Tricky VC, For Me Anyway

[volgaG68]

VC reads in part, "...CVP cap......, the French win at game end if there are <3 Good Order American squad-equivalents in building(s) J4 and/or E5."

Does this mean the French win if:

1. There are less than 3 GO US SE in J4 AND less than 3 GO US SE in E5 at game end? or...
2. There are less than 3 GO US SE in either J4 OR E5? Only has to be less than 3 in one of them? or...
3. Other

Thanks for any help. [FT 261]

 

[MajorDomo]

I would read this VC as "the French must reduce the total number of Good Order American squad equivalents in buildings J4 and E5 to less than three"

 

[Eagle4ty]

VC reads in part, "...CVP cap......, the French win at game end if there are <3 Good Order American squad-equivalents in building(s) J4 and/or E5."

Does this mean the French win if:

1. There are less than 3 GO US SE in J4 AND less than 3 GO US SE in E5 at game end? or...
2. There are less than 3 GO US SE in either J4 OR E5? Only has to be less than 3 in one of them? or...
3. Other

Thanks for any help. [FT 261]

Took a look at this and at the scenario. I believe #1 is the most accurate interpretation of the VC. Certainly a poor choice for the use of "and/or" in presentation.

 

[volgaG68]

I would read this VC as "the French must reduce the total number of Good Order American squad equivalents in buildings J4 and E5 to less than three"

Total? If there was 1 GO SE in J4 and 2 GO SE in E5, the French would not win?

 

[volgaG68]

Took a look at this and at the scenario. I believe #1 is the most accurate interpretation of the VC. Certainly a poor choice for the use of "and/or" in presentation.

I found it disconcerting as well, but the (s) after building was what really made my head spin in combination with that.

 

[MajorDomo]

Total? If there was 1 GO SE in J4 and 2 GO SE in E5, the French would not win?

No, my interpretation is that 1 GO squad equivalent in J4 and 2 GO squad equivalents in E5 would be an Ami win.

1+2=3 squad equivalents.

 

[Actionjick]

Took a look at this and at the scenario. I believe #1 is the most accurate interpretation of the VC. Certainly a poor choice for the use of "and/or" in presentation.

It does seem as if the scenario designer could have been more precise with his intentions for the VC. Just because you understand what you mean doesn't necessarily mean that others will.??

 

[Mister T]

I would read this VC as "the French must reduce the total number of Good Order American squad equivalents in buildings J4 and E5 to less than three"

That's a very neat way to express the VC.

Whether it genuinely reflects the intention of the designer it is another story.

I would agree the use of "and/or" is confusing in this context.

 

[Philippe Briaux]

If the scenario is FT261 The Battle of Algiers, I confirm what MajorDomo said:

"the French must reduce the total number of Good Order American squad equivalents in buildings J4 and E5 to less than three"

 

[Actionjick]

If the scenario is FT261 The Battle of Algiers, I confirm what MajorDomo said:

Perhaps but the use of " or " really leaves the VC open to multiple interpretations. It would have been helpful for the designer to give examples of the VCs.