DYO: How do you set victory conditions?

[dude163]

or am I missing some pages from my used RB?

thanks

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I would strongly recommend you get ahold of The General Vol. 24 Issue 1, which had a great article on DYO by Greg Schmittgens and Charlie Kibler, which was a random scenario generator including random VC generation, to use in conjunction with Chapter H.

Try this auction on ebay:

here

I've dealt with the seller, and you can buy direct from his website; the scans are clean and hi-resolution pdfs.

 

[Glennbo]

I never liked the General article. We always prefered to pick our own boards, points, VCs, and nationalities. That's the whole point of playing Design Your Own, you get to choose what you want to do. Following the General article's instructions means you are no longer truly "designing your own"...you're doing what they yell you to do.

As for Victory Conditions, we found that whoever killed the most CVP was the winner as the best way to go. Another one we often played was whoever controled the upper levels of hill boards or the most multi-level stone buildings. For these terrain type VC we would put the hills or city in the middle, with the more open boards on the sides. Another choice we played was half-board control: this gives a half-board to whichever player had the most CVP on it at the end, or whichever player was the last to have a CVP on it...whoever controls the most half-boards wins! But I highly recommend the most CVP killed approach despite the record keeping.

We chose these VC for our games because we always played meeting engagements from off-map, and we both had the same number of points to spend. We never had one player set up a defence with the other player attacking a prepared line. If you choose that type of scenario then maybe Exit Victory Conditions might be good.

 

[dude163]

Thanks man

 

[prymus]

Agree with Glennbo. In my own DYO I always determine what type of engagement I want to have first.The CVP approach works well for meeting engagements.But if you want to play a more traditional attacker vs. defender scen then I would go with determining critical terrain features,ie buildings,hills,road junctions,bridges or fords... Or you can always go with exit VP's.Not sure how you would determine the amount of points to exit in relation to your starting force,but would most likely have to be the majority of it(2/3 to 3/4 I would think).Check out a couple scenz that require exit VC's to be met and that should give a good idea of what should be required.Hope my 2 cents helps.

 

[paulkenny]

VC: To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

 

[footsteps]

I never liked the General article. We always prefered to pick our own boards, points, VCs, and nationalities. That's the whole point of playing Design Your Own, you get to choose what you want to do. Following the General article's instructions means you are no longer truly "designing your own"...you're doing what they yell you to do.

As for Victory Conditions, we found that whoever killed the most CVP was the winner as the best way to go. Another one we often played was whoever controled the upper levels of hill boards or the most multi-level stone buildings. For these terrain type VC we would put the hills or city in the middle, with the more open boards on the sides. Another choice we played was half-board control: this gives a half-board to whichever player had the most CVP on it at the end, or whichever player was the last to have a CVP on it...whoever controls the most half-boards wins! But I highly recommend the most CVP killed approach despite the record keeping.

We chose these VC for our games because we always played meeting engagements from off-map, and we both had the same number of points to spend. We never had one player set up a defence with the other player attacking a prepared line. If you choose that type of scenario then maybe Exit Victory Conditions might be good.

IIRC, the article was primarily aimed at opponents who couldn't agree on anything (hmmm, can't think of who that might apply to around here!). While I find the order of determining things to be somewhat backwards, I think it provides some good ideas that can be incorporated into a DYO scenario.

Of course, nothing beats having an opponent where agreement comes easily -- so you're already miles ahead.

Alan

 

[pward]

If you and your opponent can't agree to the VC, have one set the conditions for the scenario points, boards VC weather etc. Then the other gets choice of sides and to move first or second.

Next time around the roles get reversed. Player two decides the parameters, player one gets sides and initiative.

 

[Treadhead]

Following the General article's instructions means you are no longer truly "designing your own"...you're doing what they yell you to do.

Well, first off they weren't yelling, I thought the article was very reasonably presented.

I think you are grossly under-representing the nature of the scenario generation procedure introduced by Schmittgens and Kibler. Far from "telling you what to do", it provides a framework for randomly generating basically every aspect of the scenario (except the specific forces).

Naturally the players are free to decide how to handle each step, or they may choose to generate everything randomly. Depending on the outcome of the process, each player is assigned a number of points, then purchases his units and proceeds with set-up, etc.

This system allows players to devise many different types of situations, without having to conjure them up with their own imagination.

Strictly speaking it may not be Design Your Own (perhaps Roll Your Own :smoke: would be more appropriate).


As far as your preferred method is concerned, sure, you can always play on boards of your own choosing against a force that is always roughly equal in size and composed of similar units, bashing away unimaginatively for casualty points without introducing other options or variables or unknowns or constraints. Sure, you could do that, if that's what you find enjoyable. I could even imagine it's how ESG constructs their scenarios for playtest...


But if a player wants to be presented with an unknown situation over ground not necessarily of his choosing, with different and variable VC each time... The Schmittgens/Kibler article cannot be recommended highly enough.

If you are interested in DYO and can get that particular issue of the General (featuring Streets of Fire, btw), get it.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

If you are interested in DYO and can get that particular issue of the General (featuring Streets of Fire, btw), get it.

There's no "if" about it, Bruce. The link provided has several copies of the magazine in electronic form available for instant purchase. The vendor also has a website where you can buy the product off of ebay.

 

[Treadhead]

[Never mind.]

 

[Glennbo]

I could even imagine it's how ESG constructs their scenarios for playtest...

With an imagination as fervidly festering as yours, you certainly don't need to rely on the General article!

 

[dlazov]

One time way back when me and my opponent could not agree on what to play, so finally we said lets put all the maps down and use all the Germans and Russians! What the hell it was new. So we did we played all day there were burning wrecks every where.

The VC, who ever had the most burning heaps lost. I lost. But I got runner up for killing more of his tanks...

 

[footsteps]

One time way back when me and my opponent could not agree on what to play, so finally we said lets put all the maps down and use all the Germans and Russians! What the hell it was new. So we did we played all day there were burning wrecks every where.

The VC, who ever had the most burning heaps lost. I lost. But I got runner up for killing more of his tanks...

I've dreamed of a mega-monster, completely ahistorical beast where all the boards are used, and all the nationalities are used - one per player - with two "allied" sides attacking each other. Pick a year (i.e. 1942) for the latest available AFVs (so that early war combatants aren't completely blown away by Tigers or IS3s).

It'll never happen, but fun to speculate.

I like your VCs!

Alan

 

[dlazov]

Remember that was SL/COI. Here is the ASL version:

July 1943, Hypothetical somewhere in Russia.

BALANCE CONDITIONS: None, not needed.

TURNS: 5 (or more but should be less then 20)

BOARD CONFIGURATION: 4x8 geo boards (roll them up)

VICTORY CONDITIONS: The German player wins if he creates more burning tank wrecks then the Russian player without loosing more tanks then the Russian player, otherwise the Russian player wins.

SSR 1. EC are Dry and hot, with a mild breeze blown' south.
SSR 2. Kindling is NA.
SSR 3. Neither side may abandon their vehicles.
SSR 4. Tank Ramming is allow (find that card with them on it)
SSR 5. Neither side may 'spike' his vehicles.
SSR 6. Both players roll a die and the highest die wins, keep rolling if ties. The winner goes first. Both players can only use 1/2 MP/MF the first turn.
SSR 7. Both sides get Air Support as per Chapter H (xx.xx).
SSR 8. For all S/W and Leaders please use the tables in Chapter H (see below).

Suggested OOB (note you must own BV3, RB, SK3 and KGP1 to play this scenario)

PzKpfw IIIF x8 (BV3 & SK3)
PzKpfw IIIG x6
PzKpfw IIIH x8 (BV3 & SK3)
PzKpfw IIIJ x6
PzKpfw IIIL x6
PzKpfw IIIN x7 (BV3 & SK3)
PzKpfw III(Fl) x3
PzKpfw IVA x3
PzKpfw IVC x4
PzKpfw IVD x8 (BV3 & SK3)
PzKpfw IVE x6
PzKpfw IVF1 x6
PzKpfw IVF2 x10 (BV3 & SK3)
PzKpfw VD x6
PzKpfw VG x6
PzKpfw VIE x8 (BV3 & SK3)
PSW 222(L) x3
PSW 231(6R) x4
PSW 231(8R) x6
PSW 232 x6 (BV3 & SK3)
PSW 233 x3
sIG 1B x3
sIG II x3
sIG 38(t)M x3
PzA II x3
PzA LrS(f) x3
PzA III/IV x3
FlaKPz 38(t) x4
37 FlaKPz IV x4
FlaKPz IV/20 x4
FlaKPz IV/37 x4
SdKfz 10/4 x4
SdKfz 6/2 x4
SdKfz 7/1 x4
StuG IIIB x6
StuG IIIG x8 (BV3 & SK3)
StuG IIIG(L) x8 (BV3 & SK3)
StuH 42(L) x2
StuH 42 x3
Marder I(f) x3
Marder II x4
Marder III(t)H x4
Marder III(t)M x4
SPW 250/1 x10
SPW 250/sMG x3
SPW 251/sMG x3
SPW 250/7 x2
SPW 251/2 x4
SPW 250/8 x2
SPW 250/9 x5
SPW 250/10 x4
SPW 251/1 x24 (BV3 & KGP I)
SPW 251/9 x4
SPW 251/10 x4
SPW 251/16 x3
SPW 251/22 x3
8-3-8 x24
5-4-8 x36 (BV3 & RB)
4-6-8 x24
4-6-7 x48 (BV3 & RB)
Ordinance AT, ATR, MTR and OBA at your discretion

T-60 M40 x6
T-60 M42 x4
T-70 x6
T-34 M41 x12 (BV3 & SK3)
T-34 M43 x10 (BV3 & SK3)
T-43 x6
T-34/85 x10 (BV3 & SK3)
KV-1 M41 x8 (BV3 & SK3)
KV-1 M42 x6
KV-1E x6
KV-2 x7 (BV3 & SK3)
KV-1S x6
KV-85 x5
SU-76M x6
SU-76i(g) x4
SU-122 x6
SU-57(a) x4
BA-20 x5
BA-6 x5
BA-64B x4
ZSU-37 x3
SU-12 x4
GAZ-4M-AA x3
ZIS-42-AA x2
IAG-10-AA x3
M4/76(a) x2 (SK3)
Sherman III(a) x6 (SK3)
6-2-8 x36 (BV3 & RB)
4-5-8 x36 (BV3 & RB)
5-2-7 x36 (BV3 & RB)
4-4-7 x48 (BV3 & RB)
4-2-6 x36 (BV3 & RB)
Ordinance AT, ATR, MTR and OBA at your discretion

 

[WaterRabbit]

When we used to play DYO tournaments, we would use these VC:

1) Most EVP
2) if tied, then Most CVP
3) if tied, then Closest unit to enemy board edge.

 

[A/CSM Bird]

Well my buddy Stalwart and I have been playing DYO off and on for a couple of summers now. We take a hiatus now and again and play scenarios or playtest for George Kelln occaisionally but we find that we like DYO the best. Lately we have hit upon secret VC's as the way to go. Mind you we play monster scenarios, 15 maps on a 4 X 6 1/2 Ft table and 3000 + points per side. So this may not work as well for a small game but if you think about it from a military commander's POV in a meeting engagement or counter attack your objective may not be apparent to your enemy at first so having a taste of 'fog of war' works well.

We approach it from the standpoint of the battlegroup commander; What orders would he be operating under, what objective was set for him by the division or corps? We have as many as three secret VCs per side, and the one who achieves the most VC's is the victor. We are willing to accept a draw, which is a possibility.

In our last match, a German counter-attack against a Russian assault in the area of Kharkov May '43 (3000 points each), I chose CVP at a 3-1 ratio and control the most boards at a 4-1 ratio as my two VC. Stalwart chose EVP, a company of Infantry and Tanks(?) and one of two road nets clear of enemy fire.

Even though our VCs were secret we still had a major clash and I was left guessing right until the end as to what he had planned. It was one of the best DYOs we have ever played.

Our next one is a monster "Hill 621". The Russian, Stalwart, has a secret VC. I am defending. I'll let you know what the VC was in, oh maybe six weeks or so.

 

[WaterRabbit]

I have also used that method as well. The secret objectives adds quite a bit to the FOW.

 

[Glennbo]

My favorite DYO of all time covered most of a ping-pong table, and used every piece provided for each nationality (German, Russian, American, British), exept only two of each AFV and Ordnance. Yep, it was a four player game with each player only getting two Rally Phases per go-around. We met once a week for about eight months. We never did truly finish.

It was cool to use all the little AFVs to maneuver around the behemoths. As soon as one player would start to win, all the others would gang up on him, so there was some politics involved as well.

I remember we rolled for sides (a VERY important roll). I was the Germans and put my King Tigers, Elephants, and JagdTigers together as a center map dominator. They got pummeled from every nationality's big guns. My little PZIIs were scooting around trying to pick off British armored cars. You knew you were doing good when other players would break off their attacks against each other and send those forces your way, but you could prepare yourself for that and counter it somewhat. I remember unhooking my Ordnace quickly as a stablizing line on my right flank, then sending my mobile elements to the left and center. As I recall the terrain dictated this tactic.

One problem was the infantry. Since all the trucks and transport were used to move Ordnance, they had to walk on or be riders. We didn't use OBA or Air Support. I think the VC were "last man alive".

Good times. Sure do wish I could do it again!