Vote for Sudden Death Rule-

[wadortch]

There have been two threads that have taken up whether an Optional Sudden Death Rule would be used by players on either side.

See the "Is this what 2x3 games started out to design 5+years ago thread for the latest discussion on this.

You will note that Joel indicates a willingness to code something simple.

You will note also there is a lot of speculation whether anyone would use it at all, that few soviet players would and so on.

A proposal I floated is this:

1) First, it is an optional rule that will be coded. Does not bind anyone to use it. The idea is to create a test of a coded rule that can be evaluated by players and 2x3 alike.

2) The rule is simple. If a player holds all of the following cities (occupies all hexes with at least one combat unit)--Leningrad, Rshev, Moscow, Tula, Vorenezh, Voroshilovgrad and Rostov--at the start of the March, 1942---the player wins a decisive victory.

If this rule is used and it produces the intended result by creating an incentive to take or hold real estate in a way that is similar to how the combatants approached it historically, it will have achieved its purpose. It could also be expanded to create another set of SD cites for March of 1943.

Please respond (vote!) whether you would be interested in such an optional rule and whether you would use it playing either side in the game.

Here's mine: I vote it should be tried and I would use it playing either side (and I have played both sides).

Walt Dortch

[Guru]

I am in favour

[Aurelian]

[font="Trebuchet MS"]NO[/font]

[mmarquo]

No thanks.

[TulliusDetritus]

If it's optional, by all means go ahead. As a Soviet I will not play such a game though. Either a) I get to Berlin or b) my pixel e-troopov drop dead [8D]

[alfonso]

NO

Besides, historically almost all the cities you mention were in Soviet hands after the 1941-42 Winter campaign (Rzhev was almost taken). If the Germans perform more or less historically during the first year, is that a decisive defeat?. What is then the purpose of playing a 1941-45 campaign? You are already condemning the Axis when it is its turn to avoid mistakes (Stalingrad, Kursk)

[Michael T]

I want a sudden death rule. But not that one.

[Flaviusx]

What if somebody made a sudden death rule and no Russian showed up to play it? Does it make a sound in the forest?

[wadortch]

I'd play at as Soviets vs you as Axis. Would that be enough noise?

[Flaviusx]

Sorry, but no thanks.

[pzgndr]

I want a sudden death rule. But not that one.

I agree. Yes, I think an automatic victory should be possible but needs to be more flexible and dynamic.

In fact sudden death is already possible, isn't it? Per 24.1.2, "the game will end in an automatic victory either when Germany surrenders (Soviet victory) or when the Axis controls sufficient points to meet the particular campaign scenario decisive Axis victory condition;" i.e., at any time the Axis controls 200 points. No option there, it's the rule. (Unless I missed a change?)

Problem is, that 200 VPs is a static number for the entire war (more applicable to late 1942) and doesn't provide intermediate goals. It should be easy enough to establish more dynamic numbers that change over time. Again, the Russian Front game model could be used to set comparable Axis decisive VPs for March and November months of each year up to the 200 max. If VPs are OK for the non-campaign scenarios, they should be equally OK for the campaigns, just staggered a little more by date based on historical performance.

[Aurelian]

Something easier is wanted.

[wadortch]

Hello
I believe the auto-victory total for Axis is 290. Puts them way way east to achieve it. Problem with flexible and dynamic is that it could take a lot of work that 2x3 can't commit to now. Based on what I have seen in the AAR's, the SD condition proposed would not be at all easy for either side to achieve but could create the drive to go for it that would reflect the efforts made by both sides in 1941 and early 1942.
Walt

[Mehring]

Make your own sudden death rules if you want them. Stop distracting the devs from fixing the game.

[wadortch]

They have advised they are not going to "fix" the game at this time. They also advise this kind of rule would be easy to code. I take it from your post that you are not among the supporters for such a rule which was the question posed at the outset. The point was and remains whether there are enough players out there willing to experiment with such an optional rule, that's it. Be great if the focus of replies could keep that target in view!

[randallw]

The way I see events of the war in Europe ( not just the Eastern Front but everything ) the countries would surrender to Germany once they had passed the point of being able to recover.

The Soviet Union is just a much different animal.  The ability to pour reserve and replacement formations onto the field was something that Poland, France, Norway, etc just didn't have.

Sudden death for the Russians?  It should be more than Moscow and the major cities of west of it.

[janh]

No, thanks -- neither when playing Soviets, nor Germans.

I think if you add an optional 2 out 3 from Stalingrad, Baku, and Gorki, you could make a more reasonable case, speculative scenario for a Russian breakdown.  Test it at any time after 3/42.  But then you'd already be at the regular victory conditions.  And any Soviet player, who would be driven that far back, would likely already suggest ending the game and admit defeat on a true basis of reasoning.

The fun of the game gets lost when it ends early.  Rather than ending the game with Sudden Death, I would think a better incentive should be by adding more manpower, toys, or bumping up NM by 5 for such a success.  In turn, the Russians could get increased Lend-and-Lease as a representation of Allies to respond to the dire situation?  Also, what could the counter-incentive be if the Soviet say holds or retakes Smolensk, Leningrad, Kharkov, Kursk and Rostov by 3/42 or later?  Similar? 

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: janh

Also, what could the counter-incentive be if the Soviet say holds or retakes Smolensk, Leningrad, Kharkov, Kursk and Rostov by 3/42 or later?  Similar? 

The suggestion of Wadortch is that the Soviet side already wins if he holds the cities included in his list by 3/42. The Soviets do not need to retake Smolensk or Kharkov to win. Tula and Voroshilovgrad do the trick. See point 2) "...if a player...." not "if the Axis player". It is a rule "used by players on either side".

[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.

[pzgndr]

They also advise this kind of rule would be easy to code... The point was and remains whether there are enough players out there willing to experiment with such an optional rule, that's it.

Funny thing is that it's already coded and implemented for the non-campaign scenarios. AND, 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|]