Victory Conditions

[Desicat]

What type of Victory Conditions do you prefer most?

1. Secure/Capture Location(s)
2. Exit Map
3. Combat Victory Points
4. Destroy Target/Location/Unit
5. Other (explain)

Do you like Victory Conditions that allow (or force) for a Draw?

Do you like a combination of Victory Conditions, or different conditions for each side?

 

[Old Noob]

VC2, followed by VC3.

 

[Desicat]

I suppose I should answer my own question.

I prefer VC1 followed by VC4 (in my mind both are tangible and allow for more pregame planning). I rarely play VC2 (it is a combat game, not an avoid combat game. I suppose the turn limit makes a difference here for me) and I don't think I have ever wanted play VC3 (I suppose I like an objective other than destroy the enemy).

I like separate conditions that if not met can limit one side or the other to a draw. Combination VCs can be fun if done correctly.

 

[Actionjick]

No preference but I always liked exiting VC. Getting from point A to point B seems to be a major part of warfare. Remember ASL is a game of Tactical Warfare, not just combat. IMO just as important to know how to avoid the enemy as how to engage them.

 

[Kijug]

No preference, however, I like having options, so VC3 usually as an alternate VC. Maybe a little gamey but if you can beat up enough of the enemy (because they were tactically inferior) then the other VCs will be much easier “later”, even though the scenario may be over.

 

[Eagle4ty]

I like the VCs that represent the capabilities or abilities of the combatants that fought the engagement historically, even if they may represent only a moral victory for one of the sides. Now I know many (most?) people hate record keeping in ASL as evidenced by their distaste for Battlefield Integrity and for this reason I would also assume CVP calculations would rate VERY low on preferred VCs. However, for me I have never shied away from either and if the historical situation should warrant it. The one VC that I do not like (actually detest) is a draw. From a game stand point I feel that if a designer allows a draw in their offering they are just being lazy and failing to "man up" to be able to come up with a viable determination of who is the victor in a given situation, however small that victory or defeat may have been. Of course the multiple VC or possible VCs are the most intriguing and demand the player(s) actually develop their own mission accomplishment objectives but obviously these cannot be applicable to all situations. With all the games I have played I cannot really say I have a preference for VCs but definitely have a distinct distaste for those that do not represent the actual situation(s) [EX: Breakout From Borisov where one has to have more units on a board for no apparent reason other than to control a "board" which is not representational of any tactical objectives but simply a board. (Lazy!)].

 

[Desicat]

I like the VCs that represent the capabilities or abilities of the combatants that fought the engagement historically, even if they may represent only a moral victory for one of the sides. Now I know many (most?) people hate record keeping in ASL as evidenced by their distaste for Battlefield Integrity and for this reason I would also assume CVP calculations would rate VERY low on preferred VCs. However, for me I have never shied away from either and if the historical situation should warrant it. The one VC that I do not like (actually detest) is a draw. From a game stand point I feel that if a designer allows a draw in their offering they are just being lazy and failing to "man up" to be able to come up with a viable determination of who is the victor in a given situation, however small that victory or defeat may have been. Of course the multiple VC or possible VCs are the most intriguing and demand the player(s) actually develop their own mission accomplishment objectives but obviously these cannot be applicable to all situations. With all the games I have played I cannot really say I have a preference for VCs but definitely have a distinct distaste for those that do not represent the actual situation(s) [EX: Breakout From Borisov where one has to have more units on a board for no apparent reason other than to control a "board" which is not representational of any tactical objectives but simply a board. (Lazy!)].

I will usually design in a "Draw" condition as the requirement of a secondary mission for one side or the other. An example would be that both sides have to control Hex X to win the game, but side B must also exit their 10-3 Leader off the board or else they can at most achieve a "Draw".

I think it an provide interesting choices for both sides and can lead to multiple ways to approach a Scenario.

 

[Actionjick]

Situations where you are unaware of your opponent's VC might also be interesting but most likely have limited appeal. Much more " historicality accurate " though.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Situations where you are unaware of your opponent's VC might also be interesting but most likely have limited appeal. Much more " historicality accurate " though.

I don't believe that an unknown VC is that historically accurate. Once the bullets start flying it become readily apparent to both sides what is tactically and operationally important to that engagement (e.g. objectives). The strategic objectives may be unclear but then ASL is a tactical/operational (i.e. small operational) game. Even in the planning phase it will become quite evident to both sides which terrain features are noted areas of interest (NAIs), objectives to be attained/retained, and at least at the tactical level what the enemy is trying to achieve (e.g. a breakthrough, inflict maximum casualties, seize or secure terrain, etc.). To design a game that has a draw possibility is simply a cop out IMHO. Sure one side or the other or both may not fully achieve their stated specific aims but the end result is one side or the other has won/lost the engagement if only in a moral sense and this is what an ASL scenario should strive to attain.

However, if one enjoys playing a game where you have a chance of not losing but not winning either, more power to you, but it's not my cup of tea. Maybe it's the old CAV scout mentality in me; don't know (The good scout can be a dead scout: at least he's found the enemy. Harsh but true).

 

[Actionjick]

I don't believe that an unknown VC is that historically accurate. Once the bullets start flying it become readily apparent to both sides what is tactically and operationally important to that engagement (e.g. objectives). The strategic objectives may be unclear but then ASL is a tactical/operational (i.e. small operational) game. Even in the planning phase it will become quite evident to both sides which terrain features are noted areas of interest (NAIs), objectives to be attained/retained, and at least at the tactical level what the enemy is trying to achieve (e.g. a breakthrough, inflict maximum casualties, seize or secure terrain, etc.). To design a game that has a draw possibility is simply a cop out IMHO. Sure one side or the other or both may not fully achieve their stated specific aims but the end result is one side or the other has won/lost the engagement if only in a moral sense and this is what an ASL scenario should strive to attain.

However, if one enjoys playing a game where you have a chance of not losing but not winning either, more power to you, but it's not my cup of tea. Maybe it's the old CAV scout mentality in me; don't know (The good scout can be a dead scout: at least he's found the enemy. Harsh but true).

Yeah I didn't articulate that as well as I could have. Lol serves me right for dabbling in historical accuracy.

 

[Actionjick]

I don't believe that an unknown VC is that historically accurate. Once the bullets start flying it become readily apparent to both sides what is tactically and operationally important to that engagement (e.g. objectives). The strategic objectives may be unclear but then ASL is a tactical/operational (i.e. small operational) game. Even in the planning phase it will become quite evident to both sides which terrain features are noted areas of interest (NAIs), objectives to be attained/retained, and at least at the tactical level what the enemy is trying to achieve (e.g. a breakthrough, inflict maximum casualties, seize or secure terrain, etc.). To design a game that has a draw possibility is simply a cop out IMHO. Sure one side or the other or both may not fully achieve their stated specific aims but the end result is one side or the other has won/lost the engagement if only in a moral sense and this is what an ASL scenario should strive to attain.

However, if one enjoys playing a game where you have a chance of not losing but not winning either, more power to you, but it's not my cup of tea. Maybe it's the old CAV scout mentality in me; don't know (The good scout can be a dead scout: at least he's found the enemy. Harsh but true).

Yeah I didn't articulate that as well as I could have. Lol serves me right for dabbling in historical accuracy.


Should have couched it as " fog of war ".

Not sure what came about with the double post but always willing to admit f'n up more than once. Actiondebbie is a good teacher.

 

[Eagle4ty]

...
Should have couched it as " fog of war ".

Now that I like in my play of ASL. Like Bob & many others, my normal group of players rarely enforce the "show me for verification" condition if loss of concealment (even temporarily) would not be warranted [EX: "I have a real unit there that sees your moving concealed guy." No need to tell me or show me it's a HS, SMC or Sqd if you're not firing, I'll take your word for it].

 

[Actionjick]

Now that I like in my play of ASL. Like Bob & many others, my normal group of players rarely enforce the "show me for verification" condition if loss of concealment (even temporarily) would not be warranted [EX: "I have a real unit there that sees your moving concealed guy." No need to tell me or show me it's a HS, SMC or Sqd if you're not firing, I'll take your word for it].

As it should be. To say that Fish and I were Lax about such things would not be overstating it. It's a game that my concept of was to be fast moving and verification just slows it all down.

Memorize the IFT ( IIFT ) and trust your opponent. The game will move much faster.

 

[Jwil2020]

Put me down for VC1 with VC2 a distant second and VC4 third. IMO all three essentially represent the most likely objectives in a tactical engagement: capture something tactically significant; blow through a blocking force to get to something tactically significant; or destroy something keeping the attacking unit, or other off board units, from accomplishing something tactically significant.
However, I do wonder why in VC2 scenarios, SMCs are often given as much value as MMCs. Sometimes makes the last turn a track meet as the surviving leaders strap on CX markers and sprint for the exit.

 

[Actionjick]

Exiting required as much planning as taking an objective. Just different planning. Figuring out the required pace to maintain was always interesting to me. On attack and defense.

 

[Actionjick]

Does your preference for VCs change depending upon you being the scenario Attacker or Defender?

In other words: You prefer as the Attacker the VC to take an Objective but as the Defender to prevent the exiting VC of the Attacker.

 

[Jwil2020]

Good question. I think prefer VC1 scenarios whether I’m attacking or defending as I know exactly what piece of real estate I have to capture/hold, and can plan accordingly.
I’m not a big fan of VC3. To me, it turns the scenario into a “body count” affair. Granted, in the final analysis, all battles end up as body counts. But from an historical perspective at the tactical level, the body counts were usually a consequence, not the objective. The obvious exception to that would be those bloody PTO battles, like Iwo Jima, where the IJA’s goal was to kill as many marines as possible.

 

[Actionjick]

Good question. I think prefer VC1 scenarios whether I’m attacking or defending as I know exactly what piece of real estate I have to capture/hold, and can plan accordingly.
I’m not a big fan of VC3. To me, it turns the scenario into a “body count” affair. Granted, in the final analysis, all battles end up as body counts. But from an historical perspective at the tactical level, the body counts were usually a consequence, not the objective. The obvious exception to that would be those bloody PTO battles, like Iwo Jima, where the IJA’s goal was to kill as many marines as possible.

Good answer.

 

[Eagle4ty]

As it should be. To say that Fish and I were Lax about such things would not be overstating it. It's a game that my concept of was to be fast moving and verification just slows it all down.

Memorize the IFT ( IIFT ) and trust your opponent. The game will move much faster.

Nice to know the base penetration values of AP ammo for common weapon systems at usual engagement ranges of 18 hexes or less (i.e MG, ATR, rATR, 37L, 45L, 45LL, 50L(r76L), 75L(76L & 85L), 75LL, 88L & 88LL as a good start). Of course a quick pre-game brush up on specific weapons systems never hurts either.

 

[ecz]

What type of Victory Conditions do you prefer most?

1. Secure/Capture Location(s)
2. Exit Map
3. Combat Victory Points
4. Destroy Target/Location/Unit
5. Other (explain)

Do you like Victory Conditions that allow (or force) for a Draw?

Do you like a combination of Victory Conditions, or different conditions for each side?

Just curious, do you know the esotic VC system first introduced in scenario LFT 181 the Bet?

To answer your question I love scenarios where the attacker gets VPs for various different activities at the same time ( any combination of two or three of the following: EVP, CVP, control of hexes, preserve force, secure locations etc etc).

Being a Chess player I have no problem with VCs allowing a Draw. It's a test of skill and luck, I can consider my opponent is clever or lucky as me.