Matrix Games Forums

This is an example of the Soviet win line in November 1941. Points total is 195. So if Germany has only 195 pts or less then the Soviets get a Sudden Death Victory.

ORIGINAL: wadortch

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Which still doesn't change the fact you and the opponent can make their own.

Which also doesn't change the fact that just because it does get coded, those in favor of it may not accept it.

Which means that you and the opponent can make their own rule.

Quite true. What is your point? I take it does not matter what SD rule is arrived at you would not use it anyway, right? If that is so, why are you wasting your time here in this thread?

There already is one. And it seems that it isn't enough. That people are not happy with.

Given that, *any* SD rule is going to be divisive.

And, it is my time to waste. If you think people are just going to say yes/no and not discuss it, well, you're wrong.

Micheal T...why on earth would any Soviet want a sudden death win in 1941? That's boring. That's before it even gets interesting.

I just don't get this. You guys are trying to reinvent the Barbarossa campaign and stick it into the Grand Campaign and force a premature (and historically preposterous) ending to said GC. Hitler isn't throwing the towel in 1941 just because he doesn't reach this arbitrary stop line. Nor does Stalin.

If I'm playing the Grand Campaign I want to be Grand. That is to say, to the bitter end. Be it to in the Reichstag or the Urals.

Except the Urals isn't a feasible target, is it? The prospects of the German player in relation to his auto-victory is that this is almost a defensive war - all of the territory you take from Russia is there only to serve as a buffer zone between the Red Army and the Reichstag, and any casualties you inflict on him serve only to delay his march on Berlin.

Is it realistic? Given the lopsided-ness of the German and Soviet war economies, yes.

Is it also realistic to expect that the Soviets wouldn't surrender until the AA line was taken, and maybe not even after that? Also yes.

Does it make for a good game? That's arguable.

Look, I'm just having a hard time swallowing this even from the standpoint of the Soviet win.

I mean, what we're saying here is Hitler counts up his VP at the end of 1941, sees he's got 195, and surrenders to the Soviet Union with his army hundreds of miles deep into the Soviet Union. Talk about a stab in the back!

These conditions are fine if we're talking about strictly a 1941 scenario. (Which already is there.) But for determining the end of the war in GC context?

Why all the fuss? It would be an *optional*. You don't like it fine. Don't use it. I would still play either way with or without it. But I have my reasons for liking the idea. It's not new to me. I have played plenty of games (inc CG types) that use sudden death. I especially like the way SD ends one sided games early. Who wants to spend months on end playing out a game that is clearly over yet an obstinate opponent refuses to surrender? Thats what I call boring.

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.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Look, I'm just having a hard time swallowing this even from the standpoint of the Soviet win.

I mean, what we're saying here is Hitler counts up his VP at the end of 1941, sees he's got 195, and surrenders to the Soviet Union with his army hundreds of miles deep into the Soviet Union. Talk about a stab in the back!

These conditions are fine if we're talking about strictly a 1941 scenario. (Which already is there.) But for determining the end of the war in GC context?

What you could say is that when things start to go badly (measured by VP) for the Germans in 1941, but more likely 1942 and even more likely 1943, etc., someone puts a bomb on his plane, or under the map table and tries to negotiate a way out of the mess. Would the bomb go off, will the Soviets negotiate, we never got to see Nazi Germany without Hitler, so we will never know, but it is a possible outcome.

The problem seems to be in giving both sides something to play for, as in reality and without hindsight, it was the hope of eventual victory that kept the forces in the field, during the early years.

Don't most games end prematurely anyway, with one side giving up? Isn't that already a win for one side or the other? If the situation is so hopeless (in the eyes of one player) that that player gives up, then the other player has already won a "sudden death" victory. Similarly, if both players are willing to fight on, then why should they be stopped? The Soviets didn't give up, and neither did the Germans (ok, some small areas were still unoccupied, but they were tiny).

I just don't see what any additional sudden death rules would bring to the game.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Look, I'm just having a hard time swallowing this even from the standpoint of the Soviet win.

I mean, what we're saying here is Hitler counts up his VP at the end of 1941, sees he's got 195, and surrenders to the Soviet Union with his army hundreds of miles deep into the Soviet Union. Talk about a stab in the back!

These conditions are fine if we're talking about strictly a 1941 scenario. (Which already is there.) But for determining the end of the war in GC context?

I would agree with you insofar as not liking the idea of a sudden-death situation on the part of the Soviets if the Germans don't hit their historical watermarks.

My remarks were mostly aimed at the final sentence of your post with regards to a fight that lasts until the Reichstag or the Urals. The Soviets can look forward to the former. The Germans cannot look forward to the latter.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I just don't get this. You guys are trying to reinvent the Barbarossa campaign and stick it into the Grand Campaign and force a premature (and historically preposterous) ending to said GC. Hitler isn't throwing the towel in 1941 just because he doesn't reach this arbitrary stop line. Nor does Stalin.

No. No. No. It's obvious you and several others don't get this. It's not about Hitler or Stalin surrendering or anything else beyond a simple comparision of player performance to the historical record; you guys keep trying to make this into something more. It's about two people playing a game with established victory conditions that allow for a possible early decisive victory for either side. That's it, that's all it is. It provides BOTH players incentive to stretch for an early game victory or at least to deny their opponent an early game victory. While playing a game. What's so difficult to understand about that?? That's how a lot of us grew up playing these old Russian Front boardgames (which perhaps you never played?) so it's a reasonable expectation that a computer game version could provide comparable game victory conditions like we're used to playing with. For a game. [8|]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

While IMO the RF system is the best VP method in a East Front game I have seen it cannot be simply transposed in to the WITE game.
Therefore I think the most simple and easiest method to do would be similar to what I suggested in the other thread. Something easy to code.
That is use the VP tally that WITE already keeps track of. Then simply check this tally every 6 months from end November 1941 (so again end May 42, Nov 42, May 43, Nov 43, May 44, Nov 44)
You just need to come up with 2 numbers for each check. 1 for a German auto win and one for a Soviet Auto win.

Bingo. +1

The one code change might be to add this check for the Soviet player? So both sides have decisive victory conditions. That's important; decisive victory is not just for Axis.

Hello
I think you have it, Michael T, and suggest you flesh it out further. And, PG, I believe the way Michael has it constructed there would be checks for the Soviet win as well throughout the game.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Look, I'm just having a hard time swallowing this even from the standpoint of the Soviet win.

I mean, what we're saying here is Hitler counts up his VP at the end of 1941, sees he's got 195, and surrenders to the Soviet Union with his army hundreds of miles deep into the Soviet Union. Talk about a stab in the back!

Good point. As with so many other factors (enemy force statistics, leader values etc., combat returns, unit stats), there is a large fraction of FOW missing. In fact a player should perhaps not know exactly the "gamey"-value of a victory site. He will know that Leningrad is very important, or Moscow or Rostov. Much of this value will arise naturally from its strategic location, railway infrastructure, population, or industry anyway.

Maybe the VP values should be hidden and within a given range around the present values be randomized? Say by 10-25%? Then on average the victory conditions would be like they are now, but on occasion it would be easier to defeat either side, on occasion harder?
As an Axis player, for example, not knowing exactly what will trigger defeat except that it will have to do with eliminating the Red Army as a force in being and taking key centers, you may be surprised that the Soviets suddenly surrender after the fall of Moscow in autumn 41, although in another game you could take also Stalingrad and Baku and still the Red Bear will regain its balance and strength in the Urals and not fall apart?

Same for the Soviets, maybe you wouldn't even have to take Berlin in all games? Sounds much better than anything based on known, fixed VP conditions that will always send a player in a known fashion for the same targets, in all-or-nothing style.

ORIGINAL: DTurtle
Don't most games end prematurely anyway, with one side giving up? Isn't that already a win for one side or the other? If the situation is so hopeless (in the eyes of one player) that that player gives up, then the other player has already won a "sudden death" victory. Similarly, if both players are willing to fight on, then why should they be stopped? The Soviets didn't give up, and neither did the Germans.

My thought... but I think what player want to affect here is to have a definite criterion to win by performing an excellent (not necessarily over-expansive) offensive in 41 or 42. Not only just a chance that the opponent might call it quits, but a tool to force the opponent to admit a virtual defeat. I would indeed support such a rule, but only if the final determination of the victor would come with a dice roll, i.e. even if all VP locs are taken and held, that only with a small-% chance per turn the other side really asks for a cease fire and admits a defeat. If there is a good chance that the fighting will go on, neither side will overextend his forces in a largely gamey fashion just because of a fictional rule that wouldn't have to do with the War on the East anymore...

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Micheal T...why on earth would any Soviet want a sudden death win in 1941? That's boring. That's before it even gets interesting.

I just don't get this. You guys are trying to reinvent the Barbarossa campaign and stick it into the Grand Campaign and force a premature (and historically preposterous) ending to said GC. Hitler isn't throwing the towel in 1941 just because he doesn't reach this arbitrary stop line. Nor does Stalin.

If I'm playing the Grand Campaign I want to be Grand. That is to say, to the bitter end. Be it to in the Reichstag or the Urals.

Exactly. Don't want to play a Grand Campaign of some 200 turns if it can end in 10. To lose because of bad play is one thing. To do so because of some arbitrary stop line is something else.

ORIGINAL: janh
As with so many other factors (enemy force statistics, leader values etc., combat returns, unit stats), there is a large fraction of FOW missing.
Maybe the VP values should be hidden and within a given range around the present values be randomized?
for example, not knowing exactly what will trigger defeat

This is entertaining in its own way I guess. wadortch is arguing for apples, while others are arguing against oranges. Totally non sequitor. Too funny!

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?

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Micheal T...why on earth would any Soviet want a sudden death win in 1941? That's boring. That's before it even gets interesting.

I just don't get this. You guys are trying to reinvent the Barbarossa campaign and stick it into the Grand Campaign and force a premature (and historically preposterous) ending to said GC. Hitler isn't throwing the towel in 1941 just because he doesn't reach this arbitrary stop line. Nor does Stalin.

If I'm playing the Grand Campaign I want to be Grand. That is to say, to the bitter end. Be it to in the Reichstag or the Urals.

Exactly. Don't want to play a Grand Campaign of some 200 turns if it can end in 10. To lose because of bad play is one thing. To do so because of some arbitrary stop line is something else.

Well if the German attack fails in the first 10 turns, such that it triggers SD criteria wouldn't that be an impressive Soviet performance worthy of a decisive victory. Likewise if the Germans get well beyond their historical lines (as they would need, to trigger SD) in 10 weeks, again that would also be well worth a decisive victory. Like to see the AARs on those games, be much more exciting than 200+ turns, grinding to an inevitable finale.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Exactly. Don't want to play a Grand Campaign of some 200 turns if it can end in 10. To lose because of bad play is one thing. To do so because of some arbitrary stop line is something else.

I would argue that losing so much territory in 10 turns that it triggers whatever revised auto-victory rule that has been hypothetically implemented may well be an indicator of being outplayed.

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