View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:47 pm




Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
V4 EW Autoplay Motostrelkovy 
Author Message
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 3889
Location: Fortress Knox
EdForbes wrote:
Tom

Off topic...where did you get your art strike markers you used?
http://www.wwpd.net/2017/03/no-retreat- ... mment-form


Ed, those are from Litko.


Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:17 pm
Profile WWW
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 253
Iron-Tom wrote:
So let's like this bring this back to the OP. The presumption there being that this Motostrelkovy list is an "autoplay" in V4.


Im going to try and answer this in the most asertive possible way, since Tom makes some relevant points.

First, Counterattack is the worst mission to pitch the Motostrelkovy list with a Tank force, because there is one objective at equal distance of both players and the attacker gets the first turn... even a Hasty Attack or a Breaktrough will make for a much more different game and favour greatly the Motostrelkovy player.

Second being "autoplay" dosent means it will automatically beat any oponent regardless of player skill, lists, mission or terrain... it simply means that the list is pretty straight forward to use and will give you an advantage in most situations.

I must recognise than in a V4 setting it might have some difficult winning if the attacker instead of actually going for the win, roams arround the table hoping for an "inclonclusive result". Which leads me to the most important point.

I understand the concern with "Slitzkrieg" but in my broad gamming community it isnt an issue in the context of V3 FOW, some (very few) games could end as time out, but the fact is that the defender being the default winner in mobile and defensive battles actually focused the gameplay and give the offensive player an actual incentive to design list that could actually attack and take control of the objectives. A much greater problem was the possibility that meeting engagements ended in a stalemate, and the fact that this game mechanic has extended to virtually any mission causes me great concern.

In fact the combination of unbreakable forces with "draw" becoming the default outcome of all but one mission is something I dont like about V4, because its easy to forsee a meta developing were quite a few gamers will gravitate to a "safe" approach in the tabletop, were the roles of attacker and defender will be blur and it will encourage a grinding game between dense forces (not every body is going to follow that path but thats certainly what the rules encourage).

It might be because of a different gamming culture, but I find such inconclusive results and gravitation to stalemate as highly frustrating and completelly unfun.


Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:03 pm
Profile
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:59 pm
Posts: 389
Location: Dallas, Texas
Soviet Pride wrote:
It might be because of a different gamming culture, but I find such inconclusive results and gravitation to stalemate as highly frustrating and completelly unfun.


I get your points. However, they're based on possible outcomes of a mostly theoretical (so far) game dynamic, with lots of assumptions. I'm going to play a few (or more) games and will need a lot more hard data before making a broad conclusion that V4 is frustrating and unfun.

_________________
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
E. Rommel


Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:51 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 253
It will be frustrating and unfun (IMHO) if people follow the most straight path marked by the actual rules (IE dense formations, and attacker "backing to the side" if they cannot win straight away)... but then again some people might find such grinding and stalemate battles as something refreshing, challenging and fun.

Lets be clear Im not questioning the subjective perceptions of other gamers. I simply find the basic gamming decisions of V4 (which are clearly focused on getting huge spam armies on to the tabletop -IE exchange variety for numbers as its pretty obvious in the new MW booklets- in an attempt to foster sales) to be underwhelming to the type of gamming experience I prefer.


Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:05 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 3889
Location: Fortress Knox
Yes, but is it a really a "stalemate." In 3-1 game we are conditioned to think of the guy that gets 3 VPs as the loser, but seems like he did much better than his opponent. That only counts as a loss because the game says so, yet one player may have significantly outperformed his opponent.

How feasible is it to have a game system where both players have an equal chance to "win straight away" if we take out the defender winning in a situation where they ...err....successfully defended? If the missions are balanced and the forces are balanced then we should expect close results should we not? Maybe the number of total VPs should determine who won or who lost, with VPs awarded for units lost, formations broken, and objective(s) taken (or held), etc. I-95 Domination anyone?

We all don't like draws. But we have a system where what would be considered in many systems a minor win is instead considered a defeat in FoW. And we asked for it. Thanks for listening BF!!! :roll:


Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:37 pm
Profile WWW
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 253
I never asked for "mutual defeat" as the default result of every encounter... so I have nothing to thank.

Technically "mutual defeat" is the correct definition for a battle in which no side achieve its objectives, and the objective in FOW arent killing random stuff (which is quite appropiate since the intention of must tactical engagements in WWII wasnt just to win the "kill count") but rather taking control of certain objectives... under those circunstances it dosent really matter that much if you have allegedly "outperformed" your opponent. So its not simply "conditioning" it has a gamming and historical sense not to call those results victory for either side.

The problem is that the current objectives of many missions (take for instance Breaktrough) force the defender to effectively eliminate the attacker to the last man to win... I dont only find this unfair from a game play POV but also to be a very poor representation of WWII combats which might have been fierce but were not an endless succession of Banzai charges.

Reducing FOW to simply killing random stuff has always seem to me as a severe impoverishment of the gamming experience... and certainly the combination of mission objectives, the upgrading of static firepower units and the broken morale rules in V4 channel the game in such direction.


Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:38 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 3889
Location: Fortress Knox
Soviet Pride wrote:
I never asked for "mutual defeat" as the default result of every encounter... so I have nothing to thank.


If somebody griped about "Sitzkrieg" they just might have and not realized it! Besides we are far from having "mutual defeat as the default result of every encounter." I've so far experienced it in just two out of V4 seven games. Both games that did end that way were also quite "winnable" it just did not pan out in the end. Far from a forgone conclusion. I'm sure they will be less frequent in my games when I get the hang of V4 more.

But "hey" not your problem anyway! Right? You're just driving on with V3 so its not really an issue with you and your group. If the issue ends up being as negative as you fear for V4, relax there will be plenty of us to tell BF what's working and what's not. We'll all find out you were right all along and you will not have had to waste a lot of time telling us your predictions based off your past V4 playtest experiences. You'll be able to come back and say "told you so" and then we'll all move on to V5 and all will right be with the FoW world.


Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:42 am
Profile WWW
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 253
Tom, dont put words in my mouth... if you think that my intention is saying «I told you», you havent understand a single word of my posts here.

Your pretension that I cannot have an opinion on the performance of a list that I have personally posted just because I dont shared your approach to V4 as a hole is not very reasonable.

You are making an interpretation of my words based on prejudice... for instance, when I say that a mutual defeat is the default result of missions in V4 im not saying that most of the actual games will end on a «draw», Im simply stating that in case of a time out games end in a mutual defeat rather than in victory for the defender. Saying that in V4 all missions except «rearguard» are treated like FFA in V3 is just pointing a fact, not an opinion.

Stating that you have fun regardless of facts dosent really address the point... since Im never stated that V4 couldnt be fun to anyone. So please try to debate my actual statements, not fictional straw-man arguments no one has brought up or your considerations in regards to my approach to the the different game versions (which is as legitimate as anyone).


Sat Apr 01, 2017 1:09 am
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 3889
Location: Fortress Knox
The one indisputable fact that I do acknowledge is that you don't care for V4 and may never play it. I am totally cool with that. Sorry that means that we won't get a game together until V5, but as Kentucky and Madrid are pretty far apart that was not likely anyway.


Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:24 am
Profile WWW
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 253
I will surely play a game of V4 if that gave me the oportunity to play with you Tom. :)


Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:58 am
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 2805
Location: Madison, WI
Skip FoW and go right for the drinking games!

_________________
Follow me at:
http://fowarmymen.blogspot.com


Mon Apr 03, 2017 1:59 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

35,314,863 Views Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y