What ASL really needs

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Overtime!

Victory Conditions: .... if the victory point total is the same at the end of the last turn on the turn record, another complete Game Turn is played. Additional Game Turns are played until one side has more victory points at the end of any Game Turn, with the player with more victory points winning at that point.

JR
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,635
Reaction score
5,612
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Fort's VC are often too labyrinthic after my tastes (which may tell something of my limited intellectual resources).
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Overtime!

Victory Conditions: .... if the victory point total is the same at the end of the last turn on the turn record, another complete Game Turn is played. Additional Game Turns are played until one side has more victory points at the end of any Game Turn, with the player with more victory points winning at that point.

JR
Captain Obvious will point out this only works in scenarios where both players are accumulating VP. In situations other than pure meeting engagements, additional turns may also act as an unbalancing mechanism - if giving additional half-turns or full turns are used as Balance provisions, it stands to reason that the opposite effect will also be true.
 
Last edited:

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
VP are not necessarily CVP. I leave it to scenario designers to come up with other rules for overtime where VP are not appropriate to their VC. The idea was meant to inspire scenario development, not to restrain it.

JR
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
VP are not necessarily CVP. I leave it to scenario designers to come up with other rules for overtime where VP are not appropriate to their VC. The idea was meant to inspire scenario development, not to restrain it.

JR
If scenario designers have not done this before, I am almost positive it is not because they hadn't considered it or even thought of it. Occam's Razor suggests they probably just figured it was unnecessary or unworkable. From my own perspective, it's way too easy to go down the rabbit hole of adding quirky SSRs to the point you quickly lose sight of what you're trying to achieve.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Certainty from no data? Credo quia absurdum. You should perhaps be posting in the religion forum, no?

JR
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Certainty from no data? Credo quia absurdum. You should perhaps be posting in the religion forum, no?

JR
As opposed to proposing solutions to problems that don't exist? Design a scenario with an overtime SSR and that would be something worth discussing. I don't think it takes a ton of experience to realize how rare a tied VP count is, or that the usual 'fix' is to pre-designate one side or the other the victor in the event of such a tie.

Put another way, you've invented a game mechanic but presented no rationale for why you think it should be adopted.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
It's not a solution to a problem. A tied VP count can be just as rare or as common as your VC allow it to be. It would be trivial to come up with a VC where VP ties are very common. Didn't you write a scenario design handbook? I would have thought you would already have thought of six or eight possible ways to do so.

I have invented a game feature. There is no need for a rationale for it. Is there a rationale that the NFL had no overtime during the regular season before they adopted it in 1974? You can adopt it or not.

JR
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
It's not a solution to a problem. A tied VP count can be just as rare or as common as your VC allow it to be. It would be trivial to come up with a VC where VP ties are very common. Didn't you write a scenario design handbook? I would have thought you would already have thought of six or eight possible ways to do so.
My deep and extensive knowledge of the subject is exactly why I see no practical purpose to what you're suggesting.

I have invented a game feature.
As stated above, I'm reasonably sure others have considered this. You have the advantage in that my time is too valuable to be searching the 5,000+ extant scenarios to find an example. Other games certainly have already done this - Combat Mission comes to mind, with its variable time endings, though they are not triggered specifically by tie VP counts.

I can see a clear rationale for a variable time limit in ASL scenarios, not tied to the requirement that the VP totals are identical - and these are already fairly common in the game.

There is no need for a rationale for it.
No need to seriously consider it then, either, one can conclude.

Is there a rationale that the NFL had no overtime during the regular season before they adopted it in 1974?
Are you kidding? Pro sports leagues have entire rules committees that draft, trial, assess, and implement rules changes. They also communicate the changes to the public, and explain the rationale for the rules changes.

https://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/league-governance/the-nfl-competition-committee/

Here is the official web page of the NFL's competition committee. "The NFL’s process for modifying or adopting rules and regulations is systematic and consensus-oriented. The Competition Committee reviews all competitive aspects of the game, including (but not limited to) playing rules, roster regulations, technology, game-day operations and player protection."
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
An article on the more recent changes to the Overtime rules in the NFL (for what it is worth, Canada has much better OT rules, similar I think to college football down there). This from 2012

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d827ee2c0/article/nfl-overtime-rules

And a discussion here:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d827ecefd/article/owners-vote-to-adopt-playoff-ot-rules-in-regular-season

NFL owners voted Wednesday at the NFL Annual Meeting in Palm Beach, Fla., to change the regular-season overtime rules to match the playoff format and have turnovers automatically reviewed.

Each team will have an opportunity for a possession in overtime unless the team that receives the first kickoff scores a touchdown on its opening drive.

The rule hasn't come into play in the postseason since it was instituted in 2010, with only two playoff games going to overtime. One ended on the first play, Tim Tebow's 80-yard touchdown pass to Demaryius Thomas for the Denver Broncos over the Pittsburgh Steelers. The other had each team take several possessions before the New York Giants beat the San Francisco 49ers in the NFC title game.
The rationale for the change was that there was a desire for each team to at last get one possession of the football in overtime. While you could say that since defence wins championships, they need to step up in an OT situation, the more commonly held feeling was that it was more exciting to see each team get at least one chance to produce an offensive score. And since the offence going first can still, under the new rule, score a touchdown and end the game on its first possession, there are still discussions about this. In Canada, each team gets at least one possession, even if a TD is scored. And yes, the rationale has been made clear - the desire to see each team able to have an offensive series.

More discussion here: https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-overtime-rules/ Note the reference to shortening the periods, and the rationale ("player safety").
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,410
Reaction score
2,118
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Overtime!

Victory Conditions: .... if the victory point total is the same at the end of the last turn on the turn record, another complete Game Turn is played. Additional Game Turns are played until one side has more victory points at the end of any Game Turn, with the player with more victory points winning at that point.

JR
6 buildings to control each worth one VP. 6 turns , the side the controls more buildings at that point wins. If each controls 3 buildings, play another complete game turn. Repeat until resolved.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
6 buildings to control each worth one VP. 6 turns , the side the controls more buildings at that point wins. If each controls 3 buildings, play another complete game turn. Repeat until resolved.
Out of curiosity, why would that be more desirable than "if VP totals are tied at game end, victory goes to the Defender."
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,918
Reaction score
5,102
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
The only "overtime" scenarios I can reasonably see as being viable, in both game terms and historically based, have already been implemented in some scenarios already. That is to say if a side hasn't won (read that achieved their objectives) in a scenario by turn "x", additional events happen to prolong the game to turn "y". However, in as much as it is a game with the ultimate objective of one side or the other "winning the scenario", there should be a point where a final determination is made, most probably to the advantage of the scenario defender. Now perhaps a design could be envisioned where after a probable end point "x", the initiative passes to the opposing player for a set period and final determination of a winner is predicated upon a combined accumulation of VPs attained by each side should the opposing player not achieve their ultimate objective and winning outright.:rolleyes:
 
Top