nerco250

New conditions of partial victories?

7 posts in this topic

I would like to know your opinion about introducing new partial victory conditions. See if it is possible and design those new conditions, if you consider it positive for the game. I explain:

The last campaigns have lasted a lot. With the new system of garrisons and fewer "mobile" flags, I have the feeling that the campaigns are going to be even longer. This does not have to be bad, but we all know that when certain key cities fall into enemy hands, as a general rule, it is already known which side will end up winning the campaign; the losing side does not attack, and sometimes it is limited to defend from a window, trying to make casualties and importing very little if the enemy gets one or more cps.

The idea would be to put a time limit to the campaign. I do not know which would be the optimum, if 30 days, 60 days or 120, but there would be a maximum date. If that day has come, the campaign is not over, according to the current rules, the campaign ends and we look if some of the new conditions of partial victory are met.

What are these conditions? Perhaps the control of certain key cities, for example that the axis control St Omer, St Quentin and Cambrai, or the entire north coast from Calais to Hellevoetssluis or that the allies control Bitburg, Aachen and Well. Another option is to control, for example 90% of the aerodromes and / or ports, have control of at least one city in each river or 90% of the rivers, etc. Even if a 2: 1 ratio is reached in enemy deaths ... you can play with several variables, modify the above or ask that several circumstances be met

 

What would be achieved with this?

1st- You know the end date of the campaign. You know that day ends and that you do not have to be in pain waiting for one side or the other to take the 5 or 6 cities that remain, knowing that the campaign is sentenced.

2nd- Promotes the fight until the last day. Maybe your side does not win this campaign, but it can prevent the enemy from getting a total victory (with the current victory conditions), even they get a partial victory.

3rd- If the campaign is very balanced, it provides new conditions for a partial victory, which means new movements, new strategies ... Also, depending on which cities you need to obtain a partial victory, we can see battles in areas that are not currently fought . I'm thinking of the zeelands, on the northern coast of France (Calais-Gravelines-dunkerque)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think this would be a good idea or will change the way people play.  If key towns are taken and it's already inplied who will win as you stated above putting a time on campgain length really wont make more people fight.  We have seen the the past both side on the brink of losing only to resurge and move the map back the other way....its rare but it has happened.

People want to achieve an actual victory as it stands now.........not a time restricted campagin declared victory.

Just my opinion but I cant see it being favored over what we currently have now.  Not to say there cant be inprovements but time restriced maps are not advised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this idea has some merit, but I agree with BMW that we shouldn't have time restricted grand campaigns. Rather it would be very similar to the old Special Events such as Channel Dash, Dunkirk, etc. We could have "mini-campaigns" with set victory conditions that are spaced inbetween the "grand campaigns." These could be time limited in the sense that one side needs to attack X/Y/X in a certain timeframe or the other side defend certain key cities in the same time. It could help open the map to play that at times is ignored (Zeelands, Deep South), or promote play that is rarely done (how about a RDP/strategic bombing-focused mini campaign for say 3-5 days?).

It could looking something like this:

1/1 - 1/5 2019: Defend the Zeelands!

1/6 2019: Intermission

1/7 - 1/12 2019: Breakthrough at the Ardennes

1/13 2019: Intermission

1/14 - Total Victory: Grand Campaign

Date TBD - Start+2 Days 2019: Intermission

Date TDB - Start+4 Days: Landings at Normandy

 

And so on... the exact length and frequency of the minicampaigns could be adjusted but I think its not a bad idea to look at. Plus it may not be a bad idea to limit map size a bit when player numbers are small as well. Back in 2001 we played on a map that extended essentially from Namur to Sedan. We only had 4 airfields total (2 per side) and Cambrai/Wiltz were lone airfields dozens of miles away from the nearest friendly town.

Edited by aismov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not dislike the idea of mini campaigns, especially to encourage the fight in certain areas and cities where you hardly fight on a typical map.

However, I think that awarding partial victories in campaigns with a limited time, would improve the game at specific moments, but what is more important, does not have any negative effect on what we have now. If we put a limit of 60 days (more than reasonable) and the allies begin to push from the beginning and conquer 80% of the towns on the 20th, little repercussion would have this new rule. The allies would end the map on day 30 or day 40 (except miracle of the opposite side). But if that push occurs on the 55th, that is, at that time the allies have 80% of the map, many axis can connect those last 5 days knowing that although it is very possible that they do not turn the map around, they can always deny a TOTAL victory to the Allied side, and even a partial one, if they hold those 5 days .. That is to say, at that moment the Axis would have something else to fight for, apart from waiting for a miracle that does not always happen.

There are campaigns, without going any further the latter, that both sides are looking forward to ending. The die is cast; the loser side does not defend as it did at the beginning of the campaign, and the attacker is tired of taking town after town with little resistance. With a temporary limitation this could be corrected or mitigated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, aismov said:

I think that this idea has some merit, but I agree with BMW that we shouldn't have time restricted grand campaigns. Rather it would be very similar to the old Special Events such as Channel Dash, Dunkirk, etc. We could have "mini-campaigns" with set victory conditions that are spaced inbetween the "grand campaigns." These could be time limited in the sense that one side needs to attack X/Y/X in a certain timeframe or the other side defend certain key cities in the same time. It could help open the map to play that at times is ignored (Zeelands, Deep South), or promote play that is rarely done (how about a RDP/strategic bombing-focused mini campaign for say 3-5 days?).

It could looking something like this:

1/1 - 1/5 2019: Defend the Zeelands!

1/6 2019: Intermission

1/7 - 1/12 2019: Breakthrough at the Ardennes

1/13 2019: Intermission

1/14 - Total Victory: Grand Campaign

Date TBD - Start+2 Days 2019: Intermission

Date TDB - Start+4 Days: Landings at Normandy

 

And so on... the exact length and frequency of the minicampaigns could be adjusted but I think its not a bad idea to look at. Plus it may not be a bad idea to limit map size a bit when player numbers are small as well. Back in 2001 we played on a map that extended essentially from Namur to Sedan. We only had 4 airfields total (2 per side) and Cambrai/Wiltz were lone airfields dozens of miles away from the nearest friendly town.

Maybe mini-campagins setup in intermission and a "score" or "running" tally could be kept for historical value but as far as main gameplay........I would vote against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not support this, given how the campaigns tend to run, i.e. the Allies push for awhile, then are pushed back as the tiers progress.  If the game's mechanics supported a more historical flow, i.e. the germans push initially and need to finish relatively quickly lest they put their pending ops in N. Africa the Balkans, and the USSR on hold, then  I would change my vote.

 

For intermissions, I believe mini campaigns would be a fun deal, especially with a long intermission as we just 'suffered' through.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.