$35.00
Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

D-Day at Peleliu» Forums » General

Subject: Difficulty and Victory Conditions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Carl Schnurr
United States
Oak Park
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello, I'm new to the series and am just starting my first play of DDAP. Note that I'd prefer to start with Omaha, but DDAP is the only title readily available. My thinking was...I can learn the system with DDAP, then be ready for Omaha and Tarawa reprints when they come out in 2017 (fingers crossed).

But...I'm reading LOTS of posts about how impossible this game is and I have a few questions/statements I'd like to put out there to hopefully influence the reprints.

1) Varying degrees of difficulty. Why aren't there varying degrees of difficulty? Many solo games come with a base difficulty plus sanctioned rules for ramping up or down the difficulty so that players can find their sweet spot. From the forums it seems that the only difficulty for DDAP is Nightmare mode, which may keep players from making the jump to buy the game. It'd be great to have a toolset for difficulty adjustments, especially for new players.

2) Degrees of success. Why aren't there varying degrees of success? Again, many solo games I've played have a sliding scale of success/failure. This allows you to easily measure one game against another, and would allow for you to have various benchmarks to push for. You did as good as/better than the historical outcome! You achieved the (nigh impossible) plan! And so on. Varying degrees of success would be a great way to allow for partial successes and failures, and allow each player to set their own threshold for success.

This is a simple plea to think about inclusion of these changes either in errata or in the new editions. I think it would broaden the appeal and get even more people playing!

Looking forward to your comments,
-Carl

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
"Arrange whatever pieces come your way." Virginia Woolf
mbmbmbmbmb
Slimjack wrote:
1) Varying degrees of difficulty. Why aren't there varying degrees of difficulty?
I can't speak to why the game wasn't published with differing degrees of difficulty, but John Butterfield has written on BGG proposing some easier victory conditions.

I don't know how to put this up as a link, but this is what he wrote:

"The following proposed adjustments address concerns that the game is too difficult to win. I welcome comments on these adjustments before I declare them official. Thanks everybody for supporting DDAP with your comments and suggestions.

3.0, Pre-Invasion Bombardment. Disregard the exception; positions in hexes of all terrain types may be disrupted.

8.7 Reinforce Close Combat Event: If the US side reveals the card, or if the Japanese unit is out of communication, treat the Reinforcement event as no event. If the Japanese unit is a tank unit you draw a card but the unit does not receive a depth marker.

15.2: The second requirement for securing a position should read “all position hexes projecting intense fire into that hex are also occupied by US units or garrisons;”

15.2 Victory Conditions for 15 September scenario: You win by accomplishing any two of the following three objectives:
1. Secure 10 position hexes that project fire onto US landing beach hexes;
2. Secure 14 position hexes in Zone B;
3. Secure coral positions A5 and A6.
A given position may count for both objectives 1 and 2.

17.1 Victory Check at Turn 12 of Peleliu Assault scenario: You lose the scenario decisively if you have secured less than 10 position hexes.

17.2 Victory Check at Turn 24 of Peleliu Assault scenario: You win the scenario if you have secured all positions in Zones A and B. This condition is eased by the following: For each position you secure in Zones C or D, one position in Zone A or B need not be secured. For example, if you secure three positions in Zone C and two in Zone D, you would win if you secure all but five positions in Zones A and B."

Also, not what you asked but just how I feel: this is such an elegant game that I enjoy playing for the sake of playing. It doesn't bother me that I keep "losing". The game experience is superb.
3 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael J
United States
Folsom
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
One thing I do to make the game a bit more fun is play through catastrophic loss and just keep going. Sometimes I make a comeback. And no matter what, my troops get deeper into the map and I see more of the game. I've also been known to ignore VP checks (I count them, but don't stop if I fall 1 short). It's my game, and I can play how I want.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Åkerlund
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb

Only mr Butterfield himself can answer those questions.

I agree there are a lot of posts about how impossible it is to win - because it is. (The proposed changes don't change that by the way.)
However, what those posts also often say is that you will have a great time losing! The good thing with a game like this is that however well you do, you will always have room for improvement.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael J
United States
Folsom
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've never "won" golf. I played because it was fun, and I always tried to do better than my previous plays. It was bloody hard and I rarely did well. That doesn't mean it's not a good game that I enjoyed. I always felt optimistic on the first tee, and looked forward to my next outing. I feel the same way about DDAP and all the DDAY games.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gianluca Spessato
msg tools
I think that DDAP, even if impossible to win, is a wonderful game: so, I have, for my games, a "points-system" that allows me to compare them. So, even if I lose every time, it's really fun to see if i do better than in a previous game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Schnurr
United States
Oak Park
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for all the comments! I just finished my day-one learning game and absolutely loved it. I ended up winning, but don't really count that as I got lots of things wrong (mostly in my favor) and didn't rewind to fix my mistakes. I agree with all the posts saying that it's really hard, but satisfying.

All that said, I maintain that it's a best design practice for solitaire games to have non-binary winning conditions, or at least a formal way to measure the degree of success/failure.

This allows all types of players (hardcore, casual, etc.) to find their degree of fun within the game.
-Carl
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Butterfield
United States
Fremont
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Can you point me to these best design practices? I am not aware of them.
3 
 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.