Victory Condition Musings

[MrP]

Whilst looking through a bunch of scenarios for my upcoming PBeM games, one thing struck me about VotG in comparison with other scenarios and that was in the variety and uniqueness of their VCs. Normal VCs tend to err on the "Side A must control building A and building Y at game end" kind of thing, whereas VotG have scenarios of the "Side A wins if it controls X building locations in the side B setup area as long as there are no enemy MMCs in their own setup area" ie. ones where the attacking side has a task to not lose its own locations whilst taking enemy ones, which is pretty unique.


These kind of VCs seem specific to Urban Slugfests (to use a cliche eh Honza? ) - how can these type of VCs be adapted to say a jungle fight, or a village assault or....well, anything really.

Are there any types of VC you've seen that you want more of? Any turn offs? Any that haven't been done and should be?

 

[DerBlitzer]

Whilst looking through a bunch of scenarios for my upcoming PBeM games, one thing struck me about VotG in comparison with other scenarios and that was in the variety and uniqueness of their VCs. Normal VCs tend to err on the "Side A must control building A and building Y at game end" kind of thing, whereas VotG have scenarios of the "Side A wins if it controls X building locations in the side B setup area as long as there are no enemy MMCs in their own setup area" ie. ones where the attacking side has a task to not lose its own locations whilst taking enemy ones, which is pretty unique.


These kind of VCs seem specific to Urban Slugfests (to use a cliche eh Honza? ) - how can these type of VCs be adapted to say a jungle fight, or a village assault or....well, anything really.

Are there any types of VC you've seen that you want more of? Any turn offs? Any that haven't been done and should be?

I prefer multiple VCs (take certain number of buildings or exit certain number of CVP) or a VC secretly chosen (by player or dice) from, say, 3 different possibilities. When the defender knows the VC, and there's only one possibility, things can get kind of static. I like movement on both sides, and multiple VCs help make that happen.

 

[MrP]

In an effort to lift the forums from the mire, I'd like to throw out my original question again - beware tho, this thread could have actual ASL content.....

 

[WaterRabbit]

It seems to me most of the VCs are used to establish a CVP cap.

Aside from the standard control conditions (with or without a CVP cap).
The rest are the a) by the by game end or b) immediately VC type conditions.

I think these type of VCs lend themselves to historical more than "city" fights. If you look at the KGP scenarios, they have similar style VC.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you are driving at. Perhaps more specific examples would help.

 

[MrP]

Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you are driving at. Perhaps more specific examples would help.

Normal VC: Side A must control 3 multihex buildings at Game End

VoTG VC: Side A must control 3 multihex buildings in Side B's setup area provided there are no enemy MMCs in their own setup area.

Don't have scenario cards handy for specific scenarios, but these type of VCs seem relatively new and mainly city fight specific - take building locations and don't let the enemy take any of yours. I like them.

VCs seem to have gone down quite a vanilla route in the APs and in ITR - is more creativity needed? Are they fine? How about cumulative VPs? ie. VPs given for building control at the end of each player turn, player with most at game end gets the W? Anything you hate about VCs - talked to JT on VASL the other night and he mentioned single exit hex VCs as being too easy to mess with, digging FHs, parking vehicles etc.

Just trying to get some discussion going

 

[WBRP]

Without thinking about for too long (this is the internet, afterall) here are my preferences:
- VC that enforce a CVP limit, especially on the attacker
- Exit VC don't get used enough
- breakthrough Exit VC should require a certain proportion to be Leaders
- multiple-choice, hidden VC are great fun, although they seem to always have one clear easy choice
- I'm still waiting for a good 2-player SASL system; i.e. REs and unknown VPO points for both sides. Some of this seems to have made it into Combat Commander. That game also rewards breakthroughs for both sides.

 

[Bret Hildebran]

IMO there's a fine line about VC's - if they get too complex where there's a risk that one side or the other either doesn't grok them, or forgets them, which leads to a lousy game. But more creativity than "take building X" or "take N buildings" or "inflict Y CVP" can also be a good thing, as long as the VC remain clear and easily understandable.

CVP caps while also achieving another goal work well at this. Some of the VotG VC's are at least pushing the slippery slope with some of the "hex grain" stuff where it literally can take 5 minutes of careful study of the map to see what really needs to be done.

As to why we see these type VC in city fights vs. rural - city fights have obvious strategic locations while who really cares if the enemy takes the area of god for saken jungle that my guys setup in? I can always find another piece of empty jungle to suffer in. 'Course you can easily do the same VC with "IJA win by taking 5 huts as long as no Rangers are within the initial IJA setup area" or whatever. But it comes down to does it make sense to require the attacker to hold their lines while also obtaining the objective? And do they have enough force to make that happen? Or do you want to give them enough force to do it?

As the Sage Scenario Sire Shelling likes to say "Design for Effect" and picking appropriate VC might be key #1 at setting the scenario mood...

 

[footsteps]

I've been thinking about VCs in general after reading several posts in the "What scenario have you played lately" thread. On numerous occasions, someone has written something like: "on turn 4 I conceded as I couldn't meet the VCs with what I had left (time/units)".

That got me thinking to the PB/PL games (where I started wargaming), where VCs were set at levels: strategic/tactical/marginal for each side.

My question: Would there be more "play to the end" value for scenarios if there was a graduated VC set?

For example: VC#1 - major victory
VC#2 - marginal victory
VC#3 - court martial for the commander

Or something like that.

My two cents.

 

[pward]

I agree wholeheartedly with Bret about the design for effect, and the requirement for clear VC.

I've fiddled around with a CG system where each side picks it's own objectives, depending on orders from higher command. The timeframe for the initial workings was late war, ETO with the Germans on the "retreat". Most of their orders DR ended up being hold the line type things, with a small chance to "fall back to new lines". The attacking side (US or Brits) could also get a "fallback" order, but the odds were smaller. The Germans might get an "attack" order, but the Allies had a much larger chance for that order...

It started out as a multi-player ruleset, so one player per side gets the battalion command hat, and might also play a company "on-map", while the others get a company command. The real sticking point is that for a serious offensive, it won't be one battalion against one battalion... Balancing it is going to be a pain. That and there wasn't a whole lot of refit phase purchases. Replacements yes, outright adding new companies or attached armor platoons, ain't gonna happen. Attack or Defense orders got some toys assigned by higher HQ, but those go "back home" when the scenario was done.

The neat part (IMNSHO), was that the specific objectives were selected by the battalion commander and kept secret from the opposition. For instance if the bn. cmdr rolled "patrol" mission from higher HQ, he selected a number (3-5) physical locations on the map for each active company to go check out, and designated them. (Buildings, crossroads and other choke point type terrain like bridges or fords.) If the company commander got a unit there at any point in the scenario, VP were earned since the location had been "checked out" by a patrol.

Someday I would really like to play that sort of "blind to the opponents VC" scenario. Knowing what I have to do to stop the other player from winning has made a big difference in some scenarios, even as far as side selection. I forget the name of the scenario but based on the VC, the Germans have the easiest time preventing a bridge crossing, because they win if nobody crossed the bridge. I like having another point in the W column, but it still felt a bit like a sleazy win.

 

[wrongway149]

As the Sage Scenario Sire Shelling likes to say "Design for Effect" and picking appropriate VC might be key #1 at setting the scenario mood...

First I try and look for a historically appropiate victory condition. Building locations is a good 'DfE" way to establish control of particular town or part of a town- which were often part of the operational or strategic plan. Same with Exit VP, or CVP-based scenarios.

In the case of VotG, part of the reason (I think) for the flavorful victory conditions is that there are sixteen scenarios all on the same battle, and the designer must remain creative in order to differentiate them from one another for the players.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I believe that "Guards Counterattack" had VCs quite similar to the alleged "VotG" VCs.

What could be interesting, would be the establishment of a standard phrasing for VCs (cf. the 'and/or' ambiguities)...

 

[chris_olden]

What could be interesting, would be the establishment of a standard phrasing for VCs (cf. the 'and/or' ambiguities)...

I dunno.
I like unusual/"spicy" VC's.
I'm not certain that standardizing VC's would be a good thing.
Seems like it would be limiting.
:smoke:

 

[Gen. Sosabowski]

If we view ASL as a simulation, there are a lot of possibilities that model actual military missions, such as spotting a gun and reporting back. (In game terms, obtain LOS on the gun, and exit the map.) From a game standpoint, this isn't as satisfying as calling down some OBA on the enemy gun yourself, etc.

I agree with the earlier posts that mention that urban actions are a little different in that it is pretty easy to see the strategic or tactical value of certain builldings.

AFAIK, there aren't any "capture a prisoner for interrogation" scenarios, even though this was a pretty common mission.

 

[WBRP]

IIRC, most 'capture a prisoner' missions were done by platoons or squads...at night. Not really appropriate to ASL's scale. That would be more of a one-man scale game thing.

 

[Gen. Sosabowski]

IIRC, most 'capture a prisoner' missions were done by platoons or squads...at night. Not really appropriate to ASL's scale. That would be more of a one-man scale game thing.

Yeah, it was usually a mission for a single squad patrol. I was trying to think of something "fresh," and that was about the best I could come up with.

How about a desert scenario with British and Italians? Two large patrols are searching for a spring/oasis somewhere near the middle of a desert board. In order to locate the spring, a MMC must spend a full turn looking within a designated band of hexrows. This would be a task check with various modifiers. If the task check is successful that hex and the six adjacent hexes are an oasis to be defended.

If the defender can keep the enemy out of those seven hexes for three consecutive full turns, then reinforcements arrive from their side of the map. Victory is obtained by 1) Locating the oasis; 2) Defending the oasis; and 3) Turning over your positions to the reinforcements.

Whaddya think?

 

[WBRP]

I did one way back called Adriatic Barricade which had two platoons (Canadian vs FJ) at night getting VP for setting DCs on stream bridges, etc. Also for prisoners. It was meant to mimic the Winter '44 stalemate activities on that sector of the front.

 

[Will Fleming]

I don't like overly complicated VC's. Just let me kill as the attacker and let me kill as the defender. I don't think the VotG example is overly complicated and am fine with it.

$0.02 as a purchaser of nearly all ASL material.

 

[MrP]

Personally I like the VoTG one (I think the scenario I remember was Eviction Notice) as it kind of captures the whole fighting over a city feel - attack those buildings there, but you're not getting a win if the bad guys sneak any of your setup buildings. Very Stalingrad

Personal dislikes are are any that require a higher degree in logic and applied mathematics to understand, and any that require me to keep count of many CVP - knowing that I'd need 100 CVP to win would turn me right off. I'm a troll when it comes to that - 1,2,many,lots......

 

[rcornwell]

One type of VC I really dislike is where the attacker has to control a large area and the defender has HIP capability, particularly if the defender also moves last. These can devolve into frantic bug hunts at the end.

 

[chris_olden]

One type of VC I really dislike is where the attacker has to control a large area and the defender has HIP capability, particularly if the defender also moves last. These can devolve into frantic bug hunts at the end.

I agree 100%.
It's up to the designer to design the scenario so that the defender
can't just keep those guys HIP, and keep his fingers crossed that
the attacker can't find them.
:smoke: