End game play…

[Black_Elk]

@Der:

Interesting discussion. Here’s a possible rewards chart I made that includes both points for wins and bonus units you can roll a D6 for at the beginning of your next game depending on your performance. The victory level is determined by how many rounds it takes you to get a victory. (For example, you get a Glorious victory if the other side surrenders in three rounds or less.)

So….if you knew you were going to eventually lose a game, would a chart like this keep you playing longer? Or would it be useless?

For me it would. But I don’t need much help, since I’m kind of a masochist. I enjoy the end game, even if it’s from a losing perspective.
:-D

I’ve seen two really different attitudes towards playing out a likely defeat, which suggest very different ideas about game resolution etiquette. On the one hand I’ve seen players who think concession is good sportsmanship, like “let’s not drag this out any further.” And on the other hand I’ve seen players who think basically the exact opposite, that it’s the height of good form to play out the victory lap and let their opponent experience an endgame win. In both instances I’m talking about respectable players, not the kind who’d drop out or flip the board in protest haha. I guess it comes down to who you’re playing against.  I have a certain respect for players who just want to grind it out till the bitter end, but others might find that annoying and just want the likely loser to “give up already, and stay down.” Some of it probably depends on how long you’ve been at it, whether a rematch is in the offing, or if a single session is all you’re going to get. I think in the latter case, I’m more inclined to play out the endgame than reset for a game that has no chance of finishing. Online play is probably a little different, than FtF here, since online players have a better chance of landing another opponent for a new game, whereas FtF it’s usually one session per night. Most of my FtF friends enjoy the deep endgame, even if they’re losing, so it hasn’t been a major issue for me really, but in tripleA I’ve seen it run both sides of the gamut.

[Der Kuenstler]

Thanks Black Elk - I happened to think over the weekend - why not give the loser who holds out rewards? Thus here is a chart adaptation - a dubious loss here would actually earn you a better unit than a dubious victory, although you’ll still get less victory points.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

I’ve seen two really different attitudes towards playing out a likely defeat, which suggest very different ideas about game resolution etiquette. On the one hand I’ve seen players who think concession is good sportsmanship, like “let’s not drag this out any further.” And on the other hand I’ve seen players who think basically the exact opposite, that it’s the height of good form to play out the victory lap and let their opponent experience an endgame win. In both instances I’m talking about respectable players, not the kind who’d drop out or flip the board in protest haha. I guess it comes down to who you’re playing against.  I have a certain respect for players who just want to grind it out till the bitter end, but others might find that annoying and just want the likely loser to “give up already, and stay down.”

Black Elk’s paragraph is a good description of the two basic reasons for either ending a game or prolonging it, and as he says it’s pretty much a matter of personal preference because both reasons are valid in their own ways.  This thread has brought up – and has to some extent blended together – what are in fact two distinct issues.  The first issue is the question of whether a game should be prolonged to the bitter end, which is what Black Elk was addressing in the above quote.  And as he said, there’s no right or wrong answer to that question.  The second issue has to do with a question that arises only in a situation in which the players have decided to prolong a game: how to keep the game interesting for both sides as it drags on (and therefore how to encourage the players to stick with their decision to prolong the game rather than having a change of heart and pulling the plug).  The side that’s losing has to be provided with a motivation to keep fighting in the face of the discouraging prospect of probable defeat, and the side that’s winning has to be provided with a motivation to keep fighting in the face of the annoying fact that the the opponent is refusing to concede what looks like near-certain defeat.

[CWO Marc]

Here are a few additional thoughts on this subject.  The idea below is only fragmentary, but I’m posting it in case it’s of any use and in case someone can work out in detail how it would operate.

I was reading YG’s comment that “I can say undoubtedly that some players are so delusional as to what the board is truly saying about who won”, and it started me thinking about that element of the wargaming experience.  I think that many A&A players find the game enjoyable because it allows them to be armchair generals and admirals for a few hours, and by extension because it gives them the opportunity to demonstrate their skills in those roles.  In other words, it gives them a chance not just to play at being armchair generals and admirals but also to show that they are great generals and admirals, which is a very satisfying thing to do if you can pull off a victory.  Let’s call it the “generalship factor,” for want of a better term.  (And even though I’m a naval enthusiast, let’s assume for discussion purposes that “generalship” also covers naval warfare.  It’s shorter than saying “generalship and admiralty,” and anyway “admiralty” doesn’t have the same sense as “generalship.”)

This then led me to think about Rommel, who was widely regarded on both sides as being a great general.  I once saw a WWII documentary which made the interesting statement that (if I can remember the line accurately) “Rommel showed that he was as dangerous an opponent in retreat as he was on the attack.”  The point to be taken here is that demonstrating great generalship doesn’t necessarily depend on being on the offensive or even on being the winner (though of course those things help).  A related point is that, arguably, winning a war through overwhelming material superiority doesn’t necessarily mean that the winner showed great generalship (though of course great generalship combined with overwhelming material superiority is an excellent combination).  This is why, incidentally, ancient fictional accounts of wars (the Chanson de Roland being a good example) sometimes show a huge numerical disparity between the two sides, with the “good guys” being the side with the small numbers and with the “bad guys” often being described as attacking “with total disregard for their own losses.”  If the good guys win despite facing overwhelming numbers, it makes their victory seem all the more impressive; if the good guys lose, then there’s no shame in being crushed by overwhelming enemy numbers.

So I’m wondering if the A&A game, in addition to its normal winning conditions, should have some sort of “generalship tracker”, roughly along the lines of the income tracker.  The generalship tracker would compute in some way (either after every power has played its turn, or after a full round of play by all the powers, or both) how well each power played from a generalship point of view, and would display the results on a tracking chart.  I don’t know how the computations would work, but one idea would be that having superior numbers would not earn someone any generalship points in and of itself.  Fighting successfully against superior enemy numbers, on the other hand, would count positively in the generalship calculation.  And fighting badly even though you have superior numbers on your own side would count negatively in the generalship calculation.  (For an example of this dynamic, look at the first couple of years of the American Civil War, which saw Lee’s reputation grow every time he defeated superior Union numbers, and which saw one Union general after another fired for incompetence because they lost even though they had superior numbers.)

The point of this “generalship tracker” is that it would serve as a potential counterbalance to the conventional A&A victory conditions, which to some extent do depend on superior income and superior numbers.  A player could theoretically lose the game in terms of territory but still win the game in terms of generalship.  And because the tracking process would be constant, the player displaying superior generalship would get constant feedback and encouragement throughout the game, which might serve an an incentive to keep playing.  Also, this would serve as a partial solution to the problem raised by YG: a player who lost but who displayed superior generalship would be able to blame (or at least would have more justification to blame) his loss on something other than his own generalship.

[Der Kuenstler]

The “generalship tracker” sounds great Marc! If only there were some simple way to implement it. One major attribute that a great general with inferior forces has is to take advantage of better intelligence by fainting here, attacking there, etc. But there is no fog of war in this game so it makes it difficult.

At the start of an Axis and Allies game there is a great, almost euphoric, feeling of anticipation for everyone around the table. “Who’s going to win this thing?”  Also confidence “No one can defeat my plan this time!” I have noticed when we get together for a new game the guys are all gung ho - some even dressing head to toe in a uniform of their country. By round 4 or so, the enthusiasm wanes as the winning side begins to say “I think we’ve got this.” And the other side starts to lose hope. The rush of having six guys all looking at the map and interacting, talking smack and laughing it up, is really powerful. There is a sense of oneness - a group of guys forgetting life’s troubles for a while and enjoying the same thing together. This is almost unheard of nowadays - a time where almost everyone has chosen to isolate themselves to a smart phone or some other electronic device rather than interact with those around them.

At some point in time the game becomes decided and the oneness fades - you have cheerful winners on one side and gloomy losers on the other. The feeling of a whole group enjoying and focusing on the table is so strong that I doubt if we would ever continue a game if one guy was totally knocked out.

An incentive would have to be so strong that the winning side would stay focused on performing an efficient “coup des gras” while the losing side would focus on survival though defeat is a given. I’m not sure that there is such an incentive out there.

[General 6 Stars]

@Der:

The “generalship tracker” sounds great Marc! If only there were some simple way to implement it. One major attribute that a great general with inferior forces has is to take advantage of better intelligence by fainting here, attacking there, etc. But there is no fog of war in this game so it makes it difficult.

At the start of an Axis and Allies game there is a great, almost euphoric, feeling of anticipation for everyone around the table. “Who’s going to win this thing?”  Also confidence “No one can defeat my plan this time!” I have noticed when we get together for a new game the guys are all gung ho - some even dressing head to toe in a uniform of their country. By round 4 or so, the enthusiasm wanes as the winning side begins to say “I think we’ve got this.” And the other side starts to lose hope. The rush of having six guys all looking at the map and interacting, talking smack and laughing it up, is really powerful. There is a sense of oneness - a group of guys forgetting life’s troubles for a while and enjoying the same thing together. This is almost unheard of nowadays - a time where almost everyone has chosen to isolate themselves to a smart phone or some other electronic device rather than interact with those around them.

At some point in time the game becomes decided and the oneness fades - you have cheerful winners on one side and gloomy losers on the other. The feeling of a whole group enjoying and focusing on the table is so strong that I doubt if we would ever continue a game if one guy was totally knocked out.

An incentive would have to be so strong that the winning side would stay focused on performing an efficient “coup des gras” while the losing side would focus on survival though defeat is a given. I’m not sure that there is such an incentive out there.

So true Der !!!  Just the look on the losers faces after you just defeated some of the best players is rewarding enough also.

The only incentive out there to play until the end is to pay your players to play !  :-D :-D

[baron Münchhausen]

“coup des gras”
it is “coup de grace”. with “^” on top of “a”

You wrote “fat strike” instead of “mercy blow”.
:-D

[Argothair]

I strongly agree with Der Keunstler.

CWO Marc, I do like your idea about generalship, although I can’t think of any way to track it without a computer. With a computer, you could use the following formula:

Log_2 (TUV of units that you battled over the course of a full round) * log_2 (Change in your TUV + cash) / (TUV of your units).

The idea is to measure how good the results you achieved were in the context of (a) How much you had to work with, and (b) How courageously you addressed the enemy’s main forces, rather than just leaving them all for an ally to deal with. E.g. if Britain sends it’s whole air force to take Morocco at a profit while leaving the German army intact and ready to crush Moscow, Britain’s generalship score would be smaller than if they engaged the Germans in the Baltic States for a small loss.

Every turn, every country would collect a small boost to its cumulative general score, but if you have a lousy turn, the boost could be tiny, like only 0.2 general points instead of 5 general points.

[CWO Marc]

@Argothair:

CWO Marc, I do like your idea about generalship, although I can’t think of any way to track it without a computer.

I haven’t thought about the specifics of how the concept would work in practice.  I first wanted to see how the concept itself flew, since there wouldn’t be much point of putting a lot of work into a operationalizing concept that wasn’t attracting much interest in the first place.

If it were to be operationalized, however, I’d hope to find something that’s simple and straightforward, which does not involve complex mathematical formulas and which does not require a computer. Nothing more than a couple of quick operations on a simple calculator, ideally.  I don’t know if that’s achievable, but that would be my preference.  Should I give this some thought to see if I can come up with something that would work along those lines?

[Young Grasshopper]

These are all very creative and interesting ideas, however… getting the average A&A player to accept a house rule victory condition of the magnitude you’re suggesting is difficult at best (no matter how pretty the charts look).

[Der Kuenstler]

@Baron:

“coup des gras”
it is “coup de grace”. with “^” on top of “a”

Gee, I even spell checked it first…

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

@Baron:

“coup des gras”
it is “coup de grace”. with “^” on top of “a”

Gee, I even spell checked it first…

Nonetheless it help me explained my actual condition (due to lack of exercice), in the last months I got a “fat strike”… or “coup de gras”

:-D

[Black_Elk]

Any ideas relating to victory conditions will be good for the HR list.

If we can formalize them, then I’ll drop the links in the same section, so we can keep track of what’s out there.
I put one in the HR List sticky already, for the Victory Objectives/Tokens idea that YG has proposed, with a link to that thread. Since YG has locked up, presumably it will house whatever rules are current, or at least make a ref for now.

Maybe we can do the same with some of those charts? Or with the kind of generalship scheme CWOMarc suggested?

Global clearly needs some alternative Victory Conditions

[Der Kuenstler]

@CWO:

Should I give this some thought to see if I can come up with something that would work along those lines?

I would be interested in it  - if the answer is simple enough…overcomplication kills most house rules for me…