What Huib (and others maybe) don't like about PzC

[Sgt Barker]

Given a soapbox, use it.

Don't like the inflexible victory point scheme. Allow a scenario designer to assign victory points just like any other attribute.

I think what you mean here is as an attribute to a unit in the OOB - yes?

Just to review - the game cod assign the point values based on the unit combat values and quality as a way to level the playing field. I have thought of asking for a HIGH PT value, low comat value unit where I could assign points too - but I've never had a firm scn idea where this was needed.

If I am on the right track - where would you use such a feature? What game, what situation?

You're not only on the right track, you're speeding along in exactly the direction I meant. :)

I have very little experience with scenario design, so it may be a lack of knowledge on my part. That, combined with a raft of board game experience leads me to think of board game style victory conditions. Take hex 'x', exit unit 'y', etc. Many times without casualties playing a part in the equation. And it's the lack of ability to 'turn off' the loss vp, or modify them (it's important to conserve your armor, but not infantry, in this battle, for example) that I first noticed cramped my style in design.

Second was simply not understanding exactly how the VP worked for a given unit, meaning how many points it was 'worth' when designing. Wanting to make a 'rear guard' that was literally expendable, worth nothing to the attacker, but not really being able to, so having to try to adjust the conditions to reflect it. As I say, probably just my lack of knowledge.

But even not knowing the point formulas and such there is at least one area where the 'hard coded' vp values we have now are problematic. It's come up in the N44 Omaha scenario we're playing - it's better to simply never fire the LCT-r. They do minimal damage, yet counter battery fire can easily rack up 30 - 75 VP for the germans when they get sunk. In the short scenario that can make a big difference. Should losing LCTs really make such a difference in who wins? I'd argue not, but there's no way to change it now. So it's a choice between a 'gamey' tactic (don't shoot!), or playing with a handicap.

The specific scenarios I've dinked around with designing use Moscow 41; building a "Borodino 41" game, both a 'campaign' of over a week and a set of smaller scenarios. The strategic situation was such that losses were pretty much irrelevant to the Soviets - the front had been torn open and their entire task was to stop the Germans taking the highway into Moscow. Cost didn't enter into it. The VC I had in mind would reflect that - losses cost the German, but much less for the Soviet. Loss wise the Soviets didn't care... except for Katyusha units. Still 'top secret' at this point, woe betide the commander who let the German destroy or capture one. So they should be worth a lot of VP. While again the infantry is expendable - just keep the German off the highway till nightfall, even if you all die doing it.

(Another related issue that came up in these scenarios, away from the points assigned units, was trying to make geographic objectives time dependent. Take village 'x' by turn 10 and it's worth 100. But if you roll into it on turn 30 it's worth nothing. Exit a battalion on turn 30 it's worth a lot. On turn 70 not nearly as much. I can't figure out how to do that with the current vp system.)

At any rate I think I know the philosophy behind the current design - force preservation is *always* a priority to a commander. Not to get in an argument about Zhukov :) philosophically I agree. One of the complaints about board games is the 'fight to the last cardboard counter' tendency. Made it too gamey, and not realistic enough. But in the end this is a game. Giving people the flexibility to design in different values on the pixel troopers may end up less realistic, but I think would open up more scenario opportunities.