About VCs including "sudden death" conditions

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,115
Reaction score
248
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
I refer to scenarios with a number of turns including a VC deciding a victory in previous turn with some conditions.. kind of Rude Mood or Crossfire from Action Packs.

I personally dislike greatly this particular VC conditions making possible a victory on first 2 or 3 turns, mainly because they are creating a lot of dicey scenarios whith no time (turns) to recover from a bad turn. I think the same purpose is obtained with a VC conditions using Victory points and counting this Victory points EVERY Turn. I mean, if you want a scenario forcing a slow withdraw (rude Mood) try it by getting at the end of each turn a number of victory points based on buildings controlled by either side (or anything else). If VC are good enough, to get a victory the player will have to get a minimun number every turn similar to the conditions created by the sudden death condition, but because of not special victory until reaching the last turn, any bad turn affected by high or low DRs or some stupid mistake may be balanced on next turns, so creating an always 7 turn scenario but with the same stressing game turns.. Ie, there is no tiem to relax -IMHO as trying to create those particualr VC conditions- but game will be played until the last turn, as usual.

I really think that adding this particular dicey VC conditions to tournament size scenarios is a particular big mistake and not needed at all by changing VCs to get the same game effect.

My 0,00000000000199999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999... cents

Miguel
 
Last edited:

ecz

Partisan Captain
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
4,303
Reaction score
395
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
Miguel I basically agree. With a pair of things to add and specify.

1) no scenario, expecially if it is a "tournament" scenario, must (or should) protect the player if he makes a *stupid mistake*. I think that if a scenario ends quickly for a *stupid mistake* there is no harm. About bad luck this is an old and different problem. The bigger is the scenario the greater are the chances to recover. This is applies also for "sudden death" VC, of course, where the time to recover is even less and a bad streak of DR can ruin a game from turn 1. But if the scenario is big enough, the player exposed to the risk of the sudden death still have good chances to recover (if he does not make stupid mistakes of course).
Thus I would leave this kind of entertainment for non competitive-friendly games when the scenario is already short, simple or features very few key units. Instead scenario like AP 82 Coriano (for example) is big enough to let its sudden death VCs operate with no damage to the fun. In fact I find this scenario one of the best scenarios of this "new generation" and it fits perfectly in any tournament scenario list.

2) but in general the true and biggest problem for sudden death VC is that they are extraordinarily difficult to playtest. The Designer has TWO (or more) chances to fail the balance...
I understand the need for creativity but often there is no reason to artificially create Sudden Death VCs expecially when one of them is much much harder to get, when not unachievable at all.

IMHO the tournament scenarios of the future should concentrate more on the "challange" aspect : I can do this task better than you ... and less on complex VC that- inevitably - must be more and more long and convolute in the attempt to be always original and attractive.
 
Last edited:

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,970
Reaction score
2,038
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
It seems to me that far more common overall is the Sudden Death "you lose" conditions for reaching a CVP cap while attacking; and THIS is a very realistic proposition for an attacker. It is probably the only real "true" fix the game rules themselves allow for preventing the very gamey " last turn charge of the light brigade into the valley of death" - all or nithing last MPh run for a VC condition. Those types of events are gamey in and of themselves; and are at that poiint a pure luck event regardless. By using a sudden death CVP cap, a designer can prevent such occurrences quite easily; as if you are desperate enough to try rushing the building at the end, you will likely lose anywayfrom the losses taken trying to get there. more importantly, few situations were " take that objective, even if it guts your company and you take 99% casualties getting there." ( Granted there were some, but this was overall not an acceptable casualty rate for any WW2 Company commander. If he jumped off with 150 men under his command and arrived at the objective, now needing to hold it with less than 5 men, the rest lying broken, bleeding or dead around him; he'd not likely do well in his military career.)

KRL, jon H
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,115
Reaction score
248
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
To Enrico.... I refer to stupid movement a on 1st turn, that may usually be compensed by stupid enemy movements in future turns.. Even Batty-P may be changed to ensure a full number of turns.. the player would get VPs when taking a block counting every turn they control it... Then a number of VPs at the end to decide the level of victory.. If not you may win because a rider cross the full Germán defense surviving every shot and passing any MC to get an área at the end of the board...

To John.. I agree with a sudden death LOSE condition by limiting a number of CVP to any attacker. I think is an interesting point to eliminate absurd Banzai Charges to take the last VC area in the last Turn.. Specially If no other troop alive..
 
Last edited:
Top