RE: Objectives
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:48 pm
Hi Guys, I created a quick scenario based on this thread. It's quick and dirty but if you want to play it, email me at chisaidigital@gmail.com and I'll send it to you. Robert
ORIGINAL: Skyhigh
ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326
Very cogent suggestion.
I would add that geographicly important VP locations that do not take into account control of the location are gamey as hell. I hate that - gaming the system that is. Like running up the side of a map so the AI or even human opponent only gets a shot at one side of a vehicle (combat mission anyone?), holding a hex for the last turn of a game and winning even though the hex is surrounded by enemy units and its one turn away from being taken back, units that fight to the last man as a cohesive organization, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on.
The above is perfectly acceptable for a game. It, IMO, is not acceptable at all for a simulation or even a serious game.
But then victory is subjective and measuring a subjective attribute objectively can be - difficult.
Come on, it is perfectly acceptable for a simulation. In real life there's points awarded as well to holding certain key positions - only in that case they talk of "You'd better hold that position son or you will have a one way ticket to the Gulag" as opposed to "nah would be nice if you can occupy that crossroad but if not, it's just a demotion and not the Gulag". So one is more important than the other and that's why certain VPs have a higher value than others.
And as far as I know these scenarios hardly ever end on turns but more by one of the 2 belligerents suffering so many losses they have to retreat and reorganize.
At that point the "gamulation" looks at the VPs you hold and at the losses. So if you hold a VP whilst surrounded by the enemy - thats fine because they are retreating so you have all rights to that VP.
If you are the one retreating, well you get some kudos for being on that VP but you suffered so much that I doubt you will score a victory in that scenario.
And another thing - there's talk here about holding a VP whilst not holding the high ground next to it. Well as far as I know, in this gamulation, if I have this situation I get my ass kicked from the VP so I'd better make sure I get the high ground as well! Of course you go for the high ground. Flashpoint requires you to do so.
Again, if you hold a VP and the enemy has suffered so many losses, they will also retreat from that high ground. So again you have the right to that position.
I think we should wait to see what the changes to sudden death have on game play, hopefully it sorts out the last minute VL grab tactic that is gamey. The only times in scenarios that I've played where you can get away with only holding the VL is when its located in a near blind spot, and the AI does have a habit of plastering recently captured VL with arty incase a player is slow in moving forces off VL's. When defending the AI does seem to only hold within a few hexes rather than take full advantage of the terrain but that can be addressed in the long term.