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

[Marquo]

[/quote]

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
[/quote]


Heh, heh, heh. I am certain that my last opponent quit our S'41 campaign in disgust because that is essentially what I did, but I was more methodical. The Soviet units which enter on the south can be a real pill if they are allowed to infiltrate the rear. So I patiently spun a spider web along the south edge and everytime reinforcements entered, they were devoured for the points. A tasty battalion of 300 + men is worth ~ 30 points....:rolleyes: And yes I rolled the flank from south to north. Why bother driving east to Smolensk when the smorgesborg of Soviet units is more than enough to ensure victory?

Again this is my point: no incentive to act with a modicum of historical imperative; you can call it the Battle of Smolensk but that it is not - it is a jumbled series of tactical engagements spread out over the map with no real rythme or reason. And as George C. Scott said in the movie Patton, "God forgive me, I love it so."


Marquo

[Volcano Man]

Well.... why not make a version of S41 campaign where the objectives are 1000s of points each, thereby negating most of the VPs from losses. If the VP values are high enough and the VP levels take the Russian units into account, then it could be worked out where Russian losses are mostly negated. If desired, the turn count could then be narrowed down a bit if desired to place a greater emphasis on time.

But I was always under the impression that the great German blitz through Russia placed a great emphasis on destroying Russian formations - which was something they could not get a good handle on in many cases because of the vast expanses; many units simply slipped through the nets. To deny this requirement to the Germans would simply mean that they could punch through a hole then drive past everything to the objectives where they would certainly win at that as well. So, I am not sure what one approach would do over the other except cause the player to take a different path to victory. Speaking of which, in your example of the spider web, the Russian player should or could have easily just exited them off the map where they entered, denying you the points he was feeding you anyway. So part of the issue is recognizing the situation and changing accordingly.

I can see a benefit of an accumulated scoring mechanism because it would allow delaying actions to be simulated (the invasion of Poland is an example in the sense that the Polish have no chance of stopping the Germans, but maybe they could hold on long enough that, strategically, it would have been a setback for the Germans). The only problem is, it is very difficult to calculate VP levels as it is already, having to take into account the wild card of unit loss ratios and crazy unforeseen strategies. Having an accumulated scoring mechanism for objectives would be nearly impossible to calculate because, unlike TWiE series, the campaigns in PzC can be many hundreds of turns. I don't know the answer to that other than that it would probably be impossible to calculate VP levels accurately, and there would likely be even more game results that are a forgone conclusion by only 1/2 the way through it.

[Strela]

I tend to agree with Ed that balancing and scoring Panzer Campaign scenarios is a black art. Do you ever wonder why the sub 20 turn games regularly feel finely balanced yet a campaign game can go pear shaped very quickly when it comes to points. The challenge is that the longer a scenario the more likely players will do things completly unexpected and break the 'assumed' victory criteria the designer built.

The system is also better at set piece battles where both sides have clearly defined roles. The reason we didn't initially release an overall campaign game in Kharkov '43 was that both sides swapped roles over time and we couldn't make the existing victory system work - something that Marquo struggled with in his mod of the same campaign. We have no idea how our alternate system of victory point locations will work in the newly released Kharkov '43 campaign, but we are following Larsonney's AAR with interest!

Now that said, scenario designers do have a fair amount of flexibility in that by setting points for objectives either high or low can focus or defocus on killing units. With the values of units precomputed, setting objectives points is the major variable available. Ed's suggestion of high value static units is another that is pushing the system, but could increase or decrease VP's over time, by adding or subtracting these high value units.

As a final note - it is hard to balance scenarios in PZC. It takes a lot of time and a lot of playtesting to get enough results to be confident you have it right. If the designer misses something then it can totally unbalance a scenario. In Kharkov '43 we had to change some of the later scenarios where the Soviets were being beaten back and deviod of artillery and air as the Germans were using their 'travel mode' halftacks with impunity. It is hard to cover off all contingencies. Add to that a 200+ turn campaign that takes at least 6 months to play and you are struggling to get enough results to make a balanced call.

So - all good conversation but a difficult one - I ultimately think it comes down to the scenario designer determining what is the key thing the player has to do (almost singular) and then reward them for actions that take them along that path. Easier said than done!

David

[larsonney]

The system is also better at set piece battles where both sides have clearly defined roles. The reason we didn't initially release an overall campaign game in Kharkov '43 was that both sides swapped roles over time and we couldn't make the existing victory system work - something that Marquo struggled with in his mod of the same campaign. We have no idea how our alternate system of victory point locations will work in the newly released Kharkov '43 campaign, but we are following Larsonney's AAR with interest!

David

I think the Kharkov '43 Campaign is the way to go...losses are irrelevant (at least directly) in determining victory. Obviously, if you lose an army or two there won't be much left to defend the VP hexes anyway

I believe that our campaign has a different feel, and we are 45+ turns in...I am on the defending side, but the Russian team seems to be moving with a plan to secure "X" amount of VP hexes by the first victory level check. They are definitely not trying to eliminate every unit on the map...more screening or brushing aside units that are irrelevant to the path to a victory hex or strategic (i.e. a river crossing) objective that will facilitate future options.

That's not to say they are not trying to eliminate units, but there is not that rabid track and kill aspect I have experienced in other campaigns & I, for one, am not checking every turn what that lost AT gun just cost me...feels more strategic...the units are a tool to achieve a larger goal. Not to be thrown away or sacrificed for no reason, especially my meager supply of Germans :rolleyes:, but both sides are using their forces to try to achieve a goal...again, not a feeling I get in some of the other campaigns.

Jon

P.S.---By the way, I think David makes an excellent distinction between small & large scenarios...I agree that only the large campaigns have this issue we are discussing...

[Marquo]

So - all good conversation but a difficult one - I ultimately think it comes down to the scenario designer determining what is the key thing the player has to do (almost singular) and then reward them for actions that take them along that path. Easier said than done!

David,

I agree with the caveat that the constraints are simply imposed by the gaming system/program, and the idea of dynamic versus static VPs is a good idea, and would make for much more interesting and intruiging campaigns.

You referenced my version of the Backhand Blow/FSR; I did agonize over the VP levels and struggled with many iterations. There is a tension between what STAVKA wanted to achieve, and what could be achieved. There is almost no way of expecting poor Popov to capture the bridges over the Dnepr, and to reward the Soviet for attaining the deepest penetration possible only to be slaughtered does not sit well with me. I read, and reread multiple accounts, and finally decided that Belgorod is the key to the campaign. Afterall, when this is where Von Manstein finished his offensive in March, 1943. So what if the Soviets take Kharkov - the current engine offers no rewards for this or even capturing Dnepopetrovsk....if it is lost again Axis.

It is time for tired old work horse to get an overhaul.

Marquo :)

[Volcano Man]

The system is also better at set piece battles where both sides have clearly defined roles. The reason we didn't initially release an overall campaign game in Kharkov '43 was that both sides swapped roles over time and we couldn't make the existing victory system work - something that Marquo struggled with in his mod of the same campaign. We have no idea how our alternate system of victory point locations will work in the newly released Kharkov '43 campaign, but we are following Larsonney's AAR with interest!

David

I think the Kharkov '43 Campaign is the way to go...losses are irrelevant (at least directly) in determining victory. Obviously, if you lose an army or two there won't be much left to defend the VP hexes anyway

Well, just a little Devil's Advocate here:

FWIW, that approach has its own problems as well, such as the "race against the clock syndrome" potentially being much worse than with standard scoring. What I mean is, we all know everyone rushes to or holds fast at objectives near the final turns of the scenario. However, if losses are not taken into account into victory conditions then it can potentially make it worse, with whole divisions being sacrificed so that X number of objectives are unobtainable by the end of the scenario. It may also serve to trigger an escalating tempo to the point of all out destruction in the last 2/3rds of the campaign as both sides are throwing everything they have at it, disregarding all losses. At least with the current scoring mechanisms recklessness during the final race against the close stages can be severely punished.

I do very much like the Kh43 Grand Campaign and the creativeness behind it however, and there is no better way to represent the complex nature of Kh43's Grand Campaign at the moment; do not misunderstand the intent in this post (I am not picking on it in any way). I am only saying that every approach has its own warts in different areas, and they also have their own potential abuses and gameplay influences. I think the key here is that more VP determination methods would be nice, albeit it would probably confuse the community from title to title. Now if only more people would show up at the Tillercons to suggest ideas... ;)

edited: typos

[Strela]

It's always good to be devil's advocate, Ed! :)

I think Jon has got the intent - throwing your units away in Kharkov '43 to try and win a stage will severely impact you for any later stages. Even if you waited till the last stage to do that you hopefully would have seen sensible play in the first two scoring rounds. It is interesting that the team playing it are seeing a different style and that was what was hoped for. What helps in the Kharkov operation is that there is more than one scoring round which keeps some shackles on. In the third one the Germans have a lot of ground to cover and mud etc to contend with, so even if they throw everything in it will still be a struggle AND close to what happened historically...

What this conversation has done is draw out some of issues that John Tiller has put up around changing the victory points - it can change the whole nature of the game and spawn unexpected consequences.

I can't reiterate enough how hard it is to balance these scenarios, particularly when we take into account how experienced some of the players here at the Blitz are. While play testing Kharkov we tried to get players of various skill levels to try and see what the spread of results were and then set the target victory points. Trust me it is not easy and having points that challange the elite player maybe enough to put off the novices we need to attract to our hobby. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes and I am certain Ed saw the same thing in preparing France '14.

Anyway a great topic and interesting for us who are lucky enough to do some development and design work to hear what people think.

David

[Marquo]

Trust me it is not easy and having points that challange the elite player maybe enough to put off the novices we need to attract to our hobby.

Dave,

So the flip side of this reflection is what happened (is happening) to me: I am getting bored with predictable nature of the game play. I went cold turkey about 6 months ago while playing a Minsk Campaign. As the Soviet all I was doing was slaughtering Axis units with no real sense of direction or purpose; I started to dread getting the move from my opponent as all it meant was more hours of pointless mayhem - not so much fun at all. TOC is graphically great, dependable, reliable, get's the job done on a tactical level, but I can't expect much more out of it. If it were not for Ed's alt scenarios, I would probably never fire up a PzC Campaign again.

Why? Because under the current static paradigm of VPs TOC frustrates as an operational level game. As I have already mentioned, IMHO campaigns degenerate into a series of disconnected tactical engagements. And in it's stock form, as a tactical simulation, TOC does not engage me as well as Ed's awesome alt masterpieces with ranged fire, better consideration of assaults, ranged fire, etc, - a huge boost for a tactical wargame.

I agree with the comments about the smaller scenarios; the time limits of the smaller engagements do much to inspire players to go after objectives, rather than simply turn into mindless pyrhannas.

Most of the Campaigns are set up in a manner such that the units of both sides are spread across the entire map, and there are enough units to adequately "cover" the entire map. The only manouver is the attacker and defender trying guess where each is weaker/stronger and then a punching match begins. The reason why I and others like the FSR campaign is that there are not enough units to cover the map: there is an element of uncertainty as your flanks hang in the wind and are not anchored to the edge of the map; so at least in this campaign manouvre of forces to defend/attack in 360 degrees adds an element of spice and the game is not a simple grind along one axis.

Ed's suggestion about going to the Tillercon is spot on: I had been posting frustration about AT units serving to pin entire battalions for quite some time on the message board; at the first Tillercon we had an open forum during which this was discussed, and now ATs now longer able to serve as prision guards ;)

Marquo