tripax wrote:I guess I just ignore VP. If the game had a really cool reward for winning, maybe I would care, but as it is, VP isn't really important to me. In my few PBEMs, the goal of the confederacy has been to outperform history. That is, keep a Sherman like force from roaming free in the south and hold Richmond until early 1865 as well as avoid NM loss past April 1865. It seems to make sense that having a VP reward for achieving goals each year based on goals from the real war - but doing so reduces how many fun variations in strategy are possible.
I agree that it is too hard for the CSA to win on VP, but that fact doesn't really matter in most cases. Also, while VP is an appealing way to score the game, it is never going to be perfect. Since VP will generally increase as the length of the game increases, it seems like a bad way to compare performance between games.
ohms_law wrote:VP's are important for PBEM games, though.
Honestly, Ace, I just think that there's more important things to worry about. I personally posted about a bunch of issues a few weeks ago (a couple of them were pretty noteworthy too, I thought), and now it's starting to feel like they've been buried.
ohms_law wrote:VP's are important for PBEM games, though.
Honestly, Ace, I just think that there's more important things to worry about. I personally posted about a bunch of issues a few weeks ago (a couple of them were pretty noteworthy too, I thought), and now it's starting to feel like they've been buried.
FelixZ wrote:I seem to always be kicked out of my log-on while typing posts (maybe I'm just to slow).
But if there is a way to avoid the error message which means copying my words, logging out and logging back in just to make a post … .
Any help will be appreciated.
Pocus wrote:I'm slowly in the process of checking pending CW2 issues, but please post the links there in case I missed them.
Changing VP is not asking for much time though, so can be done.
pgr wrote:I agree that the VP situation favors the USA, but I tend to see it as a bit of a VP location distribution problem. Basically there are a bunch of VP locations in relative easy reach of the Union, which removes a lot of the incentive to drive too deeply.
I would suggest re-locating vp locations further South. Say island no 10 to Grenada Mississippi, and Winchester Va to Fredricksburg Va. Barring that, make Richmond, Chattanooga, Atlanta, and Vicksburg "Super VP" sites. That would help drive the action deeper into the interior Confederacy. ( I have also suggested in the past that there should be some NM moral kicks for the Union to spur action to control the whole Mississippi... which didn't seem too popular )
minipol wrote:Indeed and as the CSA or the Union, it's actually quite simple: join all the forces in a big fleet and counter everything.
It would already help immensly.
As for VP, from the start of the war, the CSA should be ahead. They defend against the Union who is the agressor. Therefor holding on to their territory should be enough to
start building a VP lead.
elxaime wrote: The problem is that savvy Union players, knowing that time is on their side, have learned how to parry the early CSA ploys by being much less aggressive early than historically. No Bull Run in July 1861, a Pennisular Campaign in 1862 that consists of planting enough elements at Williamsburg for the required number of turns, etc. Hence, most of the real fighting for the Union only starts in 1863. In their defense, the Union player, unlike his historical counterpart, knows how terrible his early leader situation is and how launching the sort of historical attacks the Union did is suicide. Not sure how to alter player behavior, as dealing with hindsight is a challenge in any historical war game.
tripax wrote:+1
I support the idea that VP rewards should be larger early in the game when people thought the war would be very short and major objectives would have been thought to be indicative of victory approaching. As for the NM component, failing Northern Offensive events could be cost more than 10NM (since 10 NM isn't really much in the long run, bump it up to 15NM - or since the papers howl, maybe cause a drop in loyalty in eastern cities) but the goal could be more than just Manassas (why not make it Manassas OR New Market OR City Point OR Williamsburg OR Suffolk). I'm not sure, but it is an idea.
pgr wrote:I would just like to link this discussion, to the one that is playing out in a similar way in the general forum.
I'm for steps that light a fire under the Union player to move.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests