Originally posted by Feinder
Remember, all we're talking about here, is arbitrary assignment of Victory Points, and how many are necessary to win.
Strictly speaking, all you really have to to do adjust the "difficulty level" is to simply handicap the number of points.
The theater, battle, or even genra makes no difference. For example, lets step away from UV, and create Oleg's "Battle of the Bulge"...
Our made-up game is the Battle of the Bulge. There are multiple scenarios within the game. One is a quick training scenario that only includes Peiper's drive towards Malmady. Here is a paradox situation, because while the Germans lost the BotB, we can take this small snap-shot, turn it into a scneario for the German player, and allow the opportunity for "victory", because we don't actually play the entire BotB. This is an "easy" scenario for the German player, because historically, Peiper had no trouble at all reaching Malmedy. It was close to Stavelot where he actually started having problems. The game includes a historically accurate OB, so again it is basically a forgone conclusion that the German player going to capture Malmedy. For the Allied player however, it is an excersise in frustration. He knows he's very, extremely, almost certainly, -NOT- going to be able to hold Malmedy. The scenario terminates before Patton shows up. It's simply a matter of how long he delay the German player.
So how do you get anyone (besides the punishment freaks) to ever want to play the Allied player? You screw with the VPs and time required to achieve victory.
Let's say Pieper reached Malmedy in 4 days. The vanilla scenario requires Pieper to capture Malmedy in 3 days or less for the win, 4 for the draw. Or if the Allied player can hold Malmedy thru the 5 day, he is awarded the victory because he has managed to do better than his historical counterpart. The Allied player can "win" even tho he's doomed to ultimately lose Malmedy.
The next is handicapping.
Lets say whatever battle were representing was a total catasrophie for one side. Example, Fredericksburg. A Union player -KNOWS- not to "charge up the hill to the wall" and get his men slaughtered. The map is large enough so that, if he wants to he can march around and flank Lee every time and thus win because he didn't recreate a blunder of history. In this case, using history as a draw is lopsided for the Union, because the Union player knows not to be incredibly stupid, and by simply not being a moron, they now win every time.
This is where the playtesters come in. They've played the game, and know what is a reasonable outcome between 2 relatively equal opponents. The victory conditions are adjusted so that the Union has to capture MORE ground than historical, or perhaps in a shorter period of time.
In UV, we're at the point of handicapping. We've all played UV, and the general consensus is that pretty much, the USN wins all the time (against a reasonably matched human opponent). We're -all- playtestors, and most of us agree that the best chance for an IJN victory is thru the auto-victory, and most of don't even like that. The IJN player is like the Allied player in BotB game. It's an excersize in damage control. The weight of the USN will most likely crush him eventually. So how do you "keep the game interesting" for the IJN player?
Without ever changing his OB, there are all sorts of ways.
Just for example, you could :
Give IJN more points for holding his bases.
Give USN less point for caturing them.
Give IJN more points for killing an American CV.
Give IJN 2 points for every B-17 shot down (just an example, because they're so darned tough *chuckle*)
Make the point range such that, a larger margin is required by the US player to "win", and less for the IJN player.
Give IJN player a vp for every pilot at the end of the game with exp > 80.
The options are endless.
Again, all we're doing is playing with the numbers. The whole assignement of VPs is strictly arbitrary. The whole point is to help to create a situation where the IJN player is -ALLOWED- to play a defensive game (which makes total sense, because he's (likely) going to eventually be overwhelmed by the USN eventually), and still have a reasonable chance of winning. The IJN player should never have to to take PM or GG or Luganville in order to win. He should be able to make a "fighting withdrawl" up the Slot and NG, with the intent to bog down the USN player (and/or generate more casuaties), and have a chance at winning.
-F-
He's a smart one...yes he is...any thoughts from Matrix on this?
