Kill Points or VP Points

[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). ;)