Problems with Sudden Death trigger

[GloriousRuse]

A thought for consideration:

Scaled and/or Asymmetric sudden death results.

Asymmetric:
Because there is such a fundamental difference in what the WP and NATO are trying to achieve in the larger context, as well as the balance of power, give them different benefits/penalties from a Sudden Death.

The NATO player should see WP Sudden Death as a respite...the end of this drive. For this purpose the current SD rules work reasonably well.

But he should be terrified of going under 30% himself and it should be a serious decision when to hold out to the last and when to preserve forces. Because in a strategic context that means the WP is about to achieve a breakthrough. Whether the WP player does or does not, reserves are committed or not, on a operational scale is irrelevant - the NATO commander has failed tactically which is what we are evaluating. there is a reason NATO embraced mobile defense and defense in depth - largely because they could not afford to lose combat power at the rate a linear forward defense would consume it. So to reward NATO for dying on the line seems foolish.

The WP player should see a NATO Sudden Death as inherent victory unless there are very extenuating circumstances. Operationally he is trying to achieve a breakthrough and allow penetration. Whether he does this by overrunning the key intersections and roadways or by blowing a ten mile wide hole in the NATO line is fairly irrelevant - either is a tactical success which will allow his force or follow on forces to race forward.

In contrast, he should see his own Sudden Death as less egregious in a close figth. There are, after all, more echelons coming. I think the current SD rules reflect this well.

Scaled:

Most of the complaints have come from people who said "But I clearly dominated, why is that a contested battle, wait I LOST FOR KILLING THEM ALL TOO QUICKLY?" So increase the sudden death reward/penalty based on force condition and time.

The faster the SD, the more the reward, and the better shape your force is in, the more the reward. It would need careful balancing, but the general concept should be that a lightning fast SD with your force at 100% should move the chains to a decisive victory.

If we are being asymmetric about it, these values could be weighted differently for NATO and the Pact, with the WP placing a premium on speed and NATO valuing preserving their combat power. It would lead to an interesting calculus of who is willing to trade blood for time one way or another.

[TigerTC]

I just played the first battle in the Soviet campaign. Smashed their forces in less than 5 hours. Took minimal casualties. But because I knocked out over 70% of their force but didn't (yet) seize many VPs (even though they were all wide open and ripe for the picking), I suffered a "minor loss."

[Mad Russian]

Working on this as fast as we can.

Good Hunting.

MR

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Working on this as fast as we can.

Good Hunting.

MR

Good to hear, and thank you. I've been on hiatus, waiting for the sound fix and some headway with the sudden death rules.