SCORING

[Ratel]

Reading through all the posts, I pick up two things and I believe it mirrors my feelings about it.
1)We shouldn't change the system if the effect will be that we all end up being generals in no time. The current system should be handling this fine, as it has come a long way and seems to be working. Therefore we should leave it as is.
2)I believe we shouldn't change the current scoring from a draw up to the highest level of victory, but I still believe that we should differentiate between levels of loss. Maybe leave a minor and medium loss at 5 but make anything worse than that zero? The reason why I say this is that, once a player realises he is going to loose, he should do something to minimize the level of victory that the winner is going to get. Throwing all your troops at him as cannon fodder will just improve his chances of a major victory. Therefore, at some point, one should decide to retreat his forces off-screen to prevent them from being killed. This is what would have happened in real life as well.

For example, if I am left only with my arty and some infantry units that have taken a pounding already, my tanks are mostly killed or don't stand up well against the enemy armor, etc, etc, what is the point in keeping on attacking with them if you know they don't stand a chance against the enemy, either because of quality or quantity. The more you throw them at the enemy, the more they will be killed, resulting in more points for the winner. This is especially true if the enemy already holds all the VH's and you have to take it from him. If you hold some VH's, then yes, stick around and try to keep it, therefore dig in and wait for the attack.

Maybe I am wrong, but that's what my logic says.

Finally, irrespective of whether anything changes or not, I am still gaming on. Changing the scoring system is not a major thing for me. As long as it works well.