Should Victory Conditions permit ties?

Should a scenario's Victory Conditions permit a draw result?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 36.0%
  • No

    Votes: 16 64.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Michael Dorosh

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
14,088
Reaction score
817
Location
Calgary, AB
Country
llCanada
Per the thread subject line: should Victory Conditions for a scenario allow a draw (for example, equal CVP tallies) resulting in no winner?
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,223
Reaction score
870
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Why call them VC, if there's no victory?

IIRC, scenarios where a "tie" is possible, usually stipulate that one side or the other is the winner.

Even in operational-level games, where gradations of success may be warranted, draws are rare.

ASL is competitive, and like chess, a draw tends to be unsatisfying for both parties. This is partly why I disagree with the introduction of a "draw" result to the Canadian ASL Open. The other is that it unduly complicates scoring and ranking.

Again, IMO, a more useful addition to VC would be to incorporate bidding for sides, thereby allowing players to set the VC based on their assessments of the tactical situation. FT181 "The Bet" is a great example of this sort of innovation.

YMMV

FT181 The Bet VC.png
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,515
Reaction score
2,686
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
I voted yes.

I am not proposing that by standard VC should also define conditions for a draw. But if scenario designers want to include a 'draw' result, I am absolutely fine with that. For me to have fun playing, I do not require a situation in which one side wins and the other loses.

By the way, the innovative VC quoted above is nice. Though it is more useful for experienced players that have better judgement of what can be achieved with an OoB in a given timeframe. More inexperienced players may be better off with VC that make the scenario balanced as written (at least as far as this can be determined at the point of publication).

von Marwitz
 

Michael Dorosh

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
14,088
Reaction score
817
Location
Calgary, AB
Country
llCanada
Myself, I'm a big fan of the "a draw is considered a win for the ATTACKER" (or DEFENDER), but am interested in everyone's thoughts.
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,223
Reaction score
870
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
For me to have fun playing, I do not require a situation in which one side wins and the other loses.

von Marwitz
I disagree in so much as the most memorable scenarios from my perspective have been those where the game came down to the last CC of the last CCPh. I would rather lose a scenario on the last CC than have a scenario end as a draw.

If the mere act of playing a scenario was enough to satisfy the fun factor (FF), then why do most players throw in the towel when the situation appears hopeless (or mathematically impossible)? Why not play on for shits and giggles? Admittedly, some do. However, most do not, especially when playing a CG. Playing on becomes a chore. My wife assigns me enough of those without volunteering for more.

A draw is almost always an unsatisfying end to a scenario.

YFFMV. ;)
 
Last edited:

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,515
Reaction score
2,686
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
I disagree in so much as the most memorable scenarios from my perspective have been those where the game came down to the last CC of the last CCPh. I would rather lose a scenario on the last CC than have a scenario end as a draw.

If the mere act of playing a scenario was enough to satisfy the fun factor (FF), then why do most players throw in the towel when the situation appears hopeless (or mathematically impossible)? Why not play on for shits and giggles? Admittedly, some do. However, most do not, especially when playing a CG. Playing on becomes a chore. My wife assigns me enough of those without volunteering for more.

A draw is almost always a unsatisfying end to a scenario.

YFFMV. ;)
Well, each to his own.

That said, I am of the type that plays on until it becomes impossible to win most of the time. If I would play CGs, that would indeed be a different matter as the time invested in a lost cause is out of proportion.

But for normal scenarios to hang on is good training for your PMC. And you learn to play end-game situations that will also help in that type of scenario in which the VCs demand to survive with at least one unbroken units etc. Furthermore, sometimes you can turn games that appear to be without hope, which is quite satisfying.

von Marwitz
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,515
Reaction score
2,686
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
And these turnarounds are satisfying because...

you are able to achieve a draw? ;)
It is satisfying, because the end the game got very close again.
It does not matter to me then, if you name it win, loss or draw.

Cheers,
von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

Mr Incredible

Rod loves red undies
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
2,438
Reaction score
347
Location
Perth, Australia
Country
llAustralia
Why can't we have both?

A scenario is a snippet in time with time ending on the last roll of the dice and sometime part of a larger battle. What might happen if there was another half a turn or if the victory on the last roll of CC is an actual victory?

I see a place in the game to have a range of victories/defeats.

e.g.

Draw
Marginal victory
Tactical Victory
Major Victory

.............or whatever.

A marginal victory might represent those last CC wins, but the opponent has a force that can swoop in and take back what was won if there was another turn.

A major victory might represent one player completely smashing the other player with little loss in force numbers and winning within a few turns.
 

Blackcloud6

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
615
Location
Shangrila
Country
llUnited States
There are real battles where neither side achieves their objectives, so should there be such in ASL.
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,223
Reaction score
870
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
There are real battles where neither side achieves their objectives, so should there be such in ASL.
Judging by the tales of one local ASL player here in Ottawa, this happens to him and his regular opponent ten hours, and a two-four into some of their scenarios. At that point, they've long forgotten the VC and are having too much fun to care anyway.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
7,995
Reaction score
2,790
Location
Dublin
Country
llIreland
Apart from historical battles, I've seen many wargames and wargame systems that allow both draws and multiple levels of victories, eg Decisive Victory/Defeat, Major, Minor and Draw. So I have no problem with a draw.
 

Honosbinda

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
451
Reaction score
71
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
I don't believe anyone who tells me they don't like to win and only play for fun. Does anybody really only play a game to lose or draw? 'Oh I can't wait to play monopoly again tonight so I can lose or draw another game!' 'Playing poker tonight with the guys, I plan to lose or break even as usual' 'playing chess tonight, looking forward to another draw or loss' it's laughable, and I'm sorry for the testosterone, but my opponent better damn well be doing his best to beat me because I want a masterful victory, not some funny haha win.

The whole point of a game is to win the game. Yes, it's fun to solo ASL for fun and who cares who wins then, right? But against any opponent I've ever played, we're both out to win. Some don't mind losing as much as others do, that's about the extent of it.

there are two elements to a game -- winning and amusement, ASL is both,
  1. 1.
    a form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules.
    synonyms:match, contest, tournament, meeting, sports meeting, meet, event, athletic event, fixture, tie, cup tie, test match, final, cup final, play-off; More

  2. 2.
    an activity that one engages in for amusement.
    "a computer game"
    synonyms:pastime, diversion, entertainment, amusement, distraction, divertissement, recreation, sport, activity, leisure activity; More
 

Michael Dorosh

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
14,088
Reaction score
817
Location
Calgary, AB
Country
llCanada
There are real battles where neither side achieves their objectives, so should there be such in ASL.
And in the greater context of the campaign, I'd argue it would be easy to assign more importance to that result to one side or another - but I'd need some concrete examples if you can think of any.

Someone said n our discussion on FB the Korean War was a tie. But of course, it wasn't. The UN managed to preserve the status quo, which for them was a win.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
9,515
Reaction score
2,686
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
I see a place in the game to have a range of victories/defeats.

e.g.

Draw
Marginal victory
Tactical Victory
Major Victory

.............or whatever.

A marginal victory might represent those last CC wins, but the opponent has a force that can swoop in and take back what was won if there was another turn.

A major victory might represent one player completely smashing the other player with little loss in force numbers and winning within a few turns.
In theory, the competitive types should like this because it better represents the skill of the players and less the "decisive roll in the last CCPh" in which the winner takes it all and the opponent - almost as good - gets nothing. But I bet especially the competitive bunch would hate it as they don't like to share victory but want it all for themselves.

The others, for which the win in itself is not the objective, might be more open to this. On the other hand, they don't exactly need such a classification as it is usually easy to judge without being specifically defined anywhere on the scenario card what a Marginal Victory, Tactical Victory or Major Victory is: For example if it is the last CC roll that decides, it is obviously the first. If I need 10 out of 20 buildings and got 13 or 14, then it is the second. If I just steamrolled the opponent with a turn or two to spare, then it is apparently the third.

von Marwitz
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,615
Reaction score
918
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
The idea to have marginal /substantive /decisive victory/defeat looks good for competitive play. However:
- it would lenghten games as it would take longer to ascertain the exact victory level;
- some would throw the towel as they are not interested in carrying on the fight if they feel they have lost while others will fight to the very end. That would create tiebreaker gaps not linked to actual game outcomes but to players' preferences.
For these two reasons, non-binary VCs would not work in most cases, unless one gathers a small group of enthusiastic/fanatic players engaged in round robin format.
 

Spencer Armstrong

Canard de Guerre
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
8,319
Reaction score
1,204
Location
Gainesville, FL
Country
llUnited States
I don't think there's a great case for it at ASL's scale, but more to the point: I wouldn't choose to play such a scenario. YMMV.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
19,873
Reaction score
4,301
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I don't think there should be any result other than tie. After all you really can't say one side won a battle. It's more a question of who lost less.

JR
 

Servius

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
54
Reaction score
51
Country
llUnited States
I could see a non binary result as an attempt to score a series or a scoring style in a tournament. Just taking it as a 2 player instance:

2 players A & B playing 2 scenarios 1 & 2.
Possible results are: Major Victory, Marginal Victory, Draw, Marginal Loss, Major Loss.
A draw is worth 0 pts, Marginal Victory 1, Major Victory 2, Marginal Loss -1, Major Loss -2.
A variation would be in victory points based on units killed or buildings occupied or units exited.

Game1: Player A attacks in Scenario 1
Game2: Player B attacks Scenario 1
Game3: Player B attacks Scenario 2
Game4: Player A attacks Scenario 2

Add up the points for each player to determine who wins the series.

I don't know if it would work out in practice; it's just a thought.
 
Top