Vic! 89

[Erich von Manstein]

It will remain forever a question who would win a straight duel between our two teams.

 

 

I'm sure Russ can setup a Vic for our two groups only.

[dageraad]

- Some Austrians mysteriously disappeared from the map.

 

Multiple choice:

• They commited mass harakiri to save their honour.
  

Whatever the answer, your norwegian friend did not score the arm points.

 

 

 

Well, they were there and none of them were mointaineers or airborne troops.

And Harakiri is a way to protest to ones superiors about a dishonorable situation, when attacking the enemy and choose death with honor is no option.

So maybe the true reason is the last one: to prevent Norway from scoring, or your subordinates are trying to tell you something

 

I strongly suggest that the rest of the Austrian army follow their horonable example and commit auto-splotch too.

 

That the vaunted Marshall should sink so low. It makes me sad.

 

And if it would come to a grudge match, count me in.

[Duke of York]

- Some Austrians mysteriously disappeared from the map.

 

Multiple choice:

• They commited mass harakiri to save their honour.
  

Whatever the answer, your norwegian friend did not score the arm points.

 

 

 

 

Well, they were there and none of them were mointaineers or airborne troops.

And Harakiri is a way to protest to ones superiors about a dishonorable situation, when attacking the enemy and choose death with honor is no option.

So maybe the true reason is the last one: to prevent Norway from scoring, or your subordinates are trying to tell you something

 

I strongly suggest that the rest of the Austrian army follow their horonable example and commit auto-splotch too.

 

That the vaunted Marshall should sink so low. It makes me sad.

 

And if it would come to a grudge match, count me in.

It saved me several hundred ARM and MUN and possibly a lot of experience levels. And it doesn't give you any benefit, nor does it make it more likely for you to finish the game and it decreases your score too. No doubt you see it as doing your best to deny your opponent the win, but I think it's at best inefficient kingmaking, at worst it's being petty. But be my guest. An opponent who fights for every last city and division is much more costly and annoying to defeat.

 

Don't count on me for grudge matches.

[Erich von Manstein]

 

It saved me several hundred ARM and MUN and possibly a lot of experience levels. And it doesn't give you any benefit, nor does it make it more likely for you to finish the game and it decreases your score too. No doubt you see it as doing your best to deny your opponent the win, but I think it's at best inefficient kingmaking, at worst it's being petty. But be my guest. An opponent who fights for every last city and division is much more costly and annoying to defeat.

 

Don't count on me for grudge matches.

 

Nah the math was clearly in your favor. I chose not to fight. I chose to deny you the arm pts. So don't call me petty or whatever. It was a well thought out action. That army was lost. The best I could do was deny you any profit *) And I did. But I can imagine it was a surprise.

 

More surprises to follow.

 

*) it decreases my score? Nonsense! Major scoring is for destroyed arm/air/naval and av $/morale. The rest is peanuts.

 

Grudge is a word I don't know. It's a game, I enjoy it. I love my 'enemies' for giving me a great game.

[Earthling]

Falco - you guys are just sore that you didn't get the kill points. Denying you adversaries, in ANY game, points toward victory is never a bad decision. It all depends on how much he may have gained in staying to fight on whether or not it was a poor decision. He knew that his armies were doomed, but if he would not gain as much as his enemy, then I don't have any problem with what was done. That goes the same for air forces.....definitely disband them first. Never let them be over taken. I always try to fly them out them first, but sometimes you just cannot. Why allow your adversary the benefit of the points, unless it's a concious decision to HELP them win? You may think that you deserve the points, but your enemy doesn't always think the same as you.

[Inspector Gadget]

I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with the tactic Austria employed. I can definitely see and sympathize with both sides of the argument. It should be said though that this was not at all an uncommon tactic used in real war situations. There are countless examples of armies/forces scuttling ships, spiking artillery, and otherwise sabotaging and or destroying their equipment and supplies in order to keep it from falling into enemy hands. It was hardly considered 'petty' or unsporting in the real world. It was considered a sound and valid tactic. Now admittedly, the Victory rules do not allow for players to capture and use armies, planes or ships of the enemy so the example I noted from 'real life' does not fully apply. Then again, in 'real life' combatants don't get 'points' for destroying enemy forces, at least not as Victory calculates them.

It also has to be considered what each players motivation(s) are when they undertake these types of tactics. Are they trying to impact the likelihood that they or another player will win the game, or are their motives more personal and or vindictive? Both have their place depending on the situation, but either motive can cause a fair amount of frustration (both healthy and not so healthy) and even some animosity on the part of certain other players. I guess each player has to answer for and make peace with their own motives, at least to themselves and more power to them if they can.

[Duke of York]

A winner, if he played fair, deserves to enjoy his victory, and for good reasons. First, it's just good manners. Second, the next time you could be the winner and you would like to enjoy winning too. Third, if you don't make the game enjoyable for others, the next time there may not be others to play with. And read that last one again.

 

For me the kills are the reward for a well fought battle (or a consolation prize for a bad one). I don't care much for what they do for my final score, nor do I try to maximize my score for it's own sake. If I play a good game the score will follow. And I rather play a good game with a bad score than the other way around.

 

So what Erich did was denying me the enjoyment of my victory, for no benefit and even a (admittedly small*) cost to himself. The fact that it may cost me a few points in the final score is of little interest to me. So, in my opinion that is being petty. Feel free to disagree.

 

Denying you adversaries, in ANY game, points toward victory is never a bad decision.

This is utterly, totally and completely wrong in any game with more than 2 players. He has gained a relative advantage to me, but he lost relatively to 38 other players. That is not a good deal. Worse, next time the roles may be reversed and I will now be inclined to return the favor. Then we will have both lost bigtime compared to all other players in the game**.

 

Note that disbanding airforces is a different matter. Not only is it entirely free to overrun an airbase but more importantly it allows you to deny the airbase to your enemy. Capturing an enemy airbase is a big advantage which will allow you to kill him more quickly. The same goes for scrapping industry. I'm sure Erich would have loved the 5 or so turns production from the 2 arm factories I scrapped in xAlsfeld. That's half a division I don't have to kill. Of course, the relative gain of all other players in the game still applies, but in a Victory game that's somewhat less a consideration.

 

*But there was a cost. Even if I only would have lost only 200 ARM, that's still 200 less points for you.

**There are lots and lots of boardgames based on this principle. I can score points, but an opponent will score points for my action too. Do I score or deny him the points? The winning strategy is to give him the points, and all other players too. I hope they'll return the favor and/or deny each other the points. Then I win the game bigtime. Otherwise I'll have to win by scoring a few more points with every exchange than my opponent.

[Earthling]

**There are lots and lots of boardgames based on this principle. I can score points, but an opponent will score points for my action too. Do I score or deny him the points? The winning strategy is to give him the points, and all other players too. I hope they'll return the favor and/or deny each other the points. Then I win the game bigtime. Otherwise I'll have to win by scoring a few more points with every exchange than my opponent.

 

This strategy you are talking about is understood (by me at least). However, the outcome of any given points exchanged has to be weighed versus all the other activities around you in the game. If the points exchange is large enough to matter, then yes, I agree with the concept you are putting forth. If the points are minimal, or minimal compared to what's happening around you in the game, then the exchange is NOT worth it. Simple mathematical principals. If the numbers don't help, they just don't help and there is no reason to let your opponent score. Now there is something to be said for taking a chance once in a while ~ sometimes your gains are quite rewarding with the risk, but that is a different discussion.

 

I am an avid war/boardgamer and will never allow my opponents to score points, (even if I do) IF the ouitcome does not work to my advantage immediately or in the long run. If you earn the victory, then you earn it. There is no reason to GIVE away points for nothing in return. Maybe your opponent was thinking this way when he did what he did? I don't know the player, so I cannot say for sure.

[Duke of York]

No doubt he did think that way. It seems we disagree about the value of the points and their meaning. And thus about the costs and benefits of his actions. And perhaps he underestimated the damage his attack would do and thus what it would cost me to finish him off.

 

Also, an underlying motivation for me for having this discussion is that I think that the Victory community would benefit from a less cut-throat approach to the game. Perhaps I should have said that several posts ago.

[Kurassier]

LONG LIVE xNIZWA!!!!!!!

[Earthling]

Also, an underlying motivation for me for having this discussion is that I think that the Victory community would benefit from a less cut-throat approach to the game.

 

I wouldn't disagree with that.....but when you are paying money per turn to play a game, it tends to be an 'at all costs' type of play for most. When you are playing a game solely for 'fun', typically most play out the senario (the battle in this situation). When points are on the line in a pay for play game, it tends to be cut-throat. Just my experience as well as there are many Victory players who like to be spoilers.

[Earthling]

LONG LIVE xNIZWA!!!!!!!

 

Isn't this the wrong game for that? LOL ~

[Guest Spongebob]

Next you lot will be cheering the resurection of the Sponge. Did some other guy do that once obviously I am more famous than him!

[Erich von Manstein]

No doubt he did think that way. It seems we disagree about the value of the points and their meaning. And thus about the costs and benefits of his actions. And perhaps he underestimated the damage his attack would do and thus what it would cost me to finish him off.

 

Also, an underlying motivation for me for having this discussion is that I think that the Victory community would benefit from a less cut-throat approach to the game. Perhaps I should have said that several posts ago.

 

All arguments heard & understood. We agree to disagree.

 

BTW I don't have a cut-throat apprroach to the game. My approach may be different but I want to have fun just like you and all other players. Guess it's in my personality to do the things I do. Other people make different choices. Not bad, not good, just different.

 

Now excuse me while I mourn over my lost army.

[Earthling]

Also, an underlying motivation for me for having this discussion is that I think that the Victory community would benefit from a less cut-throat approach to the game.

 

I wouldn't disagree with that.....but when you are paying money per turn to play a game, it tends to be an 'at all costs' type of play for most. When you are playing a game solely for 'fun', typically most play out the senario (the battle in this situation). When points are on the line in a pay for play game, it tends to be cut-throat. Just my experience as well as there are many Victory players who like to be spoilers.

 

& who like to do the unexpected just to surprise their opponents to keep them guessing in the future.