Board Game Arena

It seems to me the current tie breaker rules encourage avoiding taking position medals and killing units instead. For example, it is usually better NOT to take Pegasus Bridge and rack up figure kills instead. I'm not sure what would be better, but artificially increasing kill count when one could finish the game more quickly by taking terrain objectives just seems wrong.

PaHawk wrote: ↑21 July 2022, 16:33 It seems to me the current tie breaker rules encourage avoiding taking position medals and killing units instead. For example, it is usually better NOT to take Pegasus Bridge and rack up figure kills instead. I'm not sure what would be better, but artificially increasing kill count when one could finish the game more quickly by taking terrain objectives just seems wrong.

A good offense is a good defense. If you utilize your advances and retreats to minimize your own casualties and capitalize on enemy casualties, you're playing the game as intended. I would argue that Pegasus Bridge has one objective medal that has much better odds for capture and chance to overwhelm enemy units. The other objective medal is entrenched with all kinds of cover and enemy units and is typically only attainable by killing off enemy units anyway. If you have a high body count on that side, the objective is won without needing to step foot on it. Historically, this bridge was won with only 2 allied fatalities and the chain of events leading to that was borderline miraculous.

If you're looking for scenarios that favor objective medals, Escape Via the Coastal Road, Outskirts of Paris, Sword Beach, and Breakout missions are the ones that come to mind off the bat.

PaHawk wrote: ↑21 July 2022, 16:33 It seems to me the current tie breaker rules encourage avoiding taking position medals and killing units instead. For example, it is usually better NOT to take Pegasus Bridge and rack up figure kills instead. I'm not sure what would be better, but artificially increasing kill count when one could finish the game more quickly by taking terrain objectives just seems wrong.

It really depends on the scenario, on the development of the game in question I would say.
Usually when you're trying to kill other units, you lose some figures yourself. Some scenarios allow you to quickly take medals through positions, which are positioned in such a way to make it harder for the opponent to remove the unit from there.

And there's always a "behind enemy lines" that can allow you to quickly take a position medal.

I personally try to see which medals can be taken with minimal risk to myself. Sometimes that's units, other times it's positions.

I agree that the "figures killed" tie-breaker isn't the one encouraging the most friendly play.

Shooting a ton of single dice at various enemies just for figs is a waste of time when you got 3+ dice on a single infantry hugging the back line...

To avoid this - maybe don't count the figures killed in the opening turn and the end turn when calculating tie-breakers. This avoids the problem that some scenarios are lined up so that one side can kill A LOT of figures in round 1 with a lucky draw of a card (assault or armor assault comes to mind).
And as already stated - just shooting a lot at random stuff in the final round isn't particularly fun either.

So basically the figures still count - for the ones killed from Turn 2 until second to last round.

If that is a tie THEN you count all the figures killed.

Just my 0.02DDK

I understand the points made, but there simply is no other tie-break as transparent and honest than this one.

This is a confrontational game, both players are fighting each other... actions that players perform, but fall short of achieving a VP, invariably involve trying to tear each other out, as in: whittling down him units.

The best way to quantify this semi-succesful process, is body count (sadly, as in any combat).

Lastly, this is a wargame after all. Some light ww2 simulation is expected.
Visit any Wikipedia page for a battle, and find on one side the result, and on the other casualities count.

The type of game resulting with this tie-break is fairly accurate as well. As in: soldiers wouldn't jump into action kamikaze-style... covering fire to first reduce somewhat the enemy is accurate, this is no medieval setting.

One last disclaimer: having played m44 extensively on bga, and enjoying it immensely... i have managed to tie in 3 games (total tie, both banners AND figures) to the amusement of both me and my oponents.
Certainly very close games, and worthy of not being second criteria tie-breaked.

I've been thinking about this a little more. Why not let an objective count as 5 killed figures?
That way it's not just an "empty" medal, as it is now.

Would that make actually taking objectives more interesting?

MagnusNygaard wrote: ↑20 October 2022, 19:16 I agree that the "figures killed" tie-breaker isn't the one encouraging the most friendly play.

Shooting a ton of single dice at various enemies just for figs is a waste of time when you got 3+ dice on a single infantry hugging the back line...

Had I read this thread before our game I would not have played exactly in this way, now I feel guilty!

Jokes apart, not considering the last turn would not be fair for all the games where the last turn is played in a normal way and not just to score skills. I think you proposed the best solution here:

MagnusNygaard wrote: ↑03 November 2022, 01:44 I've been thinking about this a little more. Why not let an objective count as 5 killed figures?
That way it's not just an "empty" medal, as it is now.

Would that make actually taking objectives more interesting?

With this finally the objectives would get a bit more of attention, or at least they would be crucial to decide ties.

The only problem is the implementation. BGA, from what I have understood, adheres to the original rules and does not allow such "house" rules. If I got this info correctly (but I might be wrong, I can't find the post where they rejected another house rule on the ground that they stick with the original rules, but I remember having read it) the overall discussion discussion is pointless as they will not implement an alternative tie breaker.

The current system works for me and this topic has been discussed before on the DOW forums...I have won or lost many a game by 1 figure like a previous poster said killing the enemy is what war is all about and I enjoy the last few rounds where I must plan to take out as many of the enemy as possible
I am sure some house rules could be implemented and try them out with the board game and post the results.

Would it be Possible to tighten it up a bit?

Why should a player only Receive 1 Medal when capturing a two Medal Objective...needing [only] one Medal for the win - nullifying the two medals given.

For example, it is usually better NOT to take Pegasus Bridge and rack up figure kills instead

This being a "thing."
Would it be difficult refining unit count? Tank is worth more than a Inf. - Artillery unit is worth more than a Tank - Two [Medal} city objective is worth more than a one Medal objective city hex (capturing a [two] medal objective hex is still only worth one medal, provided it is the last medal needed to achieve victory)…Difference between Marginal victory and Decisive Victory