thread: 2006-02-21 : Adding Objectives to Mechaton
On 2006-02-21, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
Loud cheering!
I have long thought, "gee, if you really wanted to make a points-based army-building wargame work, and were sick of 'wow! two completely equal armies attack each other head-on in a battle to the death!,' you'd need a handicapping system where you could build as big an army as you liked, but the bigger you build it, the harder your victory conditions."
I suspect the +1/-1 to victory points per objective may prove too screwable in practice, though: If I get the same penalty for making an army 1000% larger than yours as I do for making an army 1% larger, there's a huge temptation to game the system. You may need to get a little more complex and make the objective values scale up and down as percentages—i.e. my army is 50% larger than yours, I get 50% fewer VPs per objective hex—so you don't have a breakpoint in your currency.
The alternative, rather more complex way to do this that was vaguely in my head for years was:
1) Every unit costs Victory Points: Each time I bring a unit onto the field, I spend VPs.
2) Every unit costs VPs every turn: The units I bring into the field on Turn 1 and keep until the game ends on Turn 10 cost me base value x10; the reinforcements I suddenly decide I need, introduce on Turn 9, and get to use just for those last two turns cost me base value x2. Conversely, if I withdraw units I don't need, I stop paying their VP cost (or get a rebate): I withdraw half my force at the end of turn 5 in a 10-turn game, I only pay base value x 5 for that part of the force.
3) If a unit's destroyed, I lose its base VP value times some ugly number (x100?), because my side can never, ever use that again in an infinite number of hypothetical future turns.
4) Conversely, if I move units off your edge of the map—i.e. I break through your lines—I don't merely stop paying VPs every turn for those units, I get a hefty bonus x base value to represent the joy of them rampaging around in your rear areas.
This is designed to introduce strategic (or at least operational/grand tactical) concerns for preserving forces, economy of force, and exploiting higher-order objectives into old-skool tactical slugfests.
This makes SDL go "#2 is wierd..."
...'Cause usually we think of Reinforcements as being more difficult to obtain than starting forces. This seems to set up kind of a back & forth raid dynamic.
This makes VB go "about the +1/-1 for army size..."
I figure in Mechaton's range - 3 mechs minimum vs 5 maximum - it's not going to be too gamable. I sure do want my army to be exactly 1 die weaker than yours, though.
This makes SDL go "So i wrote it..."
So hey, i wrote a little game based around that VP idea, more or less.
It is right here, if you want to take a look. Nothing special, and i think it probably doesn't work, but it might be partially demonstrative.
This makes SF go "Whoot!"
I commented on your site. (Hey, everybody, click over there!)
This makes SF go "#2 is weird, but..."
...the idea is that you're playing a mid-tier commander (major, colonel, brigadier) and your higher-ups not only don't want to give you more resources, they want you to give the resources you do get BACK as soon as possible. Everybody look up Col. Robert Leonhard's "Fighting by Minutes" now.
This makes SDL go "I'll give you that..."
...i'm not actually used to playing with VPs, anymore! Interesting looking book, too.
