Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: wadortch

I am working with several people to produce a SIMPLE and easy to code rule that does not involve significant redesign of the existing game and hope to post that on this thread soon.

It is very laudable that you and your friends take the burden of responsibility and prepare a new optional rule that is supposed to be included in the game for everyone. But what if the line proposed by you does not work as intended with regards at “balance”, “historicity” and “interest”. Would you require a re-coding?

I would like to suggest instead that before any coding requirement is made, and due that the rules (I see that there is already more than one suggestion) you propose are in principle calculable with a pencil and a paper, the players in favor of that new rule playtest such an option, playing among yourselves Grand Campaigns with ad hoc house rules.

Once a minimum sample of AARs (let’s say, 10?) with such house rules are delivered to the gaming community, we players could vote in a more informed and responsible way.

+1

+2. Play testing of a new auto victory format for WiTE ten or so times is a good idea. And testing the above auto victory ten times probably represents ten more play tests than were conducted on the current WiTE victory conditions. [;)]

I vote no to original suggestion ie I would not use but don't care about what consenting adult players agree between themselves in the privacy of a server/pbem game.

Michael T's idea is an improvement. I don't want to play a game that only lasts 10 turns but if players are a mismatch, a short game is usual/kinder anyway. I've only had 3 games out of 15+ last as long as 1st winter mud -and that did not include me being thrashed by Michael T. Can just make it v hard to get early auto victory.

Actually I still prefer a points per VP hex per turn/month/whatever formula as being most likely to make players behave more 'realistically' as behaviour follows rewards. You can even add in VPs for G capturing HI/vehicle factories if you agree with Pelton's criticism of Russians who leave them behind.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Aurelian, I don't even want to win in 10 turns. This isn't very satisfying. Can we get in a dinner, flirting, and some foreplay here?

I hope so. Throw in some breakfast too.

I am happy to work out the numbers but we need concensus on dates for the checks as the dates obviously influence the required number of victory points. Also there will be debate on the numbers. But the dates need to determined first. I am still a fan of the AH Russian Front check points, end of November and end of May.

Still waiting on those ashes David

I've left them in the dogs' bedroom for you to collect whenever you want

NB please remove any glasses, your watch etc first as those items are hard to digest

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Aurelian, I don't even want to win in 10 turns. This isn't very satisfying. Can we get in a dinner, flirting, and some foreplay here?

Hey, it would be simply great if you and Aurelian could go out to dinner and explore those other possibilities and leave this thread alone.

Neither of you are interested in the rule, neither of you have to use it and you can play 200 turns any time you care too.

What's up really with your nonconstructive and and provocative behavior here?

I really don't understand why there is such a huge concern that an such optional rule would be coded and tried. Give us a break please.

I'll send either one of your a Groupon deal for your dinner.

If you guys were doing it on your own, I wouldn't care. But you want this coded into the game, and that I object to.

Thank you for this straightforward answer.

Why do you object to such an optional rule being coded?

I think it's bad design and inconsistent with the purposes of the game. I think it is seriously ahistorical. I think it is gamey in the worst possible way, and the wrong way to address perceived problems in the game, which ought to be resolved by making it more accurate and historical rather than less.

I'm not against sudden death rules in different games and different contexts. I think it worked very well, for example, in Proud Monster. But that was more of a game than a simulation. This title leans towards the simulation (not enough, to be sure) and this proposed changed would dilute that goal.

ORIGINAL: wadortch

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Aurelian, I don't even want to win in 10 turns. This isn't very satisfying. Can we get in a dinner, flirting, and some foreplay here?

Hey, it would be simply great if you and Aurelian could go out to dinner and explore those other possibilities and leave this thread alone.

Ain't gonna happen. So deal with it.

This is more simulation than a game. I don't want "gamey" limits or crutches put in because one side can't win the way *they* think they should.

I may not articulate it as well as Flav, but I'm in agreement.

OK.

You have not convinced me that an optional rule that will be used by players who have different views about the simulation or the game than you do is harmful. Players who feel as you do, don't use the rule. Players who want to experiment with a rule that may very well increase the historical feel (in their opinion!) of the game can chose to use it.

Your most recent proposal to "fix" the game regarding assessment of more equipment losses during German retreats is a good example of what I understand would require complicated coding work by 2x3 games which they have indicated they are not ready to undertake at this time. And which could significantly affect the actual present mechanical balance of the game.

The optional SD rule has no such mechanical implications. It's influence will be on the behavior of the players who chose to use it, not on the underlying engine in the game itself--fixes to which can be considered by 2x3 games when their resources allow.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: wadortch

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Aurelian, I don't even want to win in 10 turns. This isn't very satisfying. Can we get in a dinner, flirting, and some foreplay here?

Hey, it would be simply great if you and Aurelian could go out to dinner and explore those other possibilities and leave this thread alone.

Ain't gonna happen. So deal with it.

Ahhh...why not? I thought you two would make a cute couple. I hear that if you nibble on his ear and call him "Konstantin" he's putty in your hands...[:D][X(][:-]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: wadortch



Hey, it would be simply great if you and Aurelian could go out to dinner and explore those other possibilities and leave this thread alone.

Ain't gonna happen. So deal with it.

Ahhh...why not? I thought you two would make a cute couple. I hear that if you nibble on his ear and call him "Konstantin" he's putty in your hands...[:D][X(][:-]

[:D][:D]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I think it's bad design and inconsistent with the purposes of the game. I think it is seriously ahistorical. I think it is gamey in the worst possible way, and the wrong way to address perceived problems in the game, which ought to be resolved by making it more accurate and historical rather than less.

I'm not against sudden death rules in different games and different contexts. I think it worked very well, for example, in Proud Monster. But that was more of a game than a simulation. This title leans towards the simulation (not enough, to be sure) and this proposed changed would dilute that goal.

How would you rather address the freedom of movement that the Soviets currently enjoy? As I understand it, you either take control away from the Soviet player, or you give him victory conditions that oblige him to stick around, but on his own terms.