VCs

chris_olden

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
5,287
Reaction score
750
Location
Room 429
Country
llUnited States
For the peanut gallery;
do you think VCs should be based on what the attacker needs to do to win,
or can/could they be based on what the defender needs to do to win?
Just thinking out loud?
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
For the peanut gallery;
do you think VCs should be based on what the attacker needs to do to win,
or can/could they be based on what the defender needs to do to win?
Just thinking out loud?
Sometimes it is based on what the defender needs to do to win - on official scenarios, it is always expressed as what the attacked needs to do (which isn't [IMO] always optimal) though.

On Friendly Fire scenarios, it is sometimes expressed as what the defender needs to do. Compare e.g., the FrF and the MMP version of "To Have And To Hold".
 

Srynerson

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
2,605
Reaction score
367
Location
Denver
Country
llUnited States
For the peanut gallery;
do you think VCs should be based on what the attacker needs to do to win,
or can/could they be based on what the defender needs to do to win?
Just thinking out loud?
While there is apparently an official standard (I'd overlooked that; thanks Klas), I think in practice it can be either depending on what fits with the dynamics of the scenario. As a personal matter, in thinking about scenario designs, typically one side in my mind is the "protagonist," not in the sense that you should necessarily root for them, but in the sense that the underlying source material that informs the scenario disproportionately focuses on that side, such that what constitutes "victory" or "defeat" is framed in reference to that particular side, regardless of whether it is a defender or attacker, because that side's motivations in the battle are better understood.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,207
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Also, "Total Destruction of the enemy" is a good VC to use as well......
Meh. I don't like these type of scenarios. At least not being the defender. It is not that exciting to try hang on with some forlorn HS.

To allow one side to completely wipe out the other its forces have usually to be far superior in ASL. This means that the defender will not be able to do much because his task will be to delay and skulk for the entire game. Even if he had the theoretical possibility to dare punching back at some point, he will usually avoid the risk of such an attempt going awry and as a consequence being blown to bits by overwhelming return fire prematurely.

von Marwitz
 

Cult.44

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
827
Reaction score
451
Location
Minneapolis
First name
Mark
Country
llUnited States
I guess I would emphasize clarity over a preference for expressing VC from the attacker or defender's points of view. Although, typically, I'd think the attacker's point of view would be the clearest way to do it. And by "attacker", I mean the side that must change the status quo of the scenario, i.e., the side that loses if nothing changes from the beginning to the end of the game.
 

danielt1263

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
186
Reaction score
15
Location
Tampa, FL
Country
llUnited States
I wish there was a "like" or "I agree" button on these things...

I think Cult.44 has a great point. In most scenarios, if neither player moves or fires for the entire game, one of them will win. Don't bother doing VC for that side, write up the VC for the other side, even if they are technically the defender.
 

Srynerson

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
2,605
Reaction score
367
Location
Denver
Country
llUnited States
I wish there was a "like" or "I agree" button on these things...

I think Cult.44 has a great point. In most scenarios, if neither player moves or fires for the entire game, one of them will win. Don't bother doing VC for that side, write up the VC for the other side, even if they are technically the defender.
I consider the "reputation" button to be the equivalent of the "like" button (although it only directly shows the recipient that you like them).
 

Blackcloud6

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
674
Location
New Baltimore, MI
Country
llUnited States
For the peanut gallery;
do you think VCs should be based on what the attacker needs to do to win,
or can/could they be based on what the defender needs to do to win?
Just thinking out loud?
Either, or even both, depends on what the designer is trying to portray. Can you give us an example where the defender and attacker goals are mutually exclusive and the historical situation it comes from?
 

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
142
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
For the peanut gallery;
do you think VCs should be based on what the attacker needs to do to win,
or can/could they be based on what the defender needs to do to win?
Just thinking out loud?
I think what's most important is that they are easy to understand. If you are free to choose if you specify them in terms of the attacker or defender, you can often avoid a negation, that might otherwise be required, or simplify them in some other way.
 
Top