Matrix Games Forums

In my second MP round of the Winter tournament, I faced the same situation as in the first round, getting surprised by the score at the end of the game when one VP location is under enemy control just because he had a unit there 15 mins ago (that was destroyed by my Leopard next hex, that during combat moved a hex away).

In the first round scenario (Chance Encounter), you could make the argument that the VP locations were either urban areas or forest, making the spot harder to take and therefore justifying a 1-hex radius range to assign final control of the VP. However, in this case it's more of an open field area where a 1-hex radius + last one to touch it wouldn't really represent accurately the situation (the only unit 4 hexes around is mine). Probably in 1-2h extra of game time, he could've taken control of the area; but I would say that by the time the scenario was finished, that VP location was pretty much still under my control. In fact the only reason the tank moved away was the SOP (1-hex standoff range). Had I changed that at the last turn, the VP points would've gone to NATO.

I think the minimum hex radius for VP locations outside urban areas (and forest maybe) should be 2-hexes instead of one. Or if there isn't any unit1-hex around at the end, extend the range for X-hexes to account for changes in the battle since the VP was taken.

Interesting suggestion.

We can blame the current VP rules for a lot of things, but they are predictable and simple.
If the scenario runs the maximum time, the VP rules require last ownership of the exact VP hex.

Any alternative set of rules might fix some problems but simultaneously comes with new problems and loopholes.
I would be in favor of influence projected within effective range based on the weapon system and vehicle/section count, and according to line-of-sight.
Also with such a system, you have problems/loopholes where influence could be projected into a VP location while a major hex side stream lacking bridges would prevent that unit projecting influence to really own the VP.

I'm with William's notion of using effective weapon range and subunit counts to extend endgame influence as a minimum distance versus remaining time. Meaning, when the effective influence distance for time remaining drops below the effective range, the effective range becomes the minimum influence distance. Doing anything else would run into issues as noted, and the current system has been working well for 3 games.

I think that combination of line of sight and effective range to count the number of subunits for the influence over VP points would be a good solution.
A limited number of path-to-VP hexes could be implemented, to avoid loopholes like destroyed bridges, so if a group of units is within line of sight and effective range of a VP, let's say 4 hexes away, but their shortest path to VP would take 10 hexes, they wouldn't be counted as influence for the VP if the path limit is 6 hexes?

I think the VP from the 2nd round scenario I was commenting is a good example of this: in the middle of a valley, open field. The best way to hold it, given it is not in an urban area, it's holding the sides of the valley to repel any approach. In fact, with the Polish side, I had to send units specifically to move over the VP hex even thou I was controlling the valley from all sides, just to "take" those VP points from NATO. With the method that William's suggested, that would be unnecessary and, I believe, more realistic. In fact, it would probably encourage adopting more "realistic" tactics for winning those VP.
And old-fashioned, very limited-area VP points could keep existing in forests or urban areas, as they already limit LOS.

I will second (third?) the initial post here - my observation is that in certain circumstances, the VP hex radius is insufficient to represent actual control. Especially if a VP location is commanded by terrain that is multiple hexes away but offers a clear line of sight to the VP hex, having this location remain under enemy control at game end if previously (but not currently) occupied is not an ideal outcome.

Perhaps a better way to think about this is: the current scheme requires units to "Occupy" the exact VP hex/1 hex away, while in reality the tactical task for overwatching a location would likely be "Control" or "Retain" (with units providing overwatch of the location from several hexes away).