Victory Conditions

[r6kunz]

I am testing RTM - Smolensk PBEM; Robert (The Swede) and I'll provide you with some comprehensive feedback. Your PO programming is basically the best mate. PBEM, well - impossible for a German to win the 1st or 2nd scenario; but that's the new defensive model's fault. More to follow.

Klink, Oberst

Herr Oberst brings up good point concerning game balance and victory condition. It is something of a philosophical question- what constitutes a victory? The short answer is Victory Points. But the longer answer, at least for historic scenarios, is what should a historic result be called? A victory? Or is that a draw?

I have wrestled with that question in the Road to Moscow Series that Herr Oberst refers to. As a single designer with limited time, I have done 90% of the testing as PO vs PO using historic Objective Tracks, and attempted to balance the scenario to give a historic result. In v1.2 I called this result a draw, with a Briefing Note that the Germans could consider this a moral victory. Based on feedback, in the v2.0 scenarios I have modified the Objective Values so the historic result is now a victory for the Germans. (Or should that be a victory for the Soviets?)

I would be interested in hearing how other designers have handled this, as well as ideas from players-in PBEM as well as Player vs PO...

[Oberst_Klink]

Herr Hauptmann,

the objectives and VP as well as the VC are OK. In the new version I noticed just a slight German 'advantage' in the first three to four turns; once the Reds are dug in; one Div plus perhaps corps artillery in support; it's nearly impossible to 'flush'm' out their trenches. Against Elmer that's not an issue; as he really acts like following Uncle Joe's wasteful counterattacks. Perhaps for a slightly modified PBEM version; a lower entrenchment rate (for both sides) to reflect the fluid characters of the battle until the Kiev scenario?

Klink, Oberst
Temporary LwHQ, Cyrpus

[LLv34_Snefens]

In my Op.Neva scenario I'm operating with the assumption that the historical result achieved by the Red Army was less than could be expected considering the forces commited and therefor such a result will usually lead to a marginal German victory in the game (depending on losses and TOs selected).

Not really possible to give a universal answer to this as I would say it varies for each situation.

[Curtis Lemay]

In a perfect world, equally skilled play by both sides would result in a draw and the historical result would achieve that. And in many situations that can be the case. But not all.

It's very important for realism purposes that the victory conditions don't give the players false options. You want the players to be under the same requirements as the historical commanders. Suppose the historical offensive was a disaster, with the invaders ultimately driven competely off the map, for example. If you then set the victory conditions to be just their staying on the map till the historical date they were driven off, you give that side an absurdly passive option: Don't invade at all and just entrench in place - or something similar.

A prime example is CFNA. Historically, the Axis were driven completely off the map by the end of the scenario. But just staying on the map longer than historically was never the objective of Rommel. The Axis player has to be motivated to try for the pyramids. I think the way CFNA is designed makes that try the only real chance the Axis has for success. That probably means the scenarios are not very balanced. But, so what? Doesn't Slippery Rock play Ohio State?

Now, of course, there are situations where one side's objective was to just hold on for as long and costly as possible - Okinawa, for example. In those situations, it would be appropriate to give the Japs VPs just for hanging on, etc.

It can even be wrong to base victory on map control of any kind. The real issue may have been relative casualties, for example. In Leipzig, for example, victory is determined entirely by loss penalties and unit destruction awards.

Again, the objective is to put the players in the historical commanders' shoes. Give them the same objectives as those commanders faced and the scenario should work better.

[r6kunz]

It's very important for realism purposes that the victory conditions don't give the players false options. You want the players to be under the same requirements as the historical commanders. Suppose the historical offensive was a disaster, with the invaders ultimately driven competely off the map, for example. If you then set the victory conditions to be just their staying on the map till the historical date they were driven off, you give that side an absurdly passive option: Don't invade at all and just entrench in place - or something similar.

Thanks for your observations and suggestions. Ardennes 1944 had a similar dilemma-- my solution was to assign permanent VP to the highwater objectives and the Meuse crossing. This obligated the German side to push as far as they could as they did historically, to have a chance for a victory.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

In a perfect world, equally skilled play by both sides would result in a draw and the historical result would achieve that. And in many situations that can be the case. But not all...

There's also the point that the historical result may have occurred as a result of better generalship on the part of one of the 'players.'

This dogs most attempts to simulate France 1940. When all is said and done, the historical result depended on the Germans 'outplaying' the Allies. They arguably would have won eventually regardless. However, assuming a scenario that accurately reflects the inherent military capabilities of each force, no two players of equal competence are ever going to wind up with the Germans on the Channel and half the Allied force cut off to the north after ten days.

Then too, a lot of time the outcome tended to reflect an inaccurate appreciation of the 'rules' by one side or the other. To take France 1940 again, one would need a French player somehow convinced that the Germans would need a couple of days after they first arrived to bring up artillery before they could try crossing the Meuse. More dramatically, the Russians spent most of 1941 playing as if their 1-3's were actually 10-12's. How are you going to simulate that? If you don't simulate it, and you do simulate everything else accurately, the Germans are going to be lucky to get to Smolensk, because the Russians aren't going to keep obligingly decimating themselves with pointless attacks.

Given that sometimes one side just had Hooker and the other had Lee, given the limitations of TOAW, given players that have an accurate appreciation of their force and the enemy's force, and given equal competence, a good deal of the time what's a 'draw' in game terms is unlikely to resemble the historical outcome.

I ran into this a long time ago with Avalon Hill's old '1914.' I was the Germans. My opponent just let his units get savaged along the frontier, and although I didn't advance very far into Belgium, I won because he'd suffered huge losses.

I won, that is, because I scored more points than he did -- a marginal victory, according to the rule book. He started insisting that because the historical Germans had outpointed the historical French by 2-1, I'd lost.

[Panama]

As Collin pointed out, you already know what was unknown by the original opponents. I don't see how the Poles can 'win' in 1939. So when someone puts together a Poland 1939 scenario they have to give the Poles an acheivable victory condition and the Germans have to be given a victory condition that is both acheivable yet not a forgone conclusion. Why bother to play the scenario if the victory conditions are historical? Almost like balancing a marble on a knife edge.