Victory Point Discussion

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Victory Point Discussion

    I have some doubts on that front. Scoring is REALLY good on shooting compared to scoring on block infantry, as you often only lose "last turn of the game" shooting to take advantage of it, whereas it can be difficult to disengage block units to sprint for an objective.

    (Scoring cavalry is great at dashing for objectives, but they can't always do another job turns 1-5 and still dash on 6, missile units can. Dual purpose utility? Is great.)


    (IMO T9A has huge issues with VP in general. Playing for a draw should be rare. Honestly I'd say "whoever scores more VP, wins the objective" - making every win a minimum of 14-6 - would work better than the current system. Games are more fun when you have to take risks and engage... sorry, I have strong opinions)
  • Playing for a draw *is* rare, its addressed in the scaling VP table. Much easier to go from 10 to 11 than from 19 to 20.

    The opposite of what you're saying is "whoever wins the objective should win the game", its got nothing to do with playing for draws, just how a win is achieved.
    Since objectives force you to stick your neck out, that solution would probably make the game worse - you don't have to bother contesting points or breaking through for example, just make a VP advantage at range to win.
    Hristo Nikolov
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    (IMO T9A has huge issues with VP in general. Playing for a draw should be rare. Honestly I'd say "whoever scores more VP, wins the objective" - making every win a minimum of 14-6 - would work better than the current system. Games are more fun when you have to take risks and engage... sorry, I have strong opinions)
    I can't see how that would help. Surely, that would encourage cautious, low-risk, points conservation tactics.

    Objectives can potentially offer incentive to play more aggressively and with less concern for getting a few models killed, because giving up the VP for a 200-300 point unit is worth it if it swings the result by 3 battle points (It takes a minimum of 900 VP to go from 10-10 to 13-7. Winning the objectives has the same result...).

    Whether objectives currently achieve that is a different argument, but that just means they need improving, not removing.
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    Playing for a draw *is* rare, its addressed in the scaling VP table. Much easier to go from 10 to 11 than from 19 to 20.

    The opposite of what you're saying is "whoever wins the objective should win the game", its got nothing to do with playing for draws, just how a win is achieved.
    Since objectives force you to stick your neck out, that solution would probably make the game worse - you don't have to bother contesting points or breaking through for example, just make a VP advantage at range to win.

    So you're saying that no matter what, the optimal way to play is to score some VP at range and not engage?

    Because seriously, "score VP at range and then walk some troops onto the marker" is no better than "snipe from a distance, win on VP".


    It is "easier to go from 10 to 11 than from 19 to 20"?

    That's a bad thing. That's the problem. The 20 is supposed to be the reward for getting into close combat and absolutely smashing them off the board - but instead it's just generally an impossible dream and even right proper smashings get less than that, while "shot them a little, ran onto the marker" gets 14 points.


    Objectives don't help. They pull focus away from close combat by giving a bunch of VP to mobility, letting you win more easily with shooting and mobility alone.

    And there's no real way to fix that; even close-combat oriented objectives - no, especially close combat oriented objectives - are best denied to your opponent by being mobile.


    So yeah. Going from 10 to 11 should be hard. Going from 19 to 20 should be easy. You should be forced to take risks to not get a 10-10 draw every round, because games are more fun when people are playing to get stuck in, not when they're playing to kill a little bit and win.


    Like (spitballing here):

    0-15% : 10-10
    -20% : 11-9
    -25% : 12-8
    -30% : 13-7
    -35% : 14-6
    -40% : 15-5
    -45% : 16-4
    -50% : 17-3
    -55% : 18-2
    -60% : 19-1
    -65% : 20-0

    ...and honestly, I feel like that's STILL scaling too slowly. I think something more like:

    0-15% : 10-10
    -20% : 12-8
    -25% : 13-7
    -30% : 14-6
    -35% : 16-4
    -40% : 17-3
    -45% : 18-2
    -50% : 20-0

    ...would be closer to right. Killing all their army and losing half your own? That's an epic win.


    ...sorry, this is kinda a derail.
  • CariadocThorne wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    (IMO T9A has huge issues with VP in general. Playing for a draw should be rare. Honestly I'd say "whoever scores more VP, wins the objective" - making every win a minimum of 14-6 - would work better than the current system. Games are more fun when you have to take risks and engage... sorry, I have strong opinions)
    I can't see how that would help. Surely, that would encourage cautious, low-risk, points conservation tactics.
    Objectives can potentially offer incentive to play more aggressively and with less concern for getting a few models killed, because giving up the VP for a 200-300 point unit is worth it if it swings the result by 3 battle points (It takes a minimum of 900 VP to go from 10-10 to 13-7. Winning the objectives has the same result...).

    Whether objectives currently achieve that is a different argument, but that just means they need improving, not removing.

    Problems:

    1) "getting the objectives" is something you achieve by having units NOT in combat on the final turn of the game, but instead free to move to where you need them. This discourages combat and encourages shooty (because shooty units can dash for an objective just fine) and scoring dart (because they dash even better) approaches.

    2) Objectives are still a zero sum game; denying the enemy is just as valuable as getting them yourself. This means aggressive play isn't going to pan out all that often.

    3) Sacrificing a unit to get an objective is STILL a "not actually getting stuck in" outcome.


    They don't incentivize combat and I don't think it's possible to change them to do so, because even if the objective is something like "have three units in combat", you can just play to deny that to your opponent.

    Actually, giving a bonus for destroying units in combat (the old flags bonus) would make a lot of sense. Combat lists need a lot of "comeback from behind" power, because they start the match behind.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Problems:

    1) "getting the objectives" is something you achieve by having units NOT in combat on the final turn of the game, but instead free to move to where you need them. This discourages combat and encourages shooty (because shooty units can dash for an objective just fine) and scoring dart (because they dash even better) approaches.

    2) Objectives are still a zero sum game; denying the enemy is just as valuable as getting them yourself. This means aggressive play isn't going to pan out all that often.

    3) Sacrificing a unit to get an objective is STILL a "not actually getting stuck in" outcome.


    They don't incentivize combat and I don't think it's possible to change them to do so, because even if the objective is something like "have three units in combat", you can just play to deny that to your opponent.

    Actually, giving a bonus for destroying units in combat (the old flags bonus) would make a lot of sense. Combat lists need a lot of "comeback from behind" power, because they start the match behind.
    1. Being in combat doesn't actually prevent units from claiming objectives. Where the combat takes place may, however.

    2. Denying objectives without combat is extremely difficult (except for "capture the flags") if the other player plays aggressively. Once they are in place to claim the objectives you can only deny the objectives by pushing them off the objective, or in some cases, getting more of your own units within range of the objective. If an infantry block is sitting on the objective, it is often impossible to get within range without being in combat, thanks to minimum spacing.

    3. That depends on the situation. If you have to sacrifice a block of core spearmen to delay a strong opposing unit so that you win the objective, then it is a "getting stuck in" outcome. Hell, you can potentially lose 1000 points worth of units and/or characters, or even more, and STILL come out ahead if that sacrifice wins you the objectives!

    Any system based purely on killing units just incentivizes avoidance and other points conservation tactics. If you keep the bulk of your points safe, you can scrape a win just on killing more chaff than your opponent. Risking a major combat unit means risking a big enough swing to turn a win into a defeat.
  • @WhammeWhamme if you:

    - think objectives don't contribute much to the flow
    - are after a scoring system with snowballing returns (exponentially easier rather than exponentially difficult)

    ...is that not just a WLD scoring, with a reasonably high VP requirement for a win (like, around the 1000 mark) ?

    Would that not achieve the desired gameflow without complicating things?
    Hristo Nikolov
  • I very much enjoy the objective play of the game. It has taken away the smash you face lists and added a huge tactical installment to the game. Now you are faced with tough decisions when making your list.
    BUT...
    A 3 point swing is just too much. Adjust the scoring to 20-0 system and make the player who wins the objective get an additional 500 points. At the current system the objective is worth 1/4 roughly if your opponents army. That’s a huge swing. The +3 -3 idea is too much. That’s a 6 point swing end of the day. With the current system of objectives is low risk high reward. The play should as a game should be high risk high reward. While objectives should be low risk low reward, just enough to edge you over your score... makes a 13-7 a 14-6 or so on.
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    ^ everything that makes the game total points available different depending on result is conceptually a poor idea; a draw will yield fewer/more total points, and then all sorts of issues stemming from the game no longer being zero-sum rear their ugly heads.
    Why? I can't think of any obvious issues which make this problematic.

    Although honestly, I think the objective isn't worth enough points. I'd much rather have a W/L/D system which was entirely determined by the objective, and use battle points as a tie breaker.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Why? I can't think of any obvious issues which make this problematic.
    It encourages hand-shakes and agreed games in both directions (or standoff ones where nothing happens, which is essentially the same thing).

    If winning objective is +2/-3, its best for both players not to attempt it - and as the average result of a game becomes 9.something, shaking on a 10-10 becomes more attractive.

    If winning objective is +3/-2, the standoffs where one player wins the objective uncontested but sacrifices a few points for it would result in results of 11:10 (which can then also be agreed on for a sum of 21)

    Basically, non-zero-sum scoring encourages collaboration with your opponent, at the expense of other games in the same context (i.e. event) and basically wrecks the scoring system completely. It doesn't affect one-off friendlies, but those are basically WLDs anyway.
    Hristo Nikolov
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    Why? I can't think of any obvious issues which make this problematic.
    It encourages hand-shakes and agreed games in both directions (or standoff ones where nothing happens, which is essentially the same thing).
    If winning objective is +2/-3, its best for both players not to attempt it - and as the average result of a game becomes 9.something, shaking on a 10-10 becomes more attractive.

    If winning objective is +3/-2, the standoffs where one player wins the objective uncontested but sacrifices a few points for it would result in results of 11:10 (which can then also be agreed on for a sum of 21)

    Basically, non-zero-sum scoring encourages collaboration with your opponent, at the expense of other games in the same context (i.e. event) and basically wrecks the scoring system completely. It doesn't affect one-off friendlies, but those are basically WLDs anyway.
    I'm not convinced by either of those handshakes. Sure, someone is going to be worse off if you play the game. But you're not winning the tournament unless you take the risk. Basically, the total points might be greater on the handshake, but you don't care about your opponent's point total. There's no reason to agree to the handshake unless you think it's likely you'd do worse playing, and then your opponent shouldn't offer it.

    And since most people show up to a singles tournament to play games, that's another strike against handshakes.

    Now, for ETC, yeah, it could be a problem, but it's not just the proposed objective scoring, but ETC's really rigid point caps for the team. If taking 160 points for the team in a round was possible, there'd be strong incentive to not take those handshakes. But the problem here is the point caps, as the team is basically limited to 20 points above draw, so if you've got just two games that you're pretty sure you'll kill them on, hand-shaking the rest of them is already encouraged. (Any other team tournaments with point caps will have a similar issue).

    The problem here isn't asymmetric scoring, it's point caps.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Your pov illustrates the problem of the ETC environment rather than a game mechanic. Hand shake games should not exist ever. Roll the dice its a game and why people pay to play (entry fees, travel hotel expense etc) win lose or draw not a lame hand shake.

    I honestly just think a six point swing is quite large. Over the course of a 5 game single's GT a difference of six points can get a big difference for placement
  • @msu117
    I don’t feel +3/-2 is a fair trade. I feel the person losing the game should indeed lose the game. 500 vps is a small nudge for the victor and leaves the opposition almost the same place. A whole battle point swing is fine, +3/-3 or +3/-2 or +2/-2 is still too big a swing.
    Playing the objective game is great but if the person losing by VP scores the secondary OB by having better options, lancers let’s say to sneak into a deployment or on top of marker. That player shouldn’t turn a 13-7 loss to 10-10 draw or a 11-9 loss to 12-8 victory. The 500 points ish or 750 or what not that play still loses when he clearly should because he was losing the game and picked up a marker he wins? The small VP increase can shift the loss sure but from 13-7 to a 12-8. The margin gets smaller. Would also help the person winning day 17-3 all game because he’s in control of the game as he should win. Stops that turning to 14-6.. the person losing gets a bonus when the person in control winning suffers? The system as is to me clearly way to leasing the 20-0 system for ETC play. Can only get max points a round and can suffer a few points loss. Fine. Just my thoughts.
  • Cealyne wrote:

    @msu117
    I don’t feel +3/-2 is a fair trade. I feel the person losing the game should indeed lose the game. 500 vps is a small nudge for the victor and leaves the opposition almost the same place. A whole battle point swing is fine, +3/-3 or +3/-2 or +2/-2 is still too big a swing.
    Playing the objective game is great but if the person losing by VP scores the secondary OB by having better options, lancers let’s say to sneak into a deployment or on top of marker. That player shouldn’t turn a 13-7 loss to 10-10 draw or a 11-9 loss to 12-8 victory. The 500 points ish or 750 or what not that play still loses when he clearly should because he was losing the game and picked up a marker he wins? The small VP increase can shift the loss sure but from 13-7 to a 12-8. The margin gets smaller. Would also help the person winning day 17-3 all game because he’s in control of the game as he should win. Stops that turning to 14-6.. the person losing gets a bonus when the person in control winning suffers? The system as is to me clearly way to leasing the 20-0 system for ETC play. Can only get max points a round and can suffer a few points loss. Fine. Just my thoughts.
    See, I think the problem with @msu117 's proposal is that it reduces teh value of objectives, and they're not valuable enough yet.

    The game isn't killing your opponent. The game is securing the objective for king and country. (Or dictator. Or giant clown statue. Or whatever). You can lose the battle despite killing more stuff. See pyrrhic victory.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Cealyne wrote:

    @msu117
    I don’t feel +3/-2 is a fair trade. I feel the person losing the game should indeed lose the game. 500 vps is a small nudge for the victor and leaves the opposition almost the same place. A whole battle point swing is fine, +3/-3 or +3/-2 or +2/-2 is still too big a swing.
    Playing the objective game is great but if the person losing by VP scores the secondary OB by having better options, lancers let’s say to sneak into a deployment or on top of marker. That player shouldn’t turn a 13-7 loss to 10-10 draw or a 11-9 loss to 12-8 victory. The 500 points ish or 750 or what not that play still loses when he clearly should because he was losing the game and picked up a marker he wins? The small VP increase can shift the loss sure but from 13-7 to a 12-8. The margin gets smaller. Would also help the person winning day 17-3 all game because he’s in control of the game as he should win. Stops that turning to 14-6.. the person losing gets a bonus when the person in control winning suffers? The system as is to me clearly way to leasing the 20-0 system for ETC play. Can only get max points a round and can suffer a few points loss. Fine. Just my thoughts.
    See, I think the problem with @msu117 's proposal is that it reduces teh value of objectives, and they're not valuable enough yet.
    The game isn't killing your opponent. The game is securing the objective for king and country. (Or dictator. Or giant clown statue. Or whatever). You can lose the battle despite killing more stuff. See pyrrhic victory.
    The game is based on pitch battles. In this case what battle was won without killing more? Nine come to mind. The dude who kills Moreno or destroys more wins. Simple.
    Objectives make tha game more of a long term campaign incorporated into a pitched battle. In which case holding that bridge helps your side but in the end if reinforcements don’t show up the side who killed more wins. Plain and simple.
    Objectives are one of the most important parts of the game right now. 6 point swing is equal to adding and subtracting 1200 points a side. That’s HUGE!
    Everyone is also equal with this play as EVERY army now has scoring that is fast to a certain point of view. Or “tough” enough to camp a marker. ( tough being res, armor or bodies )
    I’ve known from my games both ways that as is the current objectives are too imbalanced and strong.
    I hide a unit of lancers who nothing but hug terrain and cover until I roll up to my opponents deployment or a marker and claim objective or contest it. It’s not an amazing hard strategy to come up with. It’s act rather lazy. Much harder to figure out how to turn the tides of battle to end your opponents Death Star unit.
  • Cealyne wrote:

    The game is based on pitch battles. In this case what battle was won without killing more? Nine come to mind. The dude who kills Moreno or destroys more wins. Simple.
    Totally disagree. LOADS of battles in history have been won by the side who took greater casualties.

    One of the most famous battles in history was won by 300 Spartans holding until they were wiped out to a man. They suffered a 100% casualty rate, their opponents suffered a fraction of that, but the Spartans achieved their objective.

    A battle is won by winning the objective. It doesn't matter how many casualties each side suffered, if you achieve your objective and they don't, you won. In the context of the whole war, you might win the battle but suffer such crippling casualties to as to lose the war as a result, but you still won that battle. The objective is usually the reason the battle is fought in the first place, if it wasn't worth your soldiers lives, you wouldn't fight the battle to begin with, or would simply withdraw your forces as soon as you met meaningful opposition.

    Armies don't tend to fight battles simply to kill the enemy, unless the enemy army has been outmaneuvered, isolated and the objective of the battle is to destroy them, but even then, both sides won't be fighting to desstroy each other, one will be trying to survive and/or break out to escape.

    Edit: For the record, I know there are battles our resident history experts can name which WERE fought without either side having a clear objective, they are relatively rare, and most of the ones I can think of were due to pure ineptitude, or poor communications, not because capable generals woke up one morning and decided to just go out and fight even though they had nothing to gain from it that day.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by CariadocThorne ().

  • @CariadocThorne
    You proved my greater point. When the Spartans dies they held the objective for the longer campaign if the war and helped their side win. In a pitched battle they were killed to a man sure, well those that held the pass and other Greek citizens survived. The majority of Greeks died in that battle, while buying time for the greater Greek nation to oppose Persia. Like I said.
    Sure Loren Persians died than Greek with the Spartans but the side that cleared the enemy won that battle. Maybe not the war. Objective play is important but they ARE CALLED SECONDARY OBJECTIVES. They don’t play like that and in many cases with a 6 point swing they play as the main objective in a game. If labeled secondary then they should be thus that.