Duel Mode

[RobertBr]

Lunalol has done an amazing job of delivering the first hex and counter game to BGA, and doubly so given that the site was not really designed to handle games of this type. Some of that required some compromises and I think Lunalol is open to making improvements (and has certainly been patient with bug requests). One of the areas that is important is Duel mode, which helps to balance scenarios for more competitive play. It currently has two issues:

1) The Tie Break
Scenarios need a tie break rule in case both players win with the same side (this seems very likely for all but one of the current scenarios). At the moment this is based simply on national will and it probably needs some refinement. By which it definitely needs refinement, for example France 1940 almost always results in a draw. Lunalol has already expressed being open to a community thought out solution.

2) The Limited Range of Scenarios
Some of this is probably stuff that could only be fixed by the designer (for example a combined Operation Torch/Invasion of Italy scenario seems like one that is needed but adhering closely to the rules), but at the moment only four scenarios allow for Duel mode; France 1940, Balkans 1941, France 1944, USSR 1941 (and I think three of those have tie breaker issues). Lunalol has expressed a willingness to expand others.

I feel USSR 41-5 and Med 40-2 should be playable in Duel mode though understand they are much longer (and both probably have tie breaker issues) so perhaps need a warning to the player.

I also wonder if Europe 44-5 could be opened to Duel mode on condition that it is set to 2 players (obviously don't know about the coding difficulties).

And finally I wonder about a Duel mode option in three player. Because the Allies are basically a team it feels like you would only have to connect three games together so that each player controlled the Germans once, though obviously this would require some careful thought on the tie breaker.

As I suggested in the thread on playability I don't feel confident to offer any solutions as I still have not played enough, but I think it is a discussion worth having.

[Lunalol]

And finally I wonder about a Duel mode option in three player. Because the Allies are basically a team it feels like you would only have to connect three games together so that each player controlled the Germans once, though obviously this would require some careful thought on the tie breaker.

DUEL mode for three players game is almost already implemented (I have though about it at start of coding).

[wksp]

This is my suggestions about duel mode:

1. France 40 - If Germany win France gain how many VP, how long it is defanding(1 point per turn). When France win, France get VP, from theyer national will(1 point from 1 france national will).

2. Balkans 41 - In my opinion in this scenario is too small options to create good system for duel mode

3. France 44 - one Alliad VP, per france city under alliad control.

4. USSR 41 - i thing system with national will is good for this scenario.

5. Med 40-2 - defeated player get VP in an amount of turns he survived. (example: Uk win in 6 turn, so Italy get 6 VP).

I don't know, this suggestions are good or maybe imposible to aplicate.

[Lunalol]

All are possible but all need testing.

So when you play a game, write on a piece of paper VP calculated by different methods and compare to other players.
Playtesting a war-game (or a board-game) needs monthssssss.

[RobertBr]

How long France holds out in 40 is a good idea, but in the interests of brain storming - how about increasing the French national will? One of the things that makes the USSR 41 scenario good is that we all know the Soviets will not collapse, they will fight through to Winter and its purely a matter of whether the Germans can reduce them to 44 and if they cannot if they reduce them more than the opponent did.
There are 30 points worth of cities in France, so boost French national will to 30, it is still possible to defeat them but there is more to distinguish player performance...

[Lunalol]

How long France holds out in 40 is a good idea

I have a different opinion.
It is easy to quickly eliminate France by using paratroopers and surprise attack markers.
But, we can also keep these markers to attack England.
The axis player can therefore lower national will of UK by 1 points by eliminating the BEF (avoiding naval evacuation) and even lower it by 2 or 4 points by invading a city in England or London itself.

how about increasing the French national will?

NO please, USE on BGA is not a video game, it's a board-game implementation.
So, I can't change rules. If you want to propose a modification of the rules, open a thread on BGG.
I try to be as faithful as possible to the original game and the few differences have almost all been discussed with the author.
DUEL mode is not a rule modification, it's just a way to make the games more symmetrical.

[RobertBr]

I understand and agree with the philosophy but some outside the box thinking will probably be necessary. Some games on BGA do have small changes from official rules (or options), for example Carc always draws tiles in advance (the official rule is to draw on your turn) and allows the children's variant where you hold a hand of tiles. The game's designer should approve anything that is done and it is best to be as faithful as possible but I think brainstorming should at least consider the possibilities.

[MarkDey]

I would be against increasing French National Will for the France 1940 scenario. I think that the National Will tiebreaker works okay in most cases. I do, however, think that collapsing France before September 1940 should take precedence. For example, if one Axis player collapses France in August, and then when they switch, the Axis player collapses France in September 1940, then the one who won in August should be the winner.

In case of the same month, then using the National Will tiebreaker still works okay in my opinion.

[Lunalol]

I would be against increasing French National Will for the France 1940 scenario. I think that the National Will tiebreaker works okay in most cases. I do, however, think that collapsing France before September 1940 should take precedence. For example, if one Axis player collapses France in August, and then when they switch, the Axis player collapses France in September 1940, then the one who won in August should be the winner.

In case of the same month, then using the National Will tiebreaker still works okay in my opinion.

And what about UK, no reward for successful invasion ?

[MarkDey]

And what about UK, no reward for successful invasion ?

Invading the UK is not so tough. Keeping the invasion force supplied is the real challenge.

In my opinion, the goal of the 1940 France scenario is to collapse France. If one player collapses France in August 1940, and the other player collapses France in September 1940 but also invades London, I would say that the August 1940 player did a better job and should win the tiebreaker.