"Victory Conditions & Army Morale? By Command!" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

What is your preferred mechanism for determining when an army will stop fighting?

And in the tiebreaker round:

40% said "Morale is calculated for each Command"
25% said "When player decides to stop fighting"
22% said "don't have a preference"

Don't use them.
Battle ends when the challenge is nolonger there and victory by one side is clear or the battlle stagnattes so it's no longer interesting to play.

Otherwise whwn timw runs out.

Real generals don't need victory points, so why would wargamers?

Not sure what this has got to do with VP. 🤔🤷

I aim.for a bit of both….

Players too often fight to the last drop of lead, plastic etc.

Too many break systems require keeping track of things and when you hit a certain point the force breaks.

They tend to feel too attritonal and not reflect a human response.

I find linking what a unit can do and how much, to its positive and negative experiences. There fore they stop fighting as part of the experience and as part of the player being able to do less with them.

Real generals don't need victory points, so why would wargamers?

I don't know what real generals you have worked with, but in the US, NATO, SEATO, and PAU Peacekeepers they do. VPs stand in for the aggregate value system the command structure imposes on the actor—strategic utility, political imperatives, temporal pressure, institutional incentives, and career survival—compressed into a playable metric.

The neighborhood your players grew up in doesn't get destroyed when the loose a game. Their enitre way of life doesn't get uprooted. In general, wargamers don't get fired or executed for a wargame loss (except in that one Star Trek episode?).

Historically, generals have written copiously about what their victory calculus is. (BTW, without a set of victory conditions, how do you know when victory for one side is assured?) Eisenhower had to optimize for coalition cohesion as much as battlefield outcomes. Erich von Manstein and Hitler famously had different visions of victory.

A couple of the more popular frameworks for VP currently taught by militaries all over the world are PMESII-PT (Political, Military, Economic, Social, Information, Infrastructure, Physical environment, and Time) and DIME (Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic).

Interesting, I have not read how Monty calculated a numeric parameter on which to evaluate whether he won or not. Perhaps you could point to an appropriate source?

I have not read how Monty calculated a numeric parameter on which to evaluate whether he won or not. Perhaps you could point to an appropriate source?

Excellent use of the Misplaced Burden of Proof fallacy, demanding that a general principle be justified by a single example.

Also, horrible example if by "Monty" (Python? Hall?) you mean Gen Bernard Montgomery (though since you used a vague nickname, you can later claim that's not who you meant).

Gne Montgomery was one of the primiere integrators of quantitative Operations Research into command staff operations.

Specific discussions of quantitative OR on Monty's staff:
R.V. Jones – Most Secret War (1978)
P.M.S. Blackett – Blackett's "Circus" series of papers
Michael Howard – British Intelligence in the Second World War (Vol. II & III)
Stephen Biddle – Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle (2004)
John Buckley – Monty's Men: The British Army and the Liberation of Europe (2013)
Nigel Hamilton – Monty: Master of the Battlefield, 1942–1944 (Vol. 2)
Terry Copp – Fields of Fire: The Canadians in Normandy (2003)

Ones with examples in the broader discussion of OR:
West Churchman et al. – Introduction to Operations Research
M.W. Kirby – Operational Research in War and Peace: The British Experience from the 1930s to the 1970s

They're great books! Enjoy!

Managed to get the first on the list (used) at a sensible price and have ordered it., Thanks.

An optimal game system should be able to determine when a game has been won or lost, even before you get to the last game-turn. Often player will look at a situation and determine that they have lost, or won. Having that converted into a simple game system makes its easier to know when the game has ended. You can do this with VP's, such as have a number of objectives which need to be taken or held. At some point you can determine its impossible to take sufficient objectives to win and you can agree to end the game. I must admit most of my games end before the prerequisite 8, 12 or 16 game-turns because of this. On the other hand my best games run down to the last game-turn and I have had a few when a lucky die roll on the last game-turn can turn a loss into a victory. As for panic or moral rules, they can signal the end of a game as well, but these rules are normally implemented for different reasons. Panic or casualties rules punish players who may achieve their objectives, but with horrible casualties. For very long multi-day games casualties affecting a command or an army can be useful, but I rarely ever play games which span a day so I rarely care about this.

The difficulty seems to be, to make those things happen with minimal additonal work and cognitive load.

The cognitive load is up to you based on how you choose to implement your tracking.

The work – admin I usually call it – should be at a minimum.

A key point in several of the books I referred to above is that ops analysis – the way actual commanders track how they are doing in a battle – should only be based on things your forces are already paying attention to.

"If you're tracking it, it's important. If you're not tracking it, is it really important?"

The point of the aphorism is not that it is always 100% correct, but rather when it breaks down, it gives you a starting point to figure out what to change – what you're tracking, how you value those things, or maybe change nothing.

For wargame design, its a question of framing. Any state in the game can be an input. Any state that changes can be an effect.

Ex: Artillery Ammo Count. If the game tracks it, it's probably an input to artillery ops processes. But it could also be considered an effect – the depletion is an effect of your fire rate.

If you are playing a game that looks forward, I have to win this battle and have 50 miles to my objective (2-3 battles expected) with little opportunity to resupply artillery ammo, Artillery Ammo Count is a good candidate for a victory condition.

Work/admin – none. You're already tracking it as an input to your artillery decisions.

Usually for this type of VC, I would have a stochastic element that represents the unknown future state (how many battles? how tough? can i really suss out some extra supplies?). So count of artillery remaining would be in zones, which would tell you number dice after the end of the game to add up for VP. It's additional admin (a little), but it happens outside play.

Cognitive load is your choice on how much attention and brainpower beyond the minimum necessary to execute the rules you decide to apply to understanding what a specific ammo state means.

I don't care unless I'm less than Zone 3. I need to slow down and reconsider fires when I cross into Zone 5. Screw the future, I have to win, I am raining hot metallic death down upon the heads of my enemies. Maybe I am tracking the half-zone levels to guide my decision on fire rate. Or maybe half-zones above Level 4, and quarter-zones below.

Honestly, senior commanders spend lots more time thinking about those things than the effective range of a Springfield vs an Enfiled rifle.

Our big games track artillery ammo usage and usually have pre-programmed re-supply and may be some additional options (IRG may help). Personally it would never be a victory condition, having lots of ammo left does not imply good management, hording is not a victory parameter. Best us of ammo is just one way of achieving a goal, not a goal in itself. As has bee said it's how you perceive your simulation.

The work – admin I usually call it – should be at a minimum.
Ex: Artillery Ammo Count. If the game tracks it, it's probably an input to artillery ops processes. But it could also be considered an effect – the depletion is an effect of your fire rate.

Totally agree about the simplicity point and as for ammo my default prefers is building it into the combat system, but sometimes I am surprised. I recently did a deep dive into Garde du corps and was horrified to see you have to track artillery ammo by battery. However then I remember my last game of WRG Napoleonic's, where artillery ammo was not tracked and realised why this was important. In WRG you fire your artillery at every chance you can, even if the probability of a hit was very low. In Garde du corps you only fire when you feel your artillery will make a difference. I could be wrong but I feel Garde du corps may be the better choice. In defence of WRG, each game turn does only represent 80-160 seconds and a game of 8-12 game turn you are only reproducing, at most, 15 minutes of real battle time, so ammo is not a technical consideration. caveat: My only house rules with Garde du corp is I track the entire army ammo only, not each individual battery. Each time I fire away with my 4 elements, I remove 4 ammo counters from my common ammo pool. It works, but this complexity was added to enhance the game and resolve an issue, not because I thought it was a nice idea.

Personally it would never be a victory condition, having lots of ammo left does not imply good management, hording is not a victory parameter.

I agree. If anything i think hording ammo should be a VP negative, for, as you say, poor management.

Personally it would never be a victory condition, having lots of ammo left does not imply good management, hording is not a victory parameter.

Hoarding, no. Judicious use, yes.

As always, what counts as a victory is highly situational (again, why it belongs in the scenario, not the rules).

All the people who won a battle and stalled their offensive due to depleted logistics might have wished they considered it.

Wagram (1809)
Borodino (1812)
Battle of Lundy's Lane (1814)
Battle of Puebla (1862)
Adwa (1896)
Isandlwana (1879)
First Sino-Japanese War (1894–95)
Meuse–Argonne Offensive (1918)
Seemingly every other battle of the Winter War (1939–40)
early Operation Barbarossa (1941)
Battle of Sidi Bou Zid / Kasserine Pass (1943)
later battles in Stalingrad (1943)
Yom Kippur War (1973)

… to name a few.

Im reminded of the orson welles quote.
'If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.'

In defining a Victory conditon/s we need to not forget to make sure our enemies agree and comply.

Tracking and using consumables matters only if it were to have an effect in the action being gamed, either immediately or in the follow on. Obviously in games with no follow on does it matter? We can say yes but does the player.
Its not a new diacussion. I remember over the years aiggestiknsnof placing money on VCs lost figures wer given to you opponent or even destroyed 😃All ways fo trying to motivate "realistic investment"

In defining a Victory conditon/s we need to not forget to make sure our enemies agree and comply.

Your enemies almost always have different victory conditions than you do. VC absolutely should represent that.

Tracking and using consumables matters only if it were to have an effect in the action being gamed, either immediately or in the follow on. Obviously in games with no follow on does it matter? We can say yes but does the player.

It's a rare situation where what happens tomorrow is not relevant to combat. If you didn't care about what happens tomorrow, why would you fight today?

If a player doesn't care about winning, they shouldn't be playing the game. A wargame is an inherently competitive event. They should compete.

If the player loses the game by VC because they expended too much ammo in causing an enemy retreat, then they lose the game. They also fall in the fine tradition where commanders won the battle in a way that loses, or at least delays and disadvantages their side in, the campaign.

It reminds me of the freqent after-sports analysis, "Wow! Team A really dominated the field in that one! Posession, check. Distance gained, check. Completed offensive plays, check." Where SWMBO or I tack on, "… too bad they didn't win."

Your enemies almost always have different victory conditions than you do.

Really? 😉😳🤷

a rare situation where what happens tomorrow is not relevant to combat. If you didn't care about what happens tomorrow, why would you fight today?

In RL. Im talking about players in games and in rules.

a player doesn't care about winning, they shouldn't be playing the game. A wargame is an inherently competitive event. They should compete.

That would depend on how one defines "winning". Its not per se some zero sum situation it's not a sport. I play games for an experience, for me winning us having an enjoyable experience.
im trying to perform better. Am I driven by winning? Hmm I've seen too much when I've played with people who focus on winning the game. what about co-op games? Differing set up and VC. 🤷 YMMV

Personally I don't like victory conditions or points . As they are commonly presnted in games.
The players shkild have objectives but Im not keen on tbe post games accounting determining the VPs to figure out who "won"

If i want a zero sum experience I'll play something that achjves that more easily.

In most table top games the battle is small enough to have one specific objective for both sides so VPs are probably not needed, that's generally how I play.

Usually after playing for 2-3 hours it's pretty clear who the winner will be or achieved their objective. I like to leave it up to the players rather than an arbitrary VP count.

I've observed multi-player military strategic simulations run on a large geographic scale where you need to have VPs.

I have run meeting engagement scenarios with VPs because it forces players to perform actions historically.

Knocking out a tank with no visible damage (crew bailed from spalling damage, etc.) the VP is the weight of the tank divided by 10 rounded up. On fire it is x2 and brewed up x3.

Unless there is justification, the player must continue to shoot at the same target or crew until he sees visible damage (Limited Intelligence).

Historically, crews could be more valuable than the vehicle. Each Ace crew member killed is 3 points, Vets 2 points and poor crews 1 point each. They can be engaged by the CMG (no main gun firing) and/or BMG when bailing out or attempting to move. Setting a Panther on fire and killing its Veteran crew would be 20 points.

So a running total is kept during the game sort of like a sporting event which keeps the game interesting and competitive as the objective is the VP total. The players seem to like it.

This also has the effect of players trying to preserve their units and crews rather than fighting to the last man.

Wolfhag

Im not keen on tbe post games accounting determining the VPs

Agreed. If you can't have a good sense of how its going as it rolls along, they're not victory conditions.

I have no problem with a post-game finalization, but it should not be long and not be a surprise. IF it's close and IF there's a stochastic bit at the end, that should be part of the drama. BDA is nice, but effect on the future often isn't known right away.

a rare situation where what happens tomorrow is not relevant to combat. If you didn't care about what happens tomorrow, why would you fight today?

In RL. Im talking about players in games and in rules.

So was I.

The purpose of VC is to give you constraints aligned with the battle. In RL, you don't care about what happens tomorrow, since tomorrow was many yesterdays ago.

If the VC tell you what leads to you win, you care about that.

That would depend on how one defines "winning". Its not per se some zero sum situation it's not a sport. I play games for an experience, for me winning us having an enjoyable experience.

Not zero sum, which is why I brought up asymmetric VC.

Is your experience enjoyable if you make decisions that have no effect on anything? You do things and they don't matter?

Wargames are inherently competitive. Because war is.

That doesn't mean you have to be a douchebag, or even win by the VC. But if you dont have a theory of victory, how do you know what effect your decisions have?

I have a great time playing the French in the Battle of Puebla. They lose every time. (Conversely, the Mexicans winning the battle is damn near a given.) But the victory conditions give you a way to measure how close you came to taking Forts Guadalupe and Loreto.

The entities in the game are different from winning by the victory conditions. Winning or losing by victory conditions are just the measure of how well you did. Otherwise, its "I did some stuff and the French lost."

The entities in the game are different from winning by the victory conditions. Winning or losing by victory conditions are just the measure of how well you did. Otherwise, its "I did some stuff and the French lost."

Very true. IN my younger days if i could get the hot girl, outside my league, to go on a date with me, i consider it a win. If i was forced to go out with my sister because no one else said yes, i automatically lost, but I expected my sister to introduce me to her better looking friends.

I have no problem with a post-game finalization, but it should not be long and not be a surprise. IF it's close and IF there's a stochastic bit at the end, that should be part of the drama. BDA is nice, but effect on the future often isn't known right away.

Sure… an AAR is fine… but im not playing to "wjn"

Is your experience enjoyable if you make decisions that have no effect on anything? You do things and they don't matter?

Is that possible.. I suppose. I can have anenjoable expereknce and "lose"
I play games to enjoy them, winning or loosing is by the by.
I said before. Their will be objectives. I want to make the best decisions I can. Be better at doing so than my opponent. But to me its not about winning. Especially in regards to VC or VP etc. Ymmv

Wargames are inherently competitive. Because war is.

Many things are competitive, because they are competitive means little. One is a game and one is war. I may choose to find ways to make the game experience approximate the reality. But looking at the person and saying who won or lost like j might in other games is. It part of the experkwnce im looking for.

The entities in the game are different from winning by the victory conditions. Winning or losing by victory conditions are just the measure of how well you did. Otherwise, its "I did some stuff and the French lost."

Hmm dont agree and the final part seems to a be an overlay simplistic straw man. One could equally say i did some.stuff and achived more VC … so i won.
Ive said before their are objectives etc. But defining VC before doesn't fot for me, especially when looking at snap shot of a a single action. What happens next, is what matters but if we don't find out then to me, vc or vp ate just extra stuff.
It feels like defining the winner in a knife fight. They're the one that bleeds out second.

Now im discussing my pov. Why I dont like or use them… or ad the OP started with morale as part.of winning.

Just thought does any rule set start with a total and then reduce points? Loss points

What is your preferred mechanism for determining when an army will stop fighting?

If a rule set has a defined turn limit you'd have to question the designer as to why and what he hopes to achieve. It seems as if most rules have turns that are about enough for a tournament round or to get you through being GM at a convention, 2-3 hours. Is that a coincidence?

I would have to agree that most friendly pick up or weekly club games should not exceed 3 hours. That's our club standard, 7pm to 10pm so we are limited by time.

For our club we rarely keep track of VP and morale. We have a very eclectic group that plays a wide variety of periods and rules. It's pretty much a social gathering that is semi-competitive.

There is normally some type of objective. Like Viking raiders getting their loot back on the boat or attrition. Since we play mostly ad hoc scenarios there isn't much for historical constraints.

Morale failures are historical but most players don't like getting knocked out of a game early because of a bad die roll. Generally, at a certain point it's clear who the winner will be and we call it quits for the night. I guess the real morale failure is when the player concedes he lost. No die roll needed.

In my tank-tank game a failed morale check the player can bail out to preserve his crew or must move to the closest location to get out of the enemy LOS but cannot engage or shoot. Once out of LOS the crew automatically recovers to normal. A bailed crew can re-enter a vehicle not on fire or brewed up.

Regarding artillery ammo: Rather than tracking ammo, when the FO calls a fire mission there is a % chance of getting approved based on the target value (how juicy it is) and the level of ammo supply at the start of the game (low, med, full).

Wolfhag

What happens next, is what matters

This is the crux of my argument. VC tell you what progress is or isn't with respect to your current decision.

Decision A – Increases VC X
Decision B – Increases VC by 2X
Decision C – Doesn't increase VC, but opens reasonable opportunities for later increase by X four times later in the game that are exteremely low (or relying only on chance) with Decisions A and B

I think what you are calling objectives are what I am calling VC. I would be interested to see what you think the difference is.

For me, objectives are the in milieu statement while VC are the in game statement of the same thing.

Just thought does any rule set start with a total and then reduce points? Loss points

For morale (in your immediately previous statement), yes. Most morale systems that I have seen go both up and down over time.

You said "rules", and I am not a big fan of morale being part of the rules for a game, since morale is a highly contextual concept, so I think it fits better in "scenarios".

For VP, basically the same.

In a zero-sum situation, like attrition based VP, whether I you gain 5 points for killing my unit or I lose 5 points when my unit is killed. In both cases, the relative change between our VP scores is the same.

In asymmetric VP, the same thing happens through the transitive property. Ex: my objectives give me points for securing the power plant, potable water source, and communications towers and yours give you points for the comms towers, the railyard, and the airport. I don't gain any points for securing the airport. But I do deny you points.

Any time I gain VP in a scenario the margin changes. It decreases if you were in the lead and increases if I were.

Like Viking raiders getting their loot back on the boat or attrition.

Like my above post, I would be interested in knowing why you think these aren't victory conditions? What is different?

On this specific type, raids, it's usually both. It's a little silly to call it a "victory" when you have a big haul, but only one viking left in the longboat.

players don't like getting knocked out of a game early because of a bad die roll

That's just crappy design, not an inherent function of morale systems. If I had a 1/216 chance of continued chain fire on that could allow me to continue and kill all your units with my first salvo on turn three, that would be poor implementation, not an inherent problem with the idea of rolling to kill units.

In real life, there were battles that were where one side was basically done "on turn two". We generally don't game those battles (and sometimes don't actually call them battles).

We like playing battles form Little Crow's War. There are a number of military engagement events that were massacres by the Lakota or the US Army. Never played one. If you were to try to suss out VC for those, it would either be no challenge or have a high artificiality. i.e. Settlers win with one survivor getting off the board during a Lakota raid is a settler win. This is the opposite of the purpose of VC, since it creates a goal that leads to decisions the represented people wouldn't make. The path to getting one survivor out leads to a different performance space that desperately defending your own life.

Just for completeness, that last VC is bad for a Lakota raid on a farm, but not other situations.

I guess the real morale failure is when the player concedes he lost.

This is why I like VC.

For the viking raid, if there is a VC pattern with progressive loss of points for casualties, the more of your guys you lose, the worse you are doing.

Likewise, a non-linear one like "at least one of the three dudes who can actually navigate by the stars needs to survive, two or all three is better" contributes to the mindset.

This creates a situation where casualties and loot combine to create a representation of "was this raid worth the effort"? The converse of this is the mindset of real people subject to intermittent raids, "we don't aspire to killing all of them, just making them not want to raid us again".

That's what VP do.

This is the crux of my argument. VC tell you what progress is or isn't with respect to your current decision.

As do objectives and your means to do so. But "victory" the inplicit binsry and implies something different and see my previous point about getting the opponent to agree to them

think what you are calling objectives are what I am calling VC. I would be interested to see what you think the difference is.

Again victory implies a binary, suggests that we know ahead of time how we can win or beat the opponent and that those things arw correct. It also overlooks known unknowns and unknown unknowns about what may happen after an event. What would have happened with market garden if they had reached arhem in time? Don't know. What would have happened to operation goths serpent if politicians hadn't decided to pull them plug because of optics. Don't know. VC might tell players who "won" but im happy to not know…

Objectives that are set in orders etc. I can clearly understand them. The raiders need to attack the village. Get loot and return to their ship while preserving the crew. Im happy with that… extra points for the navigator or for slaves or whatever may be, dont interest me as ways of determining a "winner" those thjngs matter because they intrinsically matter and if the game continued not having a navigator would cknfer benefits… not points etc
Again im not interested in exactly quantifying the "winner" of a "game"

or morale (in your immediately previous statement), yes. Most morale systems that I have seen go both up and down over time.

Er yeah im aware how morale works but I'd hoped it was at least implied it was talking about the inverse of building VC but preventing the loss.

You said "rules", and I am not a big fan of morale being part of the rules for a game, since morale is a highly contextual concept, so I think it fits better in "scenarios".

Rules in this case is about how we handle or track such things and hown those things effect the way the action unfolds.
Personally I prefer systems where by what a "unit" can do, how effective they currently are and when they'll.stop doing are handled by one system as i see that they are connected in RL.

For VP, basically the same

Hmm all.that for me makes it sound like a playing Risk.. 😉

Anyway I see a difference between Objectives or Goals and VC/VP… arguably they may be conceptually similar but they for me focus play/experience very differently.

Again victory implies a binary,

The word "victory" in isolation does, but "victory conditions" do not. The ammount of loot, the number of raiders that survive, the qualitative aspects of who survives are all part of a continuum. Above, you yourself said "extra points".

suggests that we know ahead of time how we can win or beat the opponent and that those things arw correct

A specific set of VC could be constructed like that. It's not in inherent property of VC.

those thjngs matter because they intrinsically matter

What VC do is tell you what things intrinsically matter to the characters represented in the battle. That's what should drive decisions in a battle; what's important to the people involved.

So, if your opponent with the villagers decided that their personal victory was killing as many vikings as possible (a ahistorical and unbelievable objective) and just charges your vikings, giving them easy kills, and all their people die, you're good with that as a raid game? You have no expectation that your opponent is going to try to "win" from the standpoint of their units on the board?

Er yeah im aware how morale works but I'd hoped it was at least implied it was talking about the inverse of building VC but preventing the loss.

What you said was vague. And I did answer both possible interpretations.

arguably they may be conceptually similar but they for me focus play/experience very differently

And when I did answer the part you meant, you didn't respond. Could you explain one difference, then?

Like my above post, I would be interested in knowing why you think these aren't victory conditions? What is different?

I'll try to clarify. My understanding is that players pursue objectives throughout the game to fulfill end game VCs.

Could an objective also be a VC? I'd think so in some cases. It depends how the scenario is written up and historically what it took to win.

On this specific type, raids, it's usually both. It's a little silly to call it a "victory" when you have a big haul, but only one viking left in the longboat.

Absolutely. So our group plays different rule sets every week and usually RAW. The GM announces the VCs and we start playing.

IIRC in the game, the Vikings run around gathering up loot (objectives) attempting to avoid the Men at Arms and get back to the ship and leave with the loot (VC). They could achieve all of the objectives (loot) but not achieve the end game VC (leave). At the end of the game if it's not clear we'll have a civil discussion.

As the game progresses, it becomes more obvious who is winning or losing and what they need to do in order to satisfy the VC. If the Vikings did get enough loot loaded onto their boat and only one Viking was left it would be obvious they lost and no one would argue. Common sense rules.

Again im not interested in exactly quantifying the "winner" of a "game"

In 2 years I've never seen an argument in the the group about VCs or rule lawyering. Everyone wants to be entertained and have good time.

So far no one system is preferred in the group. We play mostly Middle Ages, WWII and some sci-fi.

Wolfhag

Could an objective also be a VC?

That was my take, the difference being an objective is written in milieu terms and VC are written in game terms.

They could achieve all of the objectives (loot) but not achieve the end game VC (leave). At the end of the game if it's not clear we'll have a civil discussion.

As the game progresses, it becomes more obvious who is winning or losing and what they need to do in order to satisfy the VC.

The point of having VC as a game POV expression is to clarify those thing like "how much of what". This then allows you to establish the frame of mind from the milieu.

So, in a raid scenario Snorri might be raiding for glory and fame. So he wants an easy haul, and many surviving warriors to sing his praises. When the haul gets too heavy, he's going to back off. So you weight raider survival more than loot. In the game, then, the players are going after Snorri's objectives not a mixed set of their own objectives.

Korri is also raiding for glory, but has a higher tolerance for casualties. His world view is based on an awesome feast hall, and throwing trinkets as the peasants. Raider survival might still be weighted higher than loot, but not as high as Snorri.

Gorri, however, is raiding for survival. His village has had two years of bad crops and a swine epidemic. Then he got raided. He has turned to raiding as a last ditch. He and his team have a grim outlook for their own personal survival, and would gladly die to get food back to their families. Loot gets more VP than survivors.

As far as the above comments (not wolfhag's) on VP being artificial accounting:

(1) Real people have a sense of this in real situations. Commanders for millenia have struggled with ways to "quantify" this so they can survey the total operation and know which decisions to make – press harder, fall back, stay the course, and where to do any of those.

(2) There is no reason the villagers need to know what Snorri, Korri, or Gorri's motives are. They can be a randomly assigned secret at the start of the game. Or for the raiders to know the villagers'. You can set up a scenario to have as much and as accurate info on this as you want.

The word "victory" in isolation does, but "victory conditions" do not. The ammount of loot, the number of raiders that survive, the qualitative aspects of who survives are all part of a continuum. Above, you yourself said "extra points".

I disagree… conditions just tells us what we need to do to achieve the binary.

A specific set of VC could be constructed like that. It's not in inherent property of VC.

🤔 we don't need to define the conditions of victory ahead of time, if we are using conditions to work out victory? If we dont im not sure what they are for how they would work. 😉🤷

What VC do is tell you what things intrinsically matter to the characters represented in the battle. That's what should drive decisions in a battle; what's important to the people involved.

And why i use Objectives rather than drag in ideas of Victory. Why noy then just call them conditions as thats whats important? 😉🤔🤷

So, if your opponent with the villagers decided that their personal victory was killing as many vikings as possible (a ahistorical and unbelievable objective) and just charges your vikings, giving them easy kills, and all their people die, you're good with that as a raid game? You have no expectation that your opponent is going to try to "win" from the standpoint of their units on the board?

First you are starting from the idea of Victory and "Win"… but Err yeah… because in that case they are being dumb but it's their choice. If they decide to ignore the obvious aspects of preserving the villagem the people stock etc. Then… thats their choice.
If im the raiders and my objective is to grab stuff get away and not loose anyone then that what I focus on, what my opponent chooses to do .matters only in how it interacts with my objectives.

What you said was vague. And I did answer both possible interpretations.

If you did.. then you too were vague…. 🫣

And when I did answer the part you meant, you didn't respond. Could you explain one difference, then?

I think were all getting vague.🤔

VC/VP, whenever they are set, focus on victory, which largely seems to be s thing things achived by getting the conditions mornings we need to achive it. Those VC/P may be attached to what we may call objectives but by doing so the goal becomes to get the elements that allow me to claim "victory". We have emphasised the game.

For me setting objectives. Are like you said are what is important in the simulation they live separately from structuring what is a win.
Yes combat is competative, but more in the sense of non cooperative. Rather than purely a win lose binary or spectrum.

Those for me are pretty definite distinctions. Ymmv. That's up to you. Im just pointing out why making a wargame about, and if the experience ends upndeclaring a winner etc we made it about , winning or loosing… or at not loosing even if we didn't win.

In 2 years I've never seen an argument in the the group about VCs or rule lawyering. Everyone wants to be entertained and have good time

That's good. Im not intersted in winningbor loosing. So I've nothing to argue about either. Ive seen those things happen when games became about who won and who lost. I dont pay with people who need to win the game.

As far as the above comments (not wolfhag's) on VP being artificial accounting:

👨‍🔧

(1) Real people have a sense of this in real situations. Commanders for millenia have struggled with ways to "quantify" this so they can survey the total operation and know which decisions to make – press harder, fall back, stay the course, and where to do any of those.

And? A game or any activity with objectives will have those and doesn't need anything extra, whether mechnically or semantically to clarify those. Someone doing all that and saying vp/c are a way to represent it… if real commanders have struggled to quantify it… why shouldn't I in game?🤷 I get that if someone feels the need to quantify a win… but given that RL commanders cant or even in doing so can be countered by oher factors. Then I dont see the need to add it to a game im playing or designing.

As to real situations… of course we have objectives. I went shopping yesterday. I had a list of stuff, objectives. I didn't need to attach conditions or points to know how well my shopping went. 😉😀 and yes I know i wasnt "competing" with someone to decide who was the better shopper. I was "competing" against…. the universe…. or at least local supply chain.

if real commanders have struggled to quantify it… why shouldn't I in game?

For the same reason real commanders don't have point estimates of Ph, Pk, etc. but you do in a game. If you actually had combatants and weapons adjudicating combat, you wouldn't need the stats. But you don't, so you do (unless you are playing a purley adjudicated game).

Likewise, you don't have the mindset of the commanders, so you need some guidance on what they think is important and how important it is to them. That's what VC do.

I had a list of stuff, objectives. I didn't need to attach conditions or points to know how well my shopping went.

So you didn't actually follow or refer to the list when you bought things? You just randomly bought stuff? And you don't actually know what you bought or have any idea of what it cost? I suppose that's a way to live life.

The list is a set of VCfor shopping. "I bought this." is, in fact a "condtion" on how well your shopping went. How much of your stuff you got also is.

How you know if you "won" or not is how the conditions and points from your list conform to your needs.

VC in a game provide that framework for players, how individual things you achieve align to the overall goals, which are subjective for the situation, not some type of underlying universal or just up to the players (or the acutal commanders, in most situations).

If you got peanut butter, but instead of Jiffy a brand that cost less, is that actually progress toward your goals? Did you get smooth or crunchy? Maybe almond butter instead?

Which is better or worse? Do you think about those things when you make your decision? Are they all equal to you?

You still haven't made the distinction between what you call VC and objectives. Why one is ok and the other isn't.

For the same reason real commanders don't have point estimates of Ph, Pk, etc. but you do in a game. If you actually had combatants and weapons adjudicating combat, you wouldn't need the stats. But you don't, so you do (unless you are playing a purley adjudicated game).

Well who is making assumptions now?🤷 youre assuming about what happens in my games. I would argue that there is more need for it with units, though not necessarily. For VC i dont see any need. Your assuming that if I need some stats for units I need some VC. Undertanding objectives is somethinb in the players remit, the condition. Of the units they move around isnt. So it feels like the circular argument that we justify VC by the fact that we have conditions that decide them.

Likewise, you don't have the mindset of the commanders, so you need some guidance on what they think is important and how important it is to them. That's what VC do.

Thats an assumption.. about me specially and anyone playing a game genrally and what the game is
Remvwr….objectives 🤷. What about reading and research on the period. Or military philopshy. Stratergy and tactics. Etc etc. Nope.. I need VC….

So you didn't actually follow or refer to the list when you bought things? You just randomly bought stuff? And you don't actually know what you bought or have any idea of what it cost? I suppose that's a way to live life.

I take back what I said in the other thread. You are being obtuse.

The list is a set of VCfor shopping. "I bought this." is, in fact a "condtion" on how well your shopping went. How much of your stuff you got also is.

Then yay… i won shopping…. except attaching victory to whether I got things, when i didnt have an opponent, remember when you said combat was competative so needed a winner. i was needing to shop better than. If its about "successfully" achieving an objective. Why not call them success conditions.?

Ill once again state that I dont care whether I win… a wargame or shopping.

You still haven't made the distinction between what you call VC and objectives. Why one is ok and the other isn't.

I dont call anything VC as I dont use them. You asked me what I saw as the distinction between them…. I did. I ether didn't do that well enough for you to understand or as I suspect youre being obtuse. If ive not succeeded by now, ive not achived that objective (or VC if you prefer) Ill recognise that object is untenable and as I can not complete the mission, so will seek to preserve the force and luckily before army moral collapses, I see that ive reached my turn limit! 🫡🤔😉

I dont call anything VC as I dont use them.

Whether you use them or not, you have made multiple statements about their nature, like:

Anyway I see a difference between Objectives or Goals and VC/VP

So you see them as something differnt tha objectives or goals but you don't see them at all?

And you've made several generalized statements about their nature, which are not necessarily true:

Again victory implies a binary, suggests that we know ahead of time how we can win or beat the opponent and that those things arw correct.

Yet you contradict them being binary when you talk about them having a continuum:

Im happy with that… extra points for the navigator

If i want a zero sum experience

VP are not necessarily a zero sum system.

It also overlooks known unknowns and unknown unknowns about what may happen after an event.

Actually, the VP discussed above address the known unknowns. And you expanded on that:

not having a navigator would cknfer benefits

And you have conflated people's behaviour with the components of the system itself:

Hmm I've seen too much Bleeped text when I've played with people who focus on winning the game.

"When does my army stop fighting?" It depends on the scenario.

I play scenarios with defined objectives for both forces. Objectives create narrative and drive tactical decisions: seize the crossroads, hold until reinforcements arrive, or delay the enemy advance. Asymmetrical and multiple objectives ensure both players have meaningful goals, even in lopsided historical matchups.

Turn limits force decisive action. An 8-turn limit makes commanders accept risks they'd never take in an open-ended game. Scenario termination can also be variable. For example, starting turn 8, roll a die each turn to see if the battle ends, adding uncertainty.

Force attrition naturally affects whether objectives remain achievable. Unit strength and morale tracks degradation until the units reach their fighting threshold and break. When a force loses key units or command structure, continuing becomes untenable.

Victory isn't about grinding down the enemy. It's about achieving your mission. Sometimes that's clearing the village, sometimes it's simply surviving. I'm not a fan of victory points based purely on casualties; objectives drive meaningful play.

Available game time dictates scenario scope selected for play. A small scope action fits a 2-hour evening, while a large scale battle needs a 4-5 hour weekend session.

I'm not a fan of victory points based purely on casualties; objectives drive meaningful play.

Attrition is sometimes an objective. Avoiding attrition is almost always one of your objectives.

I also don't like scenarios where attrition is the driving objective. But it does need to be a trade space. VP provide a way to encapsulate the trade space from the situation within the game.

We need to delay the British advance. But we don't want to let all our people die for an extra two minutes delay. It might be worth some extra risk to attrite some of their cavalry.

You certainly can describe the state space in terms of "hours x [own force attrition / own force competency] x [opfor attrition / opfor competency]" Or you can convert each of those five or so concepts into "points" and let the players work in that headspace.

Etotheipi, you're absolutely right that attrition matters – it's baked into whether objectives remain achievable.

In my scenarios, attrition affects victory organically rather than through VP accounting. A German rearguard holding a bridge for 8 turns succeeds if they delay the enemy advance – but if they're ground down to nothing by turn 5, they've clearly failed even if they "held" for those 5 turns. The British can simply roll through the remnants.

The trade space you describe – ‘don't let everyone die for two extra minutes' – is handled through the morale system. Units degrade in strength and effectiveness until they hit their threshold and break. Commanders face the same decision real commanders did: ‘Can this position still be held? Do I pull back before I lose everything?'

I do use attrition-based victory when it serves the scenario. For example, calculating casualty ratios at game end: if the attacker took 3:2 odds and only achieved 1.3:1 exchange, that's a defensive victory even if they gave ground. The math creates your trade space without needing in-game VP tracking.

My resistance isn't to attrition mattering – it's to attrition as the sole victory condition in scenarios where it shouldn't be. ‘First to 50 VP wins' turns every engagement into mutual annihilation regardless of the tactical situation.

Your point about encapsulating the trade space is fair. I just find that scenario-specific objectives + post-game casualty assessment captures it more naturally than running VP tallies during play. The commander's headspace is ‘Can I still take that town?' not ‘Am I ahead on points?'

But you've convinced me to be clearer: attrition absolutely matters. It's just one input into whether you achieved your mission, not the mission itself.

Completely understand and agree with your position.

‘Can I still take that town?' not ‘Am I ahead on points?'

"Can I still take the town?" is a broad question that is broken down into components (the OR discussions above). So, yes, commanders don't call the metrics "points", but they do assess them as they go along and convert them into a comparitive space.

You have to have some assessment of the important aspects of progress toward your objectives to make deliberate decisions. Whether you call them "points" or not is a style preference. Accounting attrition, turning that into a ratio, then dividing it by the initial force ratio is functionally the same as "your kills are worth 3 points, mine are worth 2 points" (using your 3:2 initial odds) and accouting points instead.

I find that people have a better time adding and subracting as you go along than comparing fractions. The whole premise of the Metric System is that fractions are too hard. :)

👍

Everything mentioned above is valid for me.

However, in a prepared defense the defenders should have fall back defensive positions that they will orderly fall back to rather than morale breaking.

I allow players to issue a "Fall Back" order that is automatically obeyed. While falling back they cannot shoot or react to enemy threats. After they get to the new location or are out of the enemy LOS they automatically rally back to normal. Also, if an infantry unit is no longer under small arms fire they automatically rally from suppression.

From my experience, it's something most players are not really familiar with the concept and tables are too small for fall back positions. I rarely see a player falling back on purpose to lure his opponent into a prepared ambush.

The system I'm using allows knowledgeable players to faithfully recreate the tactical advantages of Reverse Slope Defense and Shoot & Scoot. The German player can fire his FlaK 88 from the carriage allowing it to withdraw quickly.

They'll fall back from one ambush position to another. Their fresh reserves will be waiting at the last line of defense to counter-attack a depleted and strung out attacker.

If the scenario allows it, the defenders can create a "Range Card" with the range measured to specific locations like junctions, knocked out vehicles or identifiable geographic locations. They can engage a target at long range, Hold Fire & Track and then when the target gets within 100m of a Known Range location shoot with an increased chance of hitting (no range estimation error).

It takes patience and skill to pull it off against a fast moving enemy attacker. New players will generally stop to shoot back allowing the defenders time to fall back.

Skilled players will move at top speed with their hull angled to the defenders (increases armor thickness and chance of a ricochet) and fire while moving hoping for a lucky critical hit.

If an enemy shoots and misses you can decelerate and Halt Fire one round and immediately Shoot & Scoot and be a moving target before he can reload and shoot at you while halted. It's a great example of "Getting inside your opponents OODA Loop."

To counter this, defenders can Hold Fire & Track their target and then immediately shoot when he halts. However, if he does not halt then you are freely letting him advance unhindered.

To counter concealed ambushes as you advance, use the Bounding Over Watch tactic (half advancing, half halted and over watching or recon by fire) with your guns pointing at suspected enemy concealed or Reverse Slope Defenders positions. When they fire, you should be able to shoot back before they disappear (Shoot & Scoot).

Generally, I give the attacker a 3-1 odds strength because they'll need it.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, thanks for taking the time to lay all that out – really appreciate the detailed tactical breakdown. These are exactly the kinds of nuances that make WWII armor engagements fascinating.

Prepared fallback positions: Completely agree these should exist. In my scenarios, I handle this through initial deployment and command orders. A defender can have rear positions marked and issue Withdraw orders to pull units back in good order. The difference from your automatic "Fall Back" order is that mine requires a command check, representing the friction of coordinating a withdrawal under pressure. Veterans execute it reliably; green units might fumble it.

You state, "most players are not really familiar with the concept and tables are too small for fall back positions. I rarely see a player falling back on purpose to lure his opponent into a prepared ambush." At my ground scale, 1"=100 yds, the table is plenty big enough for that to happen. Having said that, I have yet to create a scenario that supports that possibility.

Reverse slope defense & ambush positioning: Absolutely supported. Defenders can position on reverse slopes, and spotting rules mean attackers don't see them until cresting. Vigilance fire lets defenders shoot first when attackers come into view. The ambush modifier gives defenders a significant combat advantage for that first engagement.

What I don't model is your vehicle-level shoot-&-scoot with halt-fire-move sequencing. At battalion scale with 30-minute turns, I'm abstracting "the platoon conducted a fighting withdrawal" rather than "vehicle #2 fired, reversed 50m, then hull-down." Your system sounds perfect for company-level actions where that granularity matters.

The OODA loop insight: This is exactly what I'm trying to capture at the command level rather than vehicle level. A CG with Attack orders inside an opponent's decision cycle (represented by having combat Initiative) gets to strike first before the defender can react effectively. It's the same principle – tempo advantage – just scaled up.

Your 3:1 attacker advantage: That aligns with historical doctrine and my scenario design philosophy. Attackers need numbers, especially against prepared positions. The asymmetry is the point.

I think we're modeling similar tactical realities at different scales. Your system gives players the tools to execute bounding overwatch vehicle-by-vehicle. Mine gives them the challenge of coordinating three companies to execute it as a battalion. Both are valid – just different lenses on the same historical problems.

Appreciate you sharing the range card mechanic – that's a brilliant touch for recreating defensive doctrine.

We do much, but mot all and not in the same way as, Wolhag.

A good player can have a section, squad and finaly a platoon position all of which are used against the attaker in sequence. We can do it at a ground scale of 1mm represents 1m. However it does require terrain more representative than the typical "wargames terrain" for Northern Europe. Lots of terrain spaced realisticaly, hedges and ditches fom 100m to 600m spacing. Typicaly we don't cover that great open spaces as they are relatively rare in Northern Europs and tyicaly not areas you figh in. Typicaly defenders would deploy on the edge furthet from the enemy so thay could fall back effectively. Tough on attackers as they have a lot of open ground to cover. Done but does not make for an interestingh scenario so not one we normaly use.

Mister H,
Thanks for your kind words. Just to be clear, I can't take credit as none of this is my idea, including the OODA Loop (John Boyd).

I get my info from manuals, combat vets, and my experience in a Marine Rifle Platoon. One assignment I had was part of the Aggressor Training Unit at The Basic School (platoon leader training for new 2LTs). All field war games and tactics. It was a lot of fun – except the time they threw a WP grenade at me. All I do is attempt to make it playable.

When you use timing for an action, any maneuver or tactics can be executed including a playable simultaneous realistic rate of movement which speeds up the game and faithfully recreates opportunity fire.

The authors of the game are Martin Rapier who is on TMP and John Curry who I saw again at the US Army War College in July. He can be reached by email in England.

I'd be glad to give you my notes and ideas as I don't have the time to work on a game like that now.

For me the key factors at that level are the posture each formation is in because it limits what they can do and takes time to redeploy.

The attack types are Meeting Engagement, Hasty Assault and Planned Assault. In a meeting engagement both sides need to redeploy from column to attack. Redeploying to attack before your opponent catches him off guard.

Hasty Assaults can only be at the Company level and they cannot coordinate with other units and not use Battalion level or above assets/artillery. However, it should only take one hour of planning to execute. That would be ideal for launching a spoiling attack on an assembly area or a quick surprise attack on a unit not in a defensive posture.

A Planned Assault for a Battalion can coordinate all three Companies and use Regiment and Division level assets/artillery.

My AFV version is pretty much finished and am working on the infantry version. Hopefully, someday an Air-Air and naval version using the OODA Loop timing idea.

I did run an ACW Battle of the Crater at a convention using one minute turns because that was the average ROF of muskets. Frank Chadwick was one of the players and he complemented me on the system.

I use 1" = 25m for micro and 1/144 scale models. For 28mm I use 1" = 2m.

Next week I'll be posting "The advantages of IGYG over OODA Loop Timing" and "The advantages of OODA Loop Timing over IGYG." I also have my YouTube channel up too.

In January I'll have a smaller PDF version available on War Game Vault, AFV only.

Typically defenders would deploy on the edge further from the enemy so they could fall back effectively. Tough on attackers as they have a lot of open ground to cover. Done but does not make for an interesting scenario so not one we normally use.

Yes, reality sucks.

If you have only infantry weapons be far enough into the trees that you cannot be detected from the outside but with observers in the tree line. When the enemy infantry or vehicle enters the woods you hit them with a close range ambush. It's a good idea to prep fire a tree line before your infantry enters it.

Sorry if I got off topic again.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag… whats uour YouTube channel called. I tried wolfhag but ther didn't help me.

I think its tricky to no go "off topic" especially when thinking about thingw off the norm, things need to tonbe thought of holistically, if looking at one thing from a "new" angle we end up needing to consider how they will affect other things and other things will affect it.

Hi all! Thanks for all the recent comments. I want to respond to them, but really don't have the time today. We are hosting Thanksgiving and my commander-in-chief has me on KP duty today. I look forward to responding tomorrow, hopefully.

I wish a Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate the holiday. Even some of my European friends have adopted the tradition – they are carving up their turkeys while I compose this message. Best wishes to all. Until tomorrow….

UshCha – That's an interesting approach with the 1mm = 1m scale—gives you granularity for individual position placement.

Your point about terrain spacing is well taken. At my 1" = 100 yards scale, I'm definitely abstracting more. A ‘woodline' on my table might represent several hedgerows and ditches in that 100-yard depth. Works for battalion-level play where I'm moving platoon-sized elements. You're right that it doesn't capture the texture of sequential fallback positions the way your scale would.

The scenario design challenge you mention—defenders on the far edge with open approaches—is real. Historically accurate but often makes for a shooting gallery rather than an engaging game. I tend to place objectives that force attackers to close, or give them covered approach routes, specifically to avoid that problem.

Curious: I imagine at your scale, you are modeling squad-level actions. Or, are you working at platoon/company?"

Wolfhag, this is terrific background—thank you for taking the time to lay it out, and also for sharing the perspective from your Marine and Aggressor Unit days. It definitely shows in how you think about timing, posture, and the practicalities of executing tactics under pressure.

I agree completely that formation posture is the real governor at the battalion level. Your breakdown of Meeting Engagement → Hasty Assault → Planned Assault tracks closely with how I'm building initiative and command orders into my system. At the scale I'm working, "tempo" comes from whether a Command Group is prepared, committed, or caught transitioning. That's my abstracted version of what you're modeling second-by-second with the OODA timing.

Your point about redeployment time is especially relevant. In my scenarios a Command Group shifting from Travel → Combat mode loses a chunk of its effectiveness for exactly the reason you describe: catching a column mid-deployment is deadly, and well-timed hasty attacks can succeed precisely because they hit during that vulnerable window.

I'd definitely be interested in seeing your notes when you have time—absorbing ideas from different scales always sharpens design thinking, even if the mechanics don't transfer 1:1. And I'll keep an eye out for your IGYG vs. OODA write-ups; those sound like great discussions.

What's the YouTube channel? I look forward to checking that out.

Thanks again for the thoughtful posts and the generous sharing of experience. Conversations like this are what I was hoping to get from TMP.

I recall being involved in discussions on the old Wargames Developement yahoo group, that old……. many years ago…. John Curry and Martin being members, on time fot organising attacks etc. Relaying orde4s etc. Also how the duration different actions and how units would stall in a attacks more quickly than was normally thought, these were Co. BN sized actions and up and mainly WW2 but was jntersting to think o. How that intersect with Morale, duration of actions in real time, how many turns or activations that would be played out in etc.

Thanks, all – this has been a great discussion. What's interesting is that I only meant to comment on the original question ("how do you determine when a force stops fighting?"), but the points people have raised about posture, tempo, orders, and timing closely line-up with the direction my home-brew rules have been taking.

It's been eye-opening to see how folks like Wolfhag, UshCha, etotheipi, and Gamesman6 zeroed in on the same mechanics and issues I've been wrestling with. Clearly these are common design challenges — and it shows how much collective experience is in this group.

For now I'm mostly just absorbing the insights – they've all been spot on. The expertise here is impressive, and I really appreciate everyone taking the time to share it. Please keep the comments coming!

😀👍🏻