|
Post by bruce on Oct 13, 2016 2:01:50 GMT
I am aware that this topic was discussed awhile ago on TMP, but I am interested in what people think about the various rules approaches to victory conditions. Some of these have included point systems, casualty counts, terrain objectives, units leaving the table, etc.
Percentage of casualties? Time based on turns running out? What conditions make sense to determine that a force has fallen apart and been defeated? Historical scenarios may make this clearer with objectives established by the actual circumstances, but this does not by itself always make for a fun game.
From a rules point of view, what gives you the most tension and interest re victory conditions? Bruce
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2016 15:27:28 GMT
Now that one is a can of worms you have opened Bruce!
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Oct 14, 2016 1:20:00 GMT
Ha! Apparently too terrifying to even consider! Surely someone has some thoughts on systems or preferences that have worked for them. But, I guess I will understand if it's a can of worms best left unopened! Bruce
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 14, 2016 5:25:04 GMT
Well I take the simplistic view. When it comes down to it a battle has 1 or 2 objectives. Capturing ground and/or destroying the other army. I also like to put it in the perspective of a campaign so you cannot afford to loose too many men doing it. Being a solo player I don't have to worry about who wins or count points, I just fight it and use common sense to work out the victor.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by ooiittee on Oct 14, 2016 6:59:33 GMT
Ah Bruce Bruce Bruce....
Here we go.
You are correct that the wincon is different for each battle historical. Our group has recently discussed this very thing.
Consider that many battles fought through history were victories for both sides (or defeats) as they weren't often measured by the destruction of one’s army, but the strategic objective achieved, “hold for x hours to evacuate” like at Corunna. French can claim they drove off the enemy and claimed Spain, but the British can claim victory in preventing the total destruction of their army in Spain. Its perspective. And any campaign system should take this into account.
But what alot of systems get wrong is this. The majority of strategy is built arounf deception. Napoleon could not have won Austerliz if the enemy saw the victory point markers on the field....
Also not all measures of victory are felt immediately on the battlefield. Killed leaders could bring a collapse in national military doctorine, send ripples through government ect. These may take months or years to show up.
A good system needs have these thing considered.
Wincon concealed from the enemy. Multiple wincons possible Weightings applied to wincons not all wins are the same.
Ultimately though the victory needs to have something at stake. Real world pressure to make it count. A one off game looses some of its luster if it accounts for nothing. Who is paying for pizza, losser makes all tea for next game day, painting of troops for the winners. Etc.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Oct 16, 2016 0:44:41 GMT
These are excellent concepts to think about. As I have been playing solo, I have reached a point where I want to play for some realistic goals and consequences for both sides. I am planning to use Dan Verrsen's excellent Field Commander Napoleon solo board game as my campaign system. I hope this will help create some of the broader scope results you are talking about, conditions that may carry over to the next battle.
I will fight the battles with my slightly modified Neil Thomas rules on a 5 x 8 table, then back to the board game for the next campaign moves. I am trying to come up with some victory conditions that will connect well with the board game, which already has some supply factors that carry over.
I think you both have given me a good start for making the game on the table feel like it might have for leaders of the era as they saw things. Having more than one way to win, lose or draw, along with carry over consequences for things like losing too many guns or cavalry, makes for a more interesting series of battles. A lost leader has turned many tides. With winter approaching in New England, I will have some time to figure this out and I finally have enough troops painted and ready.
I come come from a military family where winning with the fewest casualties was considered vital. I tend to play games like Washington against the British - above all, live to fight another day. Another way to win. Thanks for helping me get my brain moving! Bruce
|
|
|
Post by davidsh on Oct 18, 2016 10:35:33 GMT
I think the idea of basing the victory conditions of a specific engagement in a campaign context a good one. There has to be an ultimate aim - knocking the opponent out of the war/suing for peace/ yielding territory or economic benefits. The conditions would also be affected by the type of battle - contact/encounter or more or less foreseen and planned by both sides. Using a board game as the campaign device seems a great idea. I have looked in vain for a good digital system, so the 'manual' ones fit the bill. Even if a more 'one-off' game, given the armies involved, a number of scenarios could be constructed. Even a 'victory' in a campaign set up may not be all it seems - look at Ligny. A severely mauled Prussian army but nevertheless a strategic disaster for Napoleon in the ultimate outcome.
|
|