Victory Conditions

[mollari_uk]

When are victory conditions evaluated. Specifically I'm referring to space superiority and less so the first scenario from the standing together tourny pack.

Do the victory points for holding space happen only at the end of the scenario? If so isn't this pointless as by that time one side is dead?

As an aside, has anyone ever played a normal game that lasts 12 turns? Because I think I've got to around 5 a most.

 

[Burger]

When are victory conditions evaluated. Specifically I'm referring to space superiority and less so the first scenario from the standing together tourny pack.

The game continues until it ends. That is, either one fleet is wiped out, runs away or the turn limit is reached, or any of the game-ending condtions specified in the scenario are achieved. Then the winner and loser are worked out, using the victory conditions or VPs.

Do the victory points for holding space happen only at the end of the scenario? If so isn't this pointless as by that time one side is dead?

At the end, yes. One side is not necessarily dead by then, and if not, the VPs from the quadrants would be the deciding factor. It is possible (althugh unlikely) for a fleet to be wiped out but still win on VPs; for example a Centauri Adira takes on a Drakh Amu in an 8pt Raid game. The Adira kills 12 Light Raiders (gaining 60 VPs) before dying (giving away 30 VPs). Even with the Drakh's 5 bonus VPs for holding space and 5 for the quadrant, the Centauri win 60-40. Of course in a tournament there may be over-ruling rules, such as an annihilation always gives you 25 TPs no matter what the VPs are.

As an aside, has anyone ever played a normal game that lasts 12 turns? Because I think I've got to around 5 a most.

Yes, usually when a Vorlon/Shadow player waits in an asteoid field, pops out on turn 12, kills a couple of ships and wins

 

[Greg Smith]

Withe space superiority at low level, get a fighter into each quadrant, and hope the enemy can't kill em all in 12 turns.

 

[Da Boss]

hmm who would do a dodgy thing like that in a campaign

 

[Triggy]

Do the victory points for holding space happen only at the end of the scenario? If so isn't this pointless as by that time one side is dead?

At the end, yes. One side is not necessarily dead by then, and if not, the VPs from the quadrants would be the deciding factor. It is possible (althugh unlikely) for a fleet to be wiped out but still win on VPs; for example a Centauri Adira takes on a Drakh Amu in an 8pt Raid game. The Adira kills 12 Light Raiders (gaining 60 VPs) before dying (giving away 30 VPs). Even with the Drakh's 5 bonus VPs for holding space and 5 for the quadrant, the Centauri win 60-40. Of course in a tournament there may be over-ruling rules, such as an annihilation always gives you 25 TPs no matter what the VPs are.

Which just goes to show how unbalanced and unfair the straight X points for annihilating an enemy fleet can be. TPs should always be given out in proportion to the winning margin in VPs. If the only side with ships left is still losing then it should lose - the battle was too costly for them to hold on to the area or the enemy withdrew in good order and will return soon, etc.

 

[AdrianH]

I disagree - that's the difference between Annihilation and Space Superiority. If I read the fluff correctly, Annihilation is supposed to be a decisive battle; you fight to last man standing because the fleet which is either destroyed or forced to flee loses this battle by definition, regardless of losses.

Think of Jutland. The Germans destroyed more British ships than vice versa, but then they went back to port and never tried to challenge for control of the seas again. As a Space (or rather, Sea ) Superiority scenario, the Germans won; as an Annihilation scenario, the British won. There being no way to contact the tournament manager for a definitive answer as to which type of scenario was being fought, historians have been arguing over who won ever since.

And if the result of an Annihilation battle in a campaign is that the winner actually lost significantly more ships than the loser, then he has won this battle but the other side may have an advantage for the next part of the campaign. The term "Pyrrhic victory" comes to mind. Perhaps the battle was too costly for them to hold onto the area and the enemy will return; but that's for another scenario in the campaign to decide...

 

[l33tpenguin]

The Germans lost the war because of the poor balance of the FAP split. All their units were too high PL and they were overcome by swarms.
Not to mention the issues they had with using a lot of bore sighted weapons

 

[Triggy]

I disagree - that's the difference between Annihilation and Space Superiority. If I read the fluff correctly, Annihilation is supposed to be a decisive battle; you fight to last man standing because the fleet which is either destroyed or forced to flee loses this battle by definition, regardless of losses.

Think of Jutland. The Germans destroyed more British ships than vice versa, but then they went back to port and never tried to challenge for control of the seas again. As a Space (or rather, Sea ) Superiority scenario, the Germans won; as an Annihilation scenario, the British won. There being no way to contact the tournament manager for a definitive answer as to which type of scenario was being fought, historians have been arguing over who won ever since.

And if the result of an Annihilation battle in a campaign is that the winner actually lost significantly more ships than the loser, then he has won this battle but the other side may have an advantage for the next part of the campaign. The term "Pyrrhic victory" comes to mind. Perhaps the battle was too costly for them to hold onto the area and the enemy will return; but that's for another scenario in the campaign to decide...

I agree for campaigns but for tournaments, it all needs to be in the difference in VPs between players as there really is no other measure of how successful a player has been.

Total VPs a player has scored has been used - this doesn't work as a 50-45 marginal deffeat gets far more TPs than a comfortable 25-0 win.

Having a criterion for "opposition annihilated" doesn't work either as you can have very close games where one side has made astute tactical withdrawals of crippled vessels and is up on VPs but ends up with no battlefield presence; also there is the case of Drakh fleets having the penalty of giving away more VPs but if they clear the field then these VPs don't matter in the slightest.

In fact, most system don't have enough granularity to differentiate between marginal wins, minor wins, comfortable wins, large wins and crushing wins. Most have even a 1VP difference between players translate into at least a 6TP difference.

 

[Omnipotent]

As an aside, has anyone ever played a normal game that lasts 12 turns? Because I think I've got to around 5 a most.

That´s the average over here too...the game is usually over at that time (the winner is obvious at that time)

 

[M1ndr1d3rs]

The Germans lost the war because of the poor balance of the FAP split. All their units were too high PL and they were overcome by swarms.
Not to mention the issues they had with using a lot of bore sighted weapons

Still felt like a 5-point-battle fleet facing a 5-point-war though ... :lol:

 

[Burger]

I agree for campaigns but for tournaments, it all needs to be in the difference in VPs between players as there really is no other measure of how successful a player has been.

Total VPs a player has scored has been used - this doesn't work as a 50-45 marginal deffeat gets far more TPs than a comfortable 25-0 win.

Agreed, but for the Coriana tourney we're using total VPs, because the scenarios are quite... unique

Having a criterion for "opposition annihilated" doesn't work either

Agreed too, we're giving a VP bonus for annihilating rather than an instawin.

 

[Ripple]

well winner being obvious and actually winning aren't always the same... and if your figuring different grades of winning for tourney purposes the game often go to the full twelve.

Remember ever since the beam change really stupid reverses aren't that uncommon either.

Ripple

 

[Triggy]

I agree for campaigns but for tournaments, it all needs to be in the difference in VPs between players as there really is no other measure of how successful a player has been.

Total VPs a player has scored has been used - this doesn't work as a 50-45 marginal deffeat gets far more TPs than a comfortable 25-0 win.

Agreed, but for the Coriana tourney we're using total VPs, because the scenarios are quite... unique

Having a criterion for "opposition annihilated" doesn't work either

Agreed too, we're giving a VP bonus for annihilating rather than an instawin.

Good stuff on both counts - it's all about using appropriate methods for the situations