VP Value Thoughts & Preferences

[exp101]

Carrying over the discussion begun today about how vp's should be valued in GCM. To sum up, there are 2 (or maybe 3) schools of thought:

A. High VP values (30%+) are good because ACW armies frequently fought for physical objectives. Ergo, this is more realistic
-Counter-argument is that ultimately this creates 'unfair' battles in favor of the side receiving the superior spawn;

B. Low VP values (2%-5%) are good because the game becomes more about superior fighting skills/tactics in game
-Counter argument is that this undervalues the importance of goals and objectives in the ACW (e.g., 'take that hill!')

C. Middle Range VP values (10%-20%) are good because, while holding vp's returns significant value, it may not be enough to overcome substantially inferior play and big casualty deficits.
Counter argument is (I suppose) that 'splitting the baby' creates a hybrid that doesn't really satisfy anyone.

And, of course, the real question here is how and why Soldier became the power broker pulling every GCM string!

[mike1984]

My comments...

ACW armies fought over physical objectives like bridges, hills, roads, towns, etc. How often does a GCM/SOW obj fall on anything remotely significant? The middle of a large treeless flat plain doesn't strike me as tactically significant, nor does the base of a hill (not the summit, but the bottom of it) feel historically accurate as a key objective. Even less realistic is when a high-VP game is coming to a close, and both sides engage in a death match over one objective to decide the game. Lee wasn't just trying to "blank the objective" on Cemetery Ridge. Even if he did gain the ridge, he would have had to support it with reinforcements and guns, which--because he battered his army to thoroughly up to that final assault--were unavailable to him. So "taking the objective" on Cemetery Ridge would have done nothing to win the battle. You don't think Meade wouldn't have brought up tens of thousands in reinforcements--i.e. VI Corps--many of which didn't even fire a shot to that point? So the "realism" debate here for having high-VP objs doesn't work b/c of the limitations of GCM/SOW.

If GCM/SOW allowed manual placement of objs (for example, clicking the points in the mini-map when making the game), then I could understand the desire a stronger focus on objective points. But high VP values (30%+) increases the chance that the team w/the better spawn luck will get the win. There's no fun in that, just as there's no fun in losing a battle after holding a majority of objectives with only a small difference in casualties. I personally like 10% objective points, because destroying your army in order to control a very random and likely tactically insignificant point on the battlefield isn't much fun, and it's especially not realistic, if that's what we're going for. We all know high-VP battles are usually bloodbaths, and usually grind down to both sides flinging single regiments against the objs just to blank them out or hold them for the last few minutes. There was no game timer in the real ACW.

I'm honestly not sure why we get these freak-outs every few months. Like Palmer said, if you don't like the settings, then put up the scheduled battle and host the game. I'd do it more often, but I'm never available to play the early (5:15 ET) games.

[KG_Soldier]

The best thing about this forum is that Seal is banned.

[Beef Stu]

Mike summed some of my opinion pretty well.

everyone needs to ask themselves , are you playing a game ? or reenacting the ACW ?if you're reenacting you're SOL . 90% of the games i've been a part of , based on starting position and/or objectives , if i was army commander i wouldn't have fought. or in order to win you need more then our time limits allow to disposition the enemy and strike. True , i am overly cautious so maybe this is all just my opinion.
Unfortunately this is a game and my interest has waned because of its limitations and totally unrealistic "bloodbaths, and usually grind down to both sides flinging single regiments against the objs just to blank them out" . i get no enjoyment from that .

personally i'd rather no objectives,longer playtime, and pre-game strategy.(not to mention the in game limitations i'd like to change, i.e. detaching companies ect...) But i suppose you can't have your cake and eat it .

with that said im going for some cake.

[mike1984]

Don't stay away too long, Beef.

[DarkRob]

Edit erased

[mike1984]

DarkRob, you're talking about the stock single player scenarios in SOWGB. The discussion in this thread is specifically about the GCM (Garnier's Campaign Mod) multiplayer games. The website is sowmp.com.

[Saddletank]

I don't want to interject where maybe people are focussed on the game design philosophy of one particular online group but other groups such as the Kriegspiel Group play most games of the kind Beef Stu describes. We don't have any points for objectives but they must be "achieved" nonetheless to secure victory. "Achieving" the objective sometimes does not involve sitting men on it, and a few tired unsupported regiments thrown onto an objective in the last few moments of a game would never be considered success.

We find our format gives our games a greater sense of place and intent, even those that are not part of the wider context of one of our campaigns usually have a mini-backstory as to why the two sides are about to fight and what each must do (or with our co-op vs AI games, what the player team must achieve).

We always have a command structure with the C-in-C designing a plan and in some games we have even had said C-in-C call off the battle because he thinks the objective is beyond the capacity of his forces to obtain.

All our games are different; some are stand up bashes but many are very peculiar indeed and often asymmetrical.

While we are playing almost exclusively Napoleonic at the moment we do play ACW games from time to time as well as other periods such as the 1740s, Plains Wars or the 1860s (in a fictional Europe setting).

It strikes me that the GCM group could try a different game format, maybe without the GCM software defining an envelope the games must be built within. Try making scenarios by hand and giving them a background context. MTG has written a very slick and simple scenario generator that can take historical OOBS or construct fictional ones out of components from those OOBs. The generator has a balancing feature if you need that, or scenarios can be built that are intentionally unequal. It works with both Gettysburg and Waterloo. Once you are familiar with it (3 or 4 uses) you can build corps-sized scenarios in under 20 minutes which includes a hi-speed playtest run to check things work.