Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Field of Glory: The Card Game» Forums » Variants

Subject: bigger importance of losses? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michal Eysymont
Poland
Warsaw
Poland
flag msg tools
mb
Hi,
the game looks incredibly tasty
I have one tweak on my mind though: what about winning the battle via inflicting bigger losses on the opponent immediately if nobody managed to get control of three areas, and not only as a tie-breaker?
I believe this would be right both in terms of historical accuracy and gameplay. After all, the term "Pyrrhus victory" was coined in the antiquity. As for the gameplay, attempts to bleed out the opponent instead of desperate attempts to capture land would be a different and interesting (if somewhat risky) strategy...
Thanks again for the great game... and what do you say, Martin?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that would not be right in game terms or historically.

A typical battle, the actual casualties during the battle up to the point it was decided were comparatively low. The heaviest casualties come from the aftermath.

In game terms, it would probably too easy to win with mostly light troops that provide no VPs.

Now a variant that says if you take massive casualties then you lose immediately, that might make sense. But you'll probably lose in that case anyway.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michal Eysymont
Poland
Warsaw
Poland
flag msg tools
mb
You made a good point. However, it is generally true throughout history that poor commanders think mainly of gaining advance while the good ones seek to destroy enemy army. Innumerable examples could be given, but to take just one, think of Cannae. For some time, Romans held the bigger part of the battlefield... just to stay there forever
And notise that my idea doesn't suggest you should neglect the battlefield. It's just that with the present rules the commander might be tempted that the best tactic is to put his troops to a meatgrinder, instead of plotting clever tricks?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Gross
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Micelius wrote:
Hi,
the game looks incredibly tasty
I have one tweak on my mind though: what about winning the battle via inflicting bigger losses on the opponent immediately if nobody managed to get control of three areas, and not only as a tie-breaker?
I believe this would be right both in terms of historical accuracy and gameplay. After all, the term "Pyrrhus victory" was coined in the antiquity. As for the gameplay, attempts to bleed out the opponent instead of desperate attempts to capture land would be a different and interesting (if somewhat risky) strategy...
Thanks again for the great game... and what do you say, Martin?


I don't understand the suggestion. At what point in time would you win if you had inflicted greater losses?

Are you suggesting that the game be played until one side has 3 terrain at the beginning of its turn, and if the game ends without that happening, then the tiebreaker is casualties inflicted, rather than most terrain pieces controlled?

I've only played 4 games, but based on those 4 games I'd say this is an incredibly minor tweak. I think it would change the winner in a very very small percentage of games.

Or are you suggesting something else?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Micelius wrote:
You made a good point. However, it is generally true throughout history that poor commanders think mainly of gaining advance while the good ones seek to destroy enemy army.


If anything, I'd have put it the other way round. Good commanders attempt to achieve their objectives. Poor commanders just concentrate on casualties. Of course sometimes destroying the enemy army is the objective, but far from always.

(This goes especially wrong when you are a sub-commander. More than one battle has been lost where a victorious cavalry commander on a wing chases after the routing enemy cavalry, but returns later to find the centre lost.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I see someone has made the point I was about to make. How often do you think that the game will get to the end (not a 3 area win) and the areas would go one way, while the casualties the other?

I don't know. I've not played enough. (My first game I did win by knowing I was level on areas and up on casualties, so took the win that way rather than trying an offensive that might have gone wrong.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.