I was playing Peninsula French against Russians...to see the effect of massed arty on my columns of death ...but we came toward the end of the game and the french had broken the Russians...My opponent made his end of game 5 dice roll on turn 12..we then got to the silly situation where the Russian went on an all-out attack while I as the French tried to avoid combat at all costs ...ultimately he had nothing to lose( he is not penalised for losing more units beyond 33% while I was getting close to my 33%) ...he was making suicide style attacks just incase he got the very unlikely kill result while I was breaking off to save my units...ultimately i couldnt fault his logic but it made for a very strange ending. Seemed to us there is no incentive to continue to kill your opponent once you have achieved 33% casualties (other than perhaps hunt down his pursuit cavalry). Has anyone else encountered this?? ....very strange..or are we missing somthing???
Victory Conditions Glitch??
(18 posts) (9 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Hey Zel - I think David (evilgong) highlighted this potential problem very early on. It will be worse where, as in your game, one player breaks early in the turn sequence and therefore has a lot of low numbered turn numbers (thus easier to pass the army morale test with (usually) 5 dice) to test against. I recall tha David actually predicted the behaviour that you described!
I have wondered actually how logical it is to link the army morale roll to the turn number. Once I reach my break number of units lost, is it right that it still gets progressively harder to pass the test even if I subsequently do not lose any more units and maybe even start to pound the opposition. I can see it is a neat way to give a variable number of turns to the game but we have that anyway past turn 16.
Maybe a simple fix would be to impose an additional modifier to the army morale roll for every unit lost over and above the army break number.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I had similar concerns early on, but I am not that concerned any more. Being " a moment in battle" I am not sure this is really such an issue. The crazy sucidal attacks could be seen by someone as simply trying to regain the initiative and the french disengaging as simply " we achieved our ordered objective and now let's disengage". I think the system encourages changes in initiative during the game. We've played a few games and seen this behavior, or for example a defender that left the objective alone and went on a full counterattack from the beginning to try to win early on counting that he could retake the objective with his reinforcements befor the 4 dice roll became tough. I sort of like these things, even the attacks from the army that reached break point ( which considering is at 1/3 of army it is not really a broken army, just shaken ).
It is something that actually I ended up enjoying. I was entertaining the idea of adding another dice ( ie. 6 dice ) or simply establishing full defeat if you lost another 3rd of your att points ( ie. you reach 2 thirds ) but now I am no longer in favor of that since I actually want this back and forth in the game and I like the system as is...
If I would add anything to the resolution it would be to subtract the disruption of the cavalry units from the pursuit score ( only to force the attacker to have fresh units for pursuit ). But again this is just flavor, not critical.
just my view... ( maybe even less than 2 cents :) )
Francisco
Posted 2 years ago # -
[I have wondered actually how logical it is to link the army morale roll to the turn number. Once I reach my break number of units lost, is it right that it still gets progressively harder to pass the test even if I subsequently do not lose any more units and maybe even start to pound the opposition.]
The concept is supposed to represent exhaustion and demoralization more than anything else. Once your men realize that they're losing the battle, it's progressively harder to hold them together.
I'm not sure if there's an elegant fix to the issue of the "Kamikaze Loser," and you definitely wouldn't want a House Rule in which units on a losing side couldn't attack anymore, since that would open a Pandora's Box of unintended consequences and exceptions. (After all, there might be some very good reasons to make a last-ditch, all-out effort. To use an American example, the famous situation of the 20th Maine at Gettysburg comes to mind.) In a more Napoleonic example, that entire "Pratzen Heights" scenario is arguably a Russian-Guards-Kamikaze Scenario writ-large, since the allied commander already knew he was losing the battle and decided to go for broke. (And I scarcely dare to suggest it, for fear of conjuring images of a stumpy little Corsican dude with a rising sun bandana on his head, but... What did Napoleon *really* think would come of sending a handful of Guard battalions up the hill into the teeth of a well-prepared enemy, when it was clear this his entire right flank was about to give way and he was going to lose the battle?)
You probably wouldn't want to impose a more gradated "losing" system upon the loser, with increasing penalties, since that would track the game against a player and not be much fun; if he began to realize that he was losing and the game mechanics started turning on him, it would (A) be a drag to keep playing, and (B) simply alter the mid-game tactics to some odd things to avoid reaching whatever point where that tracking began.
Somebody else mentioned adopting a Flames-of-War-style victory system, in which there are more levels of victory/defeat, more finely graded upon relative losses on both sides... but I'm not sure if that would deter the Kamikaze player, since the same fundamental logic would still apply: "I'm losing; What the Hell. I might as well try something crazy..."
Obviously, some of this also depends upon the people you play with, and under what conditions. My group has been playing FOW for years and even though the losing player sometimes does a last-minute Kamikaze, it has never seemed particularly wrong or strange. I've not seen it happen in Lasalle yet.
In any event, if people think they have some ideas for elegant alternative Victory rules, please feel free to test them in a couple of games, then post them here so that others can test them, and then if they pass muster, we can put them in the OPT Rules Downloads.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I too play flames of War but you are penalised with losing VPs for each platoon you lose so there is no kamikazi style play in the tourneys i've played. My simple fix is that your opponent moves to a 4 dice to break if you kill more than half his army...therefore there is a disincentive to throw units away for the losing side and an incentive to continue the attack for the winning side. Make this 3 dice in the unlikely event you kill 2/3rds of his Army.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't think the counter attack at 33% is any sillier than the magic number of breaking at 33%.
Where does the 33% come from ?
There are lots of other little things the rules overlooks in the effort to give a good quick game.
A Veteran unit breaks right beside a conscript unit and the conscript unit doesn't care?
The Veteran unit is worth the same "VP's" as the conscript unit?
The heavy artillery is worth the same "VP's" as the light ?
etcI see Lasalle as a fast play set of rules , if you start nit picking you could go on and on..
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have no problems with abstraction/game mechanisms ...its when a such a mechanism essentially dictates behaviour imo that it has issues..
formula @ the moment..I'll defend till I reach 33% break level then Suicide attack after that until I break...(why wouldnt you???)
If winning I will attack until I achieve 33% then break-off as much as possible to protect my break-level...(why risk more??)
NB I look to Lassalle for a competitive set of rules...campaign considerations for me dont apply
Posted 2 years ago # -
[I have no problems with abstraction/game mechanisms ...its when a such a mechanism essentially dictates behaviour imo that it has issues..]
Obviously, you can play the game however you like, against whomever you like. But just as a rhetorical/logical matter... I'm not sure I understand the point of trying to figure out the most perfect and ideal formula for winning tournament games, and then complaining that you [think you] found it?
If your habitual style of play is to max-out your competitive advantage against a specific opponent in tournament play, then surely you would attempt to do so, no matter what the rules were.
So I don't exactly see that as a compelling argument for any changes.
Enjoy your games!
best,
SamPosted 2 years ago # -
I hope to run Lasalle comps (maybe 5 games over 2 days) but feel obligated to try out rule systems before I get people to pay good money and realise the sharks have worked out how to exploit loopholes ( i figure if I can.. they will...I know my audience). Believe it or not I want these rules to work...and am a Sam fan..I just believe in stress testing ...I figure there are already enuff back-slappers on the list.
To get back to being constructive what do you about the 4 dice at 50% suggestion??Posted 2 years ago # -
If I was running a comp, I would probably use a different victory point system.
As I noted in another thread, the win-draw-loss system is a bit blunt making it hard to rank players and does not grade different "types" of wins and draws.
Part of the issue is that a player can get the enemy to their breakpoint, but after that it is purely luck if they win or not - there is nothing they can do (objective aside) to affect the odds.
I also agree with the posters above - the incentive after you break the opponent is to disengage which seems odd. Providing a reason for both sides to keep fighting till the end is best.
I would consider a modified FOG version. Each player gets 10 x % of your army left + 10 x % of enemy destroyed (rounded to ensure 20 points in total across the 2 players). In addition, a player gets 5 if the enemy is above their breakpoint. If an army loses all its units are treated as destroyed.
So if the game was poised with side A having lost 25% and side B 25%, the score if the game ended would be 10-10.
If instead side A has lost 33% and side B 25%, the score would become 16-9 to B (so pushing the enemy above breakpoint is worth achieving even if it is a draw).
If side A could push side B to 33% as well without losing more themselves, then it would be 15-15 (so side A has an incentive to fight).
Alternativley, if side B can push A to 50% without losing more, it would become 18-7 (so B has an incentive to keep killing A even when they are above their breakpoint).
If instead B breaks, it would be 23-2 (so winning the game is rewarded).
Cam
Posted 2 years ago # -
Slightly complex but the way to go for a comp I suspect...so how would you incorporate the objective?? maybe increased the defenders losses by 20% if they dont possess.??
Posted 2 years ago # -
It is complex but with FOG you just use a table that you use to look up the result - many players probably don't know how the scores are derived.
The objective could just be treated as if the defender was above their breakpoint - 5 pts to attacker (if defender is not also above 33%).
I would not worry about decisive/marginal wins as per the book. One problem with them is that they will limit army choice. For instance, with 1 support there will be no Old Guard ever used, which would be a shame...
Cam
Posted 2 years ago # -
Instead of screwing around with percents and tables, why not keep it simple. In FoW there is three results right? (6-1, 5-2, 4-3), and currently in Lasalle there is 2 (Marginal and Decisive Victory). Throw in an extra point if you keep or capture the objective (so it becomes more than just a way of rolling less morale dice) and now you have a 3,2,1 point system...?
Posted 2 years ago # -
There's also a draw available. The available options seem to be:
Lose / do not gain objective, major defeat
Lose / do not gain objective, minor defeat
Lose / do not gain objective, draw
Lose / do not gain objective, minor win
Lose / do not gain objective, major win
Gain / retain objective, major defeat
Gain / retain objective, minor defeat
Gain / retain objective, draw
Gain / retain objective, minor win
Gain / retain objective, major winThat's 10 different outcomes available there, giving 5 actual results. You could assign points as follows:
Gain objective, major win 5 / lose objective major defeat 0
Gain objective, minor win 4 / lose objective minor defeat 1
Lose objective, major win 4 / gain objective major defeat 1
Lose objective, minor win 3 / gain objective minor defeat 2
Gain objective, draw 3 / lose objective, draw 2In effect, it's 4 points major victory, 3 points minor victory, 2 points draw, 1 point minor defeat, 0 points major defeat, with a +1 point for gaining / keeping the objective.
Posted 2 years ago # -
If you go back to the original post, the problem was that once a side has passed their breakpoint their incentive is to launch an all out attack since losing more troops is irrelevant to them, while the incentive on the other player is to disengage and not fight since there is no advantage in killing more enemy.
I agree it is a potential problem.
The suggested points systems above don't fix that.
Cam
Posted 2 years ago # -
I might help a little though? ie, by making the Objective more important (and not just affecting dice for army morale), therefore securing or holding the objective beyond army break point is still vital for VP's....?
Posted 2 years ago # -
>If you go back to the original post, the problem was that once a side has passed
>their breakpoint their incentive is to launch an all out attack since losing more
>troops is irrelevant to them, while the incentive on the other player is to
>disengage and not >fight since there is no advantage in killing more enemy.
>
>I agree it is a potential problem.As was suggested previously, a modifier (or additional roll for break) when extra units break may help if this really is a problem in play. Personally, I'd need to see more games to see if this really is a game problem.
As to the other topic in this thread, in tournaments IMO an additional scoring system which covers the % of an army destroyed seems to be needed, as the win/loss can be based too much on a single roll.
Maybe in addition to the items suggested by Nick, scoring 5 pts minus 1 for each 20% of your army lost would work. This rewards commands who are careful with their troops. However, I'd give the bonus to win more points. So what about something like:
6 points major victory, 4 points minor victory, 2 points draw, 1 point minor defeat, 0 points major defeat, with a +1 point for gaining/keeping the objective and 5 points minus 1 for each 20% of the army lost.
Posted 2 years ago # -
As Sam and others have said though, not everyone sees this as a problem, but as something that was frequently seen on the battlefield - if you see your morale crumbling (having reached the 33% threshold), the commander sends in his best troops to save the day before they do rout (fail the morale test).
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.