Kill Points or VP Points

[larsonney]

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:

This is so true!

I am playing a Smolensk campaign and my opponent is methodically moving north & south, enveloping the plodding front line infantry divisions...Guderian would be rolling over in his grave!!

I know it works, he will have his major victory in due time, but it is so tedious...he punched a hole in the center (then turned south) and bounced the Dvina northeast of Vitebsk, then turned back west to envelope a "D" quality division in Vitebsk. I would have pushed east to Dimidov, then Smolensk is a ripe target to the southeast!

My point is, a campaign like Smolensk is going to be a German victory most of the time...it is a golden opportunity to really be daring and push the limits of armored exploration in the campaign system...plus it would make it interesting for the poor slop that is stuck with the Russians!!

Instead, we will plod along and have a decisive victory for the Germans in the spirit of a World War I campaign...:smoke:

Jon