Matrix Games Forums

I agree with the optional sudden death rule.

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

I agree with a sudden death rule.

There is already a sudden death rule. What it is voted here is the alternative optional sudden death rule proposed by Wadortch.

NO. I wouldn't use it. However if it doesn't detract from other improvements being done and is only listed in the Game Options or Preferences section as a clickable feature then I would have no objections to it being done.

My vote is NO

My vote is YES

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

I like the current scoring where player have total freedom take whatever towns and cities he like.  

If player want to take all VC locations in the south he can do it. If players want to take all VC locations in the center he can do it. If he wants push all fronts he can do it. Sudden death is already in the game if Germany can grab prober number of points.  

I do not like any type of scoring system where player is always forced to push toward same cities witch turns campaign always very predictable assault toward same cities every game, fortify same sudden death cities every game type.

My math may be wrong but I don't think the 290 VP's are attainable without taking Leningrad, Moscow and there light urban location in the center and north.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

... there's still the automatic sudden death victory condition in the campaigns, although it's a static number. It should be very simple to code some VP number for Germans for 1941 and 1942, and another VP number for Russians for 1943, 1944 and 1945. Or whatever. And all that could just be for a popup to declare a decisive victory and ASK players if they want to end the game at that point or continue playing. It's no biggie to offer another reasonable option. But to hear the arguments against such a simple thing is amazing. It used to be we could play with rules like this and nobody whined about it. Too funny. [8|]

This is good. Or why not have the option to set all these VP levels individually by players before start at both players discretion? If both agree that 290 VP is too high, it could be lowered to an agreed level.

Very important is to be able to continue an intersting game (even after standard deadline in 1945 is on wishlist) and that the thing is purely optional.

yes, please.

Yes.

No thank-you.

Having just bought this game I am slightly dismayed that the developers seem to have said that no further game balance changes are likely to be made. I am firmly of the belief that significant issues such as the Lvov opening and unlimited supply availability for offensives should be fixed/looked at before any other game coding issues are even considered.

Yes.

yes.

No to sudden death rule for me

I am in favour of an optional sudden death rule, but with some tweaking of the exact conditions.

No. I would not want it to exist in the game. If it was an optional rule I would not play any game containing that rule.

No

First I think dictatorial states are unlikely to stop fighting.

The germans did not ...and the soviets had plans to make a "fall back" to Samara for the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff if Moscow should be lost. In Samara they build the Stalin Bunker.

Why should the surrender 41-42 when thy even have plans and make arrangements for a evacuation far east? *



Omat

* Andrew Nagorski: The Greatest Battle, 2007, pp. 165-166

The sudden death rules being suggested carry no historical weight whatsoever. So why can't people who want them just play house rules if they want them? Will the rules be less fantastical for being made 'official' in game code? Of course not, they just carry the game further away from simulation and towards 'gamey'.

So lets say you get the 'official' thumbs up for your 'official' house rules. The next twenty threads will be taken up squabbling over their exact nature, wasting time which could be spent sorting the game. Of course, somebody will correctly point out the squabbling over how to best simulate the WitE. To this I answer there is a qualitative difference arguing over how to improve something and arguing how to take it up a blind alley.

Don't let 2 by 3 off the hook, if you're sticking by this game, demand they fix it, however long it takes.

And for those who wish to restrict discussion to 'yes' or 'no' let me remind you of the fascist pedigree of such democracy.

No

I vote yes. I may never use it, but I see no harm in adddng it.

If it really doesn't distract the devs, and doesn't mean other stuff fails get's its necessary attention, I bet no one will object.  Especially if the game can continue after that by choice of players, meaning that neither side is actually defeated, but played a good game.

The critical votes here, however, seem to be those who state that they will play with "lighter victory conditions" aka "Sudden Death rules" as SOVIET players -- not only, but also.