Medieval Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 I've posted this before but quite some time ago. Who has a problem with the way victory's are decided relative to how _most_ of the objectives are written in the pre-game writeups? Statements like you must hold the bridge at all costs!! are placed in the mission area. So, the game ends and I've saved the Bridge at Cheneux and it says DRAW!!! Why? I lost a few of the flags, true.. but how could I have not? The game is a classic fall-back defense. I want more a quantitative victory condition system! Blah blah blah. End of rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 Define Victory The QB system sets up objectives. You take them, you win. Losses play a factor. Generally, if you take all of the objectives, your losses will not mean squat in the tally. That is the game method. How do you define victory? I will shoot myself first, and offer up my definitions. 1. I take into account the QB/Scenario goals. 2. How effeciently were they achieved? a. What kind of losses did you take versus how much you dished out. b. Did you have to resort to gimics to win? (The gamey debate). (don't define gimics in this thread, we have done so in other threads) c. If the enemy counter attacked with another force, could you keep your victory sites? 3. Disaster recovery. a. Suppose you did something real stupid, and got your best tank(s) or platoon killed, or a defensive location was a bad idea (the VP sites do not alwas represent a military objective. If a VP site is in a vulnerable area, it may not be a good idea to hold it. The military objective (woods, a ridge line, a hill, etc.) may be more valuable to control the site(s) than the actual sites); how well did you adapt to recover from this disaster? (I have won games VP wise, but I gave credit to my opponent for what I percieved as a stroke of tactical genius). 4. Success relative to the odds. a. So, he has a King Tiger and you got nothing but Sherman 105s. Did you just lay down and die, or did you do a serious well thought out attempt to spank the guy? b. Outnumbered. Again, did you fight well? 5. Did you learn something? 6. Did you get a new friend? 7. Did you have a good time? To summarize, you can win two ways; by raw VPs and by how well you played the game. In real life, like in business, the latter is usually irrelevant. In the game, victory is difficult to define, and BTS has done better than most to fix this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazooka10165 Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 I must respectfully disagree with the statement that "losses don't mean squat." It has been my experience that, even if I take all or most of the victory flags, if my losses have been very significant, the best I will get is a draw. This seems to be the case even if I have inflicted equally high losses on the enemy. If any one is interested, I can e-mail the AAR from my last game. I took two out of three victory locations (the third one was unclaimed) but had 9 out of 16 tanks KOed. Despite the fact that the other side actually had a higher loss ratio, the game was a declared a draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medieval Posted January 5, 2001 Author Share Posted January 5, 2001 Its not how I define victory that matters... its how a scenario designer does. Perhaps, its the vague orders or explanations.... basically you design your attack/defense on what needs to be accomplished, correct? So if it says "Hold the building cluster at ALL costs" I'm going to design and execute my defense based upon that. Now, I do it, lose some men and vehicles (no kidding, huh?) in the process but I defend the buildings. DRAW. I say that blows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts