertaining to play with the current low Russian supply level as all the German units are in their historical position so there's a limited number of things the German can do within the turn limit as they can't waste too much time moving men around.

In a longer campaign game, particularly one where the attacker is slow, the defender knows where his forces are is, you know how capable those forces are and you know about mechanics that work in favour of the attacker, something that might work well in a smaller scenario can become a problem. Receiving no replacements isn't much of an issue for a scenario with just  a couple of days worth of fighting, but it can quickly become an issue if it occurs for over half a campaign game in a scenario where you should be attacking and the defender has the first half of the campaign game to prepare for that point where the attacker no longer receives replacements or only very limited replacements.

Yes I agree in the longer scenarios it can be very difficult to get it right, as it were. I know Ed did a lot of work and testing to do this and I do enjoy the game but I enjoy the fight not necessarily the winning or losing.
That being said I do think it may be possible to tweak the longer campaigns to stimulate more aggressive actions on both sides. For example by placing some high value VP hexes (enough to give the Russians close to or at least a draw if they hold them all) closer to the front you create more reasons to assault harder or stand and fight longer. Then maybe the Russian will go for the early termination. Another would be to adjust the German minor and major point levels to within 1 point of each other, to basically say if the Germans DON'T get an overwhelming victory then the best they can get is a draw. Then it would be like the players notes suggest, all or nothing for the Germans.
I really wish this system could give 'temporary' or variable VP hexes that reward you for taking something quickly but that then becomes less valuable as time goes by. That would really provide the incentive to act.

[ComradeP]

I really wish this system could give 'temporary' or variable VP hexes that reward you for taking something quickly but that then becomes less valuable as time goes by. That would really provide the incentive to act.

Civil War Generals 2 has a mechanic where the longer a hex is fought over, the greater the chance that it will become an objective. The overall influence on the final outcome is usually not that great, but it certainly provides a good deal of immersion to have your men fight over hill something or other and see it change into an objective as the game detects it is valuable during the battle as it develops this time around.

[Volcano Man]

It's telling that the comments about the Russians refer to getting a draw in the discussion and the comments on the completed games so far, nobody really thinks about a victory at the moment. A German victory is a "natural" result at the moment, even though historically it should be difficult to achieve any kind of victory unless the Russians are seriously weakened. If the Russians were pushed out of East Prussia with relatively light losses, they could just have another go later on in a situation that wouldn't favour the Germans as much, but the German player only needs to recapture/hold most of East Prussia for a minor victory. The destruction of a large part of the Russian forces opposing them is necessary for a major victory, which looks like it's as out of reach as a Russian victory at the moment due to the ability of both sides to simply withdraw when threatened.

With all due respect, I never said what you state there - that (essentially) the only hope for the Russians is to get a draw. I would never make a campaign or scenario with that in mind, and I would never make a scenario or campaign with a VP level that I did not feel gave both sides a shot at victory. That said, I do believe in keeping things challenging for both sides, otherwise where is the fun? If after many results it is proven to be impossible, then I will always tweak the VP levels in an update, and this is especially easy to do if people give specific feedback in their reports. I actually play the scenarios myself after all. ;)

In my comment I simply meant that achieving a draw as the Russians should be relatively easy to do. I do recognize that my wording was not perfect, so I will rephrase it: the Germans have a very difficult challenge to repeat history with a Major Victory; that is their challenge, but it is a challenge for them to get a minor victory as well, but this is at least obtainable. The Russians should be able to achieve a draw, their challenge is to HOLD onto the Minor Victory by the end (getting to the Minor Victory is very easy, but they have to keep pushing for more points to secure, to allow them to give up a nice padding of points later if need be, while still holding a Minor Victory). A Russian Major Victory is achievable really only in the first half of the campaign -- by getting it the scenario will immediately end, which rewards them for being aggressive, and that is the exact intent. If they reach a point where this becomes impossible (about half way through the campaign this should be apparent) THEN they must switch to a strategy of holding onto a minor victory. If that fails, then their strategy should shift to trying to pull out a draw.   The situation is complicated, and I don't think that it is being given deep thought here.

To elaborate, I don't think that a lot of thought is going to into this part of the design (early political termination) when making the proclamation that it is "impossible to win" as this side X or Y, or when arbitrarily deciding that there is no emphasis or reward placed on a side for being aggressive. The possibility of an early termination win IS the ultimate mechanism of emphasis for the Russians to be aggressive at the start of the campaign, or for the French for being aggressive at the start of France '14 for that matter. But at some point, they have to realize that the time has passed and then switch their strategy rather than chasing futility. There may be a point that you never change strategies, because you may be able to keep your opponent on his heels if he makes mistakes. The beauty here is that the situation is dynamic and it depends on how well your opponent... cooperates. Variable points for objectives would be nice, but it is not required if the VPs levels and political termination conditions are balanced.

ComradeP, it seems to me that you like to play as the Russians in a wargame (at least from what I observe), which is fine, but often when you have favorites then a bias will exist. There has to be an objective look at the situation and I try my best to remain neutral and to sort of code in specific historical characteristics into each army, both good and bad. Any change to the Russians risks turning the game into pure fantasy, the fact that the campaign can play even remotely historical (in that the Germans have a chance to win against these numbers!) demonstrates to me that, fundamentally it is correct at that level. This is why I am against the idea that major changes are needed. To me, changes in VP levels and objectives are perfectly understandable though and I am all ears.

In my experience the Germans have trouble dealing with the Russians even as is, and it can be very difficult to achieve high levels of success in the Tannenberg battle against a good Russian opponent (I have personally played the Russian there many times). So I don't share the negative view towards their capability. I do think they are a clumsy force however, and this is historical from what I have read. The sticking point really is that most players do not know when to fall back and be flexible, and when not to.

As for the comments about Koningsberg, I am not against adding some VPs outside the perimeter to basically be an "ata boy" slap on the back if the Russians can besiege it, but these would have to be small and not something that they can win the campaign with (more on this later though). The fact is that the Russians intended to take Koningsberg, not simply besiege it. On the 24th they bring up some 60 guns from their "siege artillery" force, but these are antiquated de Bange guns from the 1800s. The fact is that the Russians were ill equipped for the task at hand, but this is all known in hindsight, and they can still do the job albeit it will be extremely difficult. Getting the 1st Army to Koningsberg is the first challenge, then it would be a hard fight to get into the fortress itself, but I don't see it as being impossible. Even with their 60 antiquated siege guns they can get results against redoubts (more on this too, later).

Then there is the (IMO flawed) assertion that the idea behind the assignment of VPs to fortified areas is fundamentally wrong, because the VPs appear in the open. This is wrong to me, because (rhetorically) what are the forts in a fortified area protecting? They are there to deny the enemy from entering/capturing/looting the town within the ring. If the town inside is lost, then you have defeated the position. The forts can remain and resist, but after that point it is a foregone conclusion. Going further, the fortified areas exist as a place that an army can fall back to if beaten, and can lick its wounds in relative safety within, while it sits and hopes to be relieved from the outside. (This is actually one of the the tactical goals of the campaign too, to force the Germans to fall back within the fortress and then bottle them up. If the Germans do not commit forces to the defense of Konigsberg then the fortress would only be weakly defended and "easy" to penetrate, basically a win win for the Russians; either they can take the fortress, or they simply force the Germans to commit forces to hold it and do not try to take the fortress).  So no, the objectives MUST be placed within the ring in the town the forts are intending to protect, I really don't see any other way. Also, if the objectives were the forts themselves then you pretty much require the attacker to take every fort, which is something the Russians certainly cannot do, and it is something that didn't even intend to do. Having said that, in the F14 getting started scenario and in Liege scenario there are objectives on the forts themselves, but that is to reward the Germans for reducing the overall position so that (later) 1st and 2nd Armies can pass through on the march, so the objectives stress a more strategic importance of reducing the entire fortified position (there is no way to stress a strategic goal in a small scenario unless you use objectives).

But speaking of Konigsberg specifically, there are at least three places the Germans can push between the forts. Of course someone will say: but the Germans can block those via ZOC from the rear hex! Yes, a gamey opponent would try to deny the Russians that way, but at least in one place the Germans cannot completely deny entry (in the west) because the gap is so large. Also, I am sure you know that three of the hexes around the perimeter are actually redoubts (as mentioned), which are not impossible to overrun, but you certainly have to work at it, and when you do then the gap opened is so large that you would be impossible to stop. And you probably also know (from the Liege scenario in F14) that with the alt assault rules, which I like very much, repeated assaults with infantry often help cause disruptions and fatigue on the defenders and "failed" assaults do not necessarily produce horrific losses in the process. You may also know too that field artillery can be used to decent effect at disrupting units inside of forts if you bring them adjacent. It won't happen in a single turn, but a day of constant bombardment and assaults against a redoubt will get a result. Maybe a good idea for you would be to create your own "what if" scenario where the Russian 1st Army is besieging Konigsberg, and setup for the assault against the Koningsberg garrison inside. It might make for a good test on your part of how the Russian 1st Army would even try to go about getting into Konigsberg, as well as an interesting hypothetical. Maybe it could have S|O choices for the Russians to choose where to concentrate what. Sounds like it might be a fun scenario to me! Actually, I might make one for the update. :)

That being said, I do think it is possible for the Russians to reduce Konigsberg following these basic steps...

STEP 1: Besiege the area. This has its own importance that I do not feel requires VPs located around it. By besieging the fortress, you cut it off from the 90% supplies provided by the outside, and force it to rely on its 20% source inside. There is also no coincidence that the 3000 VP objective that is "in the open" as you put it, is on the German 20% supply source. Taking that would reduce the forts inside to their 2% sources.

STEP 2: Find the weakest links. This would be the non-Forts, and would also be the areas where the greatest gaps between forts exist.

STEP 3: Try to isolate the individual forts, which causes them to rely on their own supply source. The fact is, along with STEP 1, isolation from the siege is important because a defender that is low on ammo will, among many other things, be easier to disrupt and won't be as effective when defending against assaults (they defend at 1/2 their assault value).

STEP 4: Bring up field guns adjacent to weak links, and use all indirect artillery available to bombard those places. Assault with stacks of infantry and engineer units, rotating them out and repeating. At some points all the other forts become low on ammo, and do not have the capacity to put up an effective fight as you push to the interior to take the objective. Naturally this takes time and deliberate attacks, you don't take a fortress in several turns, and it certainly isn't impossible either.

So, point is, besieging a fortress area has its own inherent benefit that doesn't really require a pat on the back with VPs IMO, so that is why the points are not there currently. Naturally though the Russian 1st Army would not try to siege and assault Konigsberg unless the 2nd Army is holding its own against counter attack, unless (by ignoring their situation) they intend to make a very risky Alesia style siege (inner attack, outer defense). Obviously though, that would be an all-or-nothing approach that wouldn't be very careful.

Also, just in general here, regarding Namur in France 14 - I am in the middle of playing the Grand Campaign as a team right now on the German side and the Germans did assault and have nearly captured Namur. Why do it as someone said? There is no reason to do it because there are no VPs there. Well, again, I am not against adding VPs there, but the fact is - ***it is a foregone conclusion that Namur will be taken***. That said, variable VPs would certainly influence the Germans to attack it sooner (and I am not against the idea if I can get it added to the series, but again, a game designer has to work with the tools available). The Belgians will be withdrawn, so with static VPs there they are essentially guaranteed and as such, are pointless. All other VPs on the map are not guaranteed, or in the case of the ones present in the Ardennes, exist to allow the possibility of the French to attack at the start of the campaign to achieve an immediate termination victory. But I digress, so in our campaign why did the German commander decide to assault and capture Namur when there are no VPs present within? Because tactically it was a good thing to do - it secured VPs from destroying the units inside the forts, and it secured VPs from killing the Belgian division inside the perimeter.   It also provides a more direct route across the Sambre/Meuse, being at the tip of both.

The point is, VPs aren't always needed and they shouldn't always be given away like candy (I am guilty of this in the past, exhibit A: F14 campaign version 1), lest you end up with, for example here, the Allies holding Namur to the last man to deny it (because that is what would happen). ;)  In a campaign it is often about leaving things to be tactical objectives only, and action and reaction with tactical objectives being important to provide VPs due to casualties or to secure a way to continue on faster to the actual VP locations. This is why Namur does not have any points. Can the Germans just ignore it like suggested above? Yes, but then they have to go around it, cannot use the roads through it later, must directly attack the Meuse and Sambre line, do not receive any VPs from destroying Belgian forces within, and have to worry about an Allied sortie from the fortress into their rear area (at least for as long as the Belgian division there is not withdrawn, but even longer if the French commit forces to it).



Whew. Besides all that, there are a couple of things that are particularly interesting to me here:

1. I do like the variable VPs idea from the TWIE series, and it would be nice to have them in FWWC for situations like Namur, and rewarding the Germans for going for it quickly. If I can get that added to the series then it would make it practical to provide "bonus" VPs for early capture of Namur, Maubeuge, and things like that. It wouldn't be necessary, but it would be a nice improvement.

2. In the process of all of this typing I did notice that the fortress of Konigsberg in EP14 is actually too strong. An observant person may have noticed in F14 that I try to always make hexes that contain forts and redoubts also have CLEAR terrain in it, with the rationale that the target in the hex is the fortification, not the surrounding terrain (so the defenders should get defensive benefit from the fortification AND say, the field or village it sits in. Besides, the fortification is enough of a defense, no need to add another -10 to -30% on top of that. ;) So, I will fix this in the next update: many of the forts and redoubts around Konigsberg do not sit in clear terrain so that certainly is not helpful.

3. I believe that the interior of the Konigsberg might also be too defended with its continuous ring of redoubts. This should have been a continuous line of walls instead (not sure what happened there), with a redoubt only for the Konigsberg cathedral (which also represents Konigsberg Castle which is about 500m away), so I will fix that too.  I think that would be the biggest change here for the next update. I concede that with a ring of redoubts the 3000 points inside of it may be impossible to obtain. Note that changes to the map will carry over to existing scenarios in progress, so that is good.

Hopefully that helps the situation and explains things further.

Unfortunately I don't really have a lot of free time to continue the discussion, but if I see specific suggestions regarding VPs or objectives (or bugs of course) then I will give it serious consideration. By all means, continue the discussion though, but I have to bow out from my urge to make long winded replies - the next game in the series calls my name...

[ComradeP]

I have no particular bias, I just enjoy playing the underdog because in many wargames the Germans tend to be overrated or the Russians/Soviets tend to be underrated. That seems to be the bias that exists in a large part of both the historical and wargaming community: a certain awe for the German side, presumably coming from all the post-WWII literature. I enjoy playing with a well trained force like the Wehrmacht, but I do want it to have its historical limitations. The same goes for the German imperial army.

The pattern you describe for besieging Koenigsberg sounds logical, but you make it sound too easy. When you get to Koenigsberg, if you can get there, it will be after September 1st, so you will get 20 or less supply. Isolating the city/fortress either requires you to break the southeastern part of the fortified ring or crossing a major river. The Russian guns you mention are regular heavy artillery, presumably because they're so old, and not siege artillery.

Giving deep thought to strategy is necessary, but first you need to think about the effect the mechanics will have on your operations, otherwise your planned goals can quickly turn out to be impossible to achieve.

Anyway, I'm still sceptical the Russians have a real chance at winning this against a good German opponent.

If an experienced Russian player wants to have a go at playing the full campaign against me to try and win, I'm interested. I'll be restarting the other game as the Germans with improved Russians for my opponent.

[Strela]

Volcano Man;

1. I do like the variable VPs idea from the TWIE series, and it would be nice to have them in FWWC for situations like Namur, and rewarding the Germans for going for it quickly. If I can get that added to the series then it would make it practical to provide "bonus" VPs for early capture of Namur, Maubeuge, and things like that. It wouldn't be necessary, but it would be a nice improvement.





Of interest there is a number of Tiller games where 'by turn' or variable VP's are in game (think asymetric in Squad Battles).

We are canvassing John to include by turn VP's as an option for at least the next Panzer Battles game after Normandy and would have dearly loved it in Normandy.

The reason we believe they are worthwhile is it removes the last turn syndrome. Currently, the only player who scores points is the one who holds the hex when the game ends. A valiant defense till end - 1 is ignored.

If available it will open up so many more possibilities for game play. 

Do I hold that forward defensive position for as long as possible because I get large points for every turn I delay the enemy - the points I get outweigh the cost of the units to hold it. Do I rush ahead ignoring my flanks because that objective deep in the enemy rear is worth so many points each turn? I may ultimately get beaten off it, but if I hold it for a sufficient time it is more than worth the effort and will confound the enemy who has to react to stop me racking up points instead of holding back the slow grind.

We have even suggested a VP value for both sides. A particular hex maybe more valuable to the defender than the attacker and the defender will be rewarded more for each turn he holds the hex. The attacker may get 0 points for taking the victory location but he has to take it to deny the defender racking up those points.

This concept, coupled with the 'new feature' coming with the next release of Panzer Battles will make some of the most interesting situations possible.

If we get this right there is no reason why it can't go into other series and make the players decisions much more relevant based upon an evolving situation rather than the 'I have 24 turns to go and capture point X' - grind, grind, grind. 

David