The refinement of settings in this format is ongoing. We played a couple of single vp games where one side was able gain victory by grabbing and massing at the objective for 40 minutes, and then wait it out in an otherwise close battle (casualty wise). Well, this wasn't quite what I had in mind in trying this format. Recall that the whole idea of this format was to minimize the importance of objectives so that more wide-ranging battles of maneuver are encouraged.
So, the next stage was yesterday's battle in which 3 vp's were used to disperse the action, but still with the lowest (2%) point value) to be held for 40 minutes to gain the points. Most players know that the assigned vp percentage value is based on the total troops in the game divided by the number of objectives. So, in a maximum size 50,000 troop battle (the cap I use for performance), the most any of the 3 vp's could be worth is 333 points. Last night's game played fairly well, I thought, but had a couple of drawbacks:
1) Using a vp timer (e.g. 40 minutes) is not compatible with seeing all vp's at the start of the game. Soldier points out, and I agree, that being able to view all objectives at the start is a good thing;
2) And near the end of the game the Rebs felt compelled to make a desperate dash in to neutralize vp#1 to keep the Yanks from scoring the 325 points. I like a good desperation charge as much as the next guy, but in this situation it seems ahistorical and contrived since the charging army has no motivation to hold the vp once it's neutralized.
All of this suggests yet another refinement, which we'll try in tonight's (Wednesday's) battle: 3 vp's with a combined 2% value; vp's with a smallish dispersion of .5 miles; all vp's visible at the start; and points awarded each minute (rather than after the 40 minute timer has run).
I'm hopeful this takes us a step closer to the goal of broader, more dispersed battles of maneuver. We haven't seen it yet no doubt because the format hasn't fully encouraged it, but also because players still seem heavily locked into our customary 'dash for the vp' mind set. If GCM games can break out from this paradigm, I think it would add new challenges and renewed interest to our games.
Low-VP game settings for GCM battles
Re: Low-VP game settings for GCM battles
Last edited by exp101 on Wed May 11, 2016 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Low-VP game settings for GCM battles
Could the game be modded so zero objectives would be an option?
Re: Low-VP game settings for GCM battles
As we have seen in the past, when no objectives are in the battle, armies then to find defensive positions and sit tight, waiting for attacking army to suffer casualties... and why would they do that ? They don't.... so you have two armies facing off, with little reason to attack a strong position.... when flanking movements are made, the defending army just refuses, and retreats rather than be vulnerable.
Re: Low-VP game settings for GCM battles
I forgot that unchecking the box would eliminate the objectives.
Since that's the case, then I'm not quite sure if there's a solution. If there's an objective, then it will be emphasized in the players' minds.
Seems like a tough one. Much appreciation to Palmer for trying to work this out.
Since that's the case, then I'm not quite sure if there's a solution. If there's an objective, then it will be emphasized in the players' minds.
Seems like a tough one. Much appreciation to Palmer for trying to work this out.
Re: Low-VP game settings for GCM battles
Today's refinement in the ongoing attempt to make for a broader game and more maneuver:
-a few more vp's (7 or 9 depending on number of players we have);
-vp's dispersed over wider area (thinking 1.5 miles or wider);
-bring back objective holders & wagons (to cover the additional vp's);
Continuing the low vp value (2%) means that each vp will likely return only 1 or 2 points per minute throughout the game. So, they're not very important in their own right, but one thing we've seen is that regardless of value, vp's draw players like moths to a flame. :S
Again, in order to have all vp's visible at the start, points will be awarded minute to minute (i.e., no more 40 minute continuous hold stuff).
-a few more vp's (7 or 9 depending on number of players we have);
-vp's dispersed over wider area (thinking 1.5 miles or wider);
-bring back objective holders & wagons (to cover the additional vp's);
Continuing the low vp value (2%) means that each vp will likely return only 1 or 2 points per minute throughout the game. So, they're not very important in their own right, but one thing we've seen is that regardless of value, vp's draw players like moths to a flame. :S
Again, in order to have all vp's visible at the start, points will be awarded minute to minute (i.e., no more 40 minute continuous hold stuff).
Last edited by exp101 on Fri May 13, 2016 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
NY Cavalry
- Reactions:
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:49 am
Re: Low-VP game settings for GCM battles
Some guys need objs regardless if they are worth anything. Very funny really, but that is human nature with some.
Re: Low-VP game settings for GCM battles
The past couple of games I've used a wide 2-mile spread on the VP's. This seems to have worked well to disperse the action away from objectives, although the armies still inevitably 'meet in the middle.'
Ben & Willard have put forth a few thoughts on game variations that, if we could do them, could well add some additional variety and interest. I especially like Willard's because it involves the very realistic notion of armies being forced to defend a critical supply base or line while going after the enemy's. Unfortunately, with the randomness of GCM's VP and division location placements, I don't see how this could be consistently done within the regular framework of battle generation. Of course, using Sandbox & the various scenario generators (e.g., Leffe's) such battles would be possible, but that takes them beyond the realm of GCM's campaign divisions.
BTW, Garnier has shown me how to generate new random maps and granted access to his GCM development PC to allow it to happen. The version 899 maps are the first to be created in this way -- though at this writing there is a final bug to be worked out that impacts replay viewing. Hopefully, this will be fixed before today's battles.
Ben & Willard have put forth a few thoughts on game variations that, if we could do them, could well add some additional variety and interest. I especially like Willard's because it involves the very realistic notion of armies being forced to defend a critical supply base or line while going after the enemy's. Unfortunately, with the randomness of GCM's VP and division location placements, I don't see how this could be consistently done within the regular framework of battle generation. Of course, using Sandbox & the various scenario generators (e.g., Leffe's) such battles would be possible, but that takes them beyond the realm of GCM's campaign divisions.
BTW, Garnier has shown me how to generate new random maps and granted access to his GCM development PC to allow it to happen. The version 899 maps are the first to be created in this way -- though at this writing there is a final bug to be worked out that impacts replay viewing. Hopefully, this will be fixed before today's battles.