Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Nations in Arms: Valmy to Waterloo» Forums » General

Subject: Victory Points rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tom Stearns
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just wondering about Campaign Game victory points. In lieu of an automatic victory, the rules state VP's are calculated at the end of the game. Some VP's it says are gained during the game. These appear to be limited to Turkey forming Ottoman Empire and Spain having a Liberation War. VP's can be lost by breaking an alliance.

So, do y'all give VP's when a VP/Key hex is captured or do you wait until the end of the game? There are no event cards that give VP. Wondering if there might be some conditions in the campaign game to give the different powers VP's for. For instance forming the various minor duchy's and confederations by a certain date. Another could be capturing objectives by a certain date. These could drive powers to act historically in order to gain the VP's.

What do y'all think? Is it worth adding a variant for it? Would it change the base game detrimentally?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
VP gains and losses are summed up in 16.22.5-10. Except for a vp for Economic Reform, it seems you list those that take effect immediately. On the other hand, vp for hex control (and for having most naval units) are technically not awarded until game end so the situation could change a number of times.

I think it is the autovictory conditions that steer the game in a historical direction actually. It could be that there is a need for even more incentive to act historically, but it is too early for me to say.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Stearns
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree the auto victory conditions drive historical strategy. It just seems that there is really no barometer within the game to see where you are at as the game progresses. I like goals within the game with VP value. Just thinking. Not a necessity as much as a preference.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
I see your point, but on the other extreme is Empires in Arms where the earning and tracking of vp each turn becomes a too important part of the game. EiA is a fabolous game in many ways, but the victory system never convinced me. If there were a middle ground I would be interested.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Stearns
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Had a discussion with one of the players in our game concerning the victory conditions. This discussion has also occurred at times after we have finished a session. Some of us feel that the victory conditions, as they are, are not sufficient to drive the game for 40 turns. Holding a VP/Key city early in the game is really of no consequence. There is no penalty for not having some, other than loss of some income. VP's really don't become important until the end of the game.

The question asked is what is a powers motivation to go to war early in the game in an effort to secure VP cities that they probably can't hold for 40 turns? However, if VP's were awarded each Spring, then powers have a reason to fight over VP's throughout the game, because they don't have to hold them for the whole game. They can get credit for holding it at the VP scoring season. There may be other ideas out there for awarding VP's. There does need to be some kind of VP accumulation during the game though, even if not on the scale of EiA. I don't want NiA to be EiA. I like the mechanics and systems. Our whole group I think feels that the game is somewhat under developed and under playtested. We are still enjoying it, but we see things that probably would have come up in playtesting.

I would love to hear from anyone who has completed a campaign game and see what their thoughts are regarding VP's and other than wanting to fight for the sake of fighting, what drove their games.

Will cross post on CSW in hope of getting more responses and Stan's input. Also going to post some other ideas in a different thread in variants.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Tom, your group, or at least part of it, do not think that the autovictory conditions are enough to motivate player actions, could you perhaps elaborate a little on that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Stearns
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Four of our six have discussed it off and on. We are split on opinion at this point. Two believe the auto-victory does drive the strategy. Two believe it may not be enough, but the jury is still out. We are not making changes (house rules) to the game this first time through. We are going to play RAW and see how it plays out. I think that the pair of us that questions how much auto victory drives the game are used to the accumulation approach. So it may just be personal preference as opposed to faulty system. I see some on CSW also believe it isn't an issue. So far I would say it hasn't really impacted our game at this point. We are having a lot of fun. The discussion the game creates outside of game time is a good indicator of the games enjoyment. I also might have passed my exit driving to work yesterday morning because I was thinking about the game. That is a good sign.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls