IHMN VP scaling option

[gorillacrab]

Craig and Gents,
Been asking questions on other forums, here's my first at LAF.
Wondering if the designers or players have considered basing the Victory Points for eliminating an enemy on the cost/value of the enemy.

Consider that if you kill 3 Cultists worth a grand total of 9 cost points, you get 6 VP.
However, if you storm and kill a soldier with a military rifle worth 25-30 cost points, you get only 2 VP.

This imbalance makes it frustratingly difficult for factions with lowly followers, such as cultists or other "grunts", to win (even applying powers like Water Bullets).

We've discussed the option of scaling the VPs to 10% of the cost of a figure. So 1-10 figure is worth 1 VP, 11-20 2 VP, etc. There may be better ways to fix the scaling, but the principle would seem to make a fairer - and more rewarding game. What do you guys think?

And a followup question which may have already been asked - if you kill a jaeger, do you get VPs even as he converts to his zombified state?

Again, our group is really liking this game but these rules issues are intriguing.
- Walt

[Thorwin]

I think the 2 point system per figure should be really fixed. The 10 % option is a good start, I personally count only mission goals and leaders. I hope the campaign options will be increased , I love experience based campaigns like Mortheim.

[cmnash]

We've discussed the option of scaling the VPs to 10% of the cost of a figure. So 1-10 figure is worth 1 VP, 11-20 2 VP, etc. There may be better ways to fix the scaling, but the principle would seem to make a fairer - and more rewarding game. What do you guys think?

Sounds very sensible to me and I'll be interested to see what Craig thinks of it

And a followup question which may have already been asked - if you kill a jaeger, do you get VPs even as he converts to his zombified state?

So if you kill it after it becomes a zombie, do you get the VP twice? first time for killing the figure as a jaeger and second time when it's a zombie?

[Mr. Peabody]

Mr. Gorilla, this sounds like a reasonable plan, and worth giving a go.
As long as the adjusted victory points values don't mean that every game with an objective might just as well be a shoot'em-up.

I'll brush off my fez and ready the Workers Security Detachment of the Northern Electric Co.

[gorillacrab]

"As long as the adjusted victory points values don't mean that every game with an objective might just as well be a shoot'em-up."

- yes, I considered this point. It would seem reasonable to also adjust the "scenario objectives" VPs - say double them - to ensure the game does NOT become a shoot 'em up
- or, as someone else suggested, simply count VPs for scenario objectives and leaders, which is very clean. And consider in an old Star Trek, it didn't matter how many security guys in red shirts died, only that Kirk and Spock survived

[Craig]

Dear Mr Crab,

I think that you have an intriguing point there and would be interested to see how this actually works in one of the standard scenarios from the book. Perhaps you'd like to write that up as an example?

Currently Charles and I are just three weeks from our deadline for the first supplement so we can't really divert our attention much from that scary objective 

I shall follow this discussion with interest and see how it plays out. if you are quick then some of the ideas might either make it into the supplement or I could write up an alternate rules sheet to add to the blog.

[gorillacrab]

Mr Cartmell,
I shall write back on this issue well within your 3 week deadline - we have 1 large game Friday and will arrange for another shortly.

In the upcoming game we will be using a system with Scenario Points as listed, 7 VP for the team leader, 5 VP for any "main characters" - determined as those costing over 30 points. Will let you know how it plays - and thanks for following this issue.
- Walt

[gorillacrab]

Craig and Gents,
As discussed, here are some notes and results on the subject of Victory Point options based on a recent 3-sided game at the Trumpeter Society’s monthly game night in Vancouver.

From the onset, the emphasis was “the mission is paramount”, so achieving the scenario objective was given greater victory point allocation than simply eliminating enemy figures.
In the example of our game, the mission was to grab an important scientist (Professor Custard) who had made a major discovery at a dig in the Sahara – and get him to the river and away on a boat.

Prof Custard’s exit was worth 12 VP (more on that later) and his assistant’s exit was worth 5 VP. The 12 Victory Points were based on the VPs for eliminating major characters. Eliminating the designated team leader is worth 7 VPs and eliminating any other “main character” (worth over 30 cost points) is worth 5 VPs.

To keep things simple, rank-and-filers costing 30 points or less do not yield victory points.

Therefore, Prof Custard’s fate was worth the same as a Team Leader and 1 major charcter, which seemed a reasonable balance.

One important note on the character’s VPs. In earlier posts, we discussed the idea of scaling VPs according to the character’s points cost. But this can lead to a challenge in balance: equipping Akhenton of my Ra Cult with a Lion Bow costs out at 135 points – making him worth 14 VPs in a 10% scaled system.

Meanwhile, a crafty leader of the British Explorers with a deadly hunting rifle (-2 pluck!) costs a mere 73 points – or 8 VPs.

With these kind of balance issues in an asymmetrical game it seemed “neater” to make all major characters worth the same (5 VPs), make the leaders a bit more important (7 VPs) – and make things easier still by placing most of the VP weight on winning the scenario objectives.

This system played out fairly well in our scenario, involving Ra, Thule and firepower-heavy Brit explorers. Using Mystic Powers, the Ra cultists were able to move swiftly and grab the Professor, with the Mummy leading him to the river. The Germans closed in for some fierce fighting while the Explorers stayed back and laid on deadly fire.

Drawing attacks from both Germans and Brits, the Ra faction dissolved as it neared the river bank (losing the Mummy and Akhenaton in the process) – but the Germans properly won as they were closer to the objective – grabbed the poor bewildered professor as the Mummy shredded in bullets – and ran Custard to the boat for 12 VPs.

I know this isn’t the last word on this issue but it is the kind of option that IHMN players may consider as they plan scenarios.
- Walt

[Craig]

If you fancy writing up the VP rules and methodology it may be worth putting on the IHMN blog as an alternative for others.

[gorillacrab]

Craig,
I would be pleased to contribute to your fine blog. Do you have any deadline requirements? (we're running another group game in 3 days and I'd like to test things again.)

Also should acknowledge that your core rules already do a masterful job of "making the scenario objective paramount" by usually awarding a healthy 20 VPs for objectives. I think my piece deals more with balancing/simplifying things at the other end of the food chain by eliminating points for rank-and-filers worth 30 points or less (eliminating all those VPs for killing cheap cultists or grunts) and making the team leader worth a little more, 7 VP - and explaining why games may which to do so.

All the best from the evergreen colonies.
- Walt

[gorillacrab]

Craig and group,
Here is my "article" on a VP variants, briefly summarizing the process of how they came together. I trust this may be of interest and of use to IHMN players:

Background: It all started with a mini-mob of cultists. Or, more accurately, it started with Craig’s advice not to be afraid of tweaking rules – “if there is a rule you do not like…change to suit” on page 7.

As our group dove into our first games of “Majesty”, an issue did arise that led to debates about balance.  Namely, in most scenarios players earn 2 victory points for eliminating any non-leader characters in play. There was no discrimination between low-cost, untrained cultists (only 3 build points) or well-armed and drilled regulars (25-30 points or more).
In gameplay, eliminating 4 cultists with weak pluck (total build cost 12 points) earned an opponent 8 VP while overcoming the trained regular (25+ points) earned only 2 VP. This seemed to penalize those factions meant to have significant numbers of low-cost rank-and-filers such as Boxer or the Cult of Ra.

Playtesting some games with alternate victory points seemed in order.

The Golden Rule for Victory Points: Right off we agreed on the main principle for victory points which was already in the Rules as Written – the major source of victory points must be based on achieving scenario objectives. Yes, taking losses was bad for our specialized companies but objectives were often earth-shattering secrets that had to be taken at all costs.

And indeed many official scenarios feature 20 VPs for major objectives – that’s the equivalent of four leaders at 5 VPs each. The only time our balance issue emerged was for games with multiple objectives; if several players each grabbed 20 VPs in vital documents then those cumulative losses of lowly 2 VP figures could swing the balance.

It seemed like a good idea: Our first inspiration for better balance was to simply scale VPs to the build cost of the figure. It appeared so simple. Figures worth 1-10 build points earned 1 VP, 11-20 pointers earned 2 VPs, 21-30 got 3 – and so on.

Unfortunately, things unravelled when dealing for uber-elite leaders and characters costing a bucket load of points. In one game I fielded Akhenaton to lead the Ra team and gave him Ramses’ Lion Bow to boost cult firepower – a grand total 127 build points. Taking out this single figure, and it has been done, would earn you 13 VPs – which proved far too high.

The Red Shirt reasoning: Then, we got a better idea from Star Trek. Whether they were groups of poorly armed cultists or well-drilled regulars, pretty well all characters costing 30 points or less are all the equivalent of red-uniformed security grunts on the original Star Trek. You know a few of these guys may die in a mission, and while it’s too bad, it never really matters by the end of the show.

So, no VPs for eliminating models worth 30 build points or less – clean and simple. (Or pick your own points number for this threshold, say 35).
Star Power: Building on this model, we reasoned eliminating “main characters” (those worth over 30 points) was noteworthy – the equivalent of taking out a senior officer. That deserves significant VP recognition – but not at the 20 VP level of scenario objectives. So, 5 VPs for eliminating a character costing over 30 BPs.

Finally, undermining an enemy force by eliminating the team leader is a major event – so 7 VPs for claiming a leader. (Leader is the head honcho at the start of the game with the highest leadership rating, not the second-in-command who also has a leadership stat.)

Summarizing: Scenario Objectives: as written; characters costing 30 or less BPs: 0 VPs; “major characters” over 30 BPs: 5 VPs; Starting Leader: 7 VPs.

In conclusion: We played the game with these specifications in multi-objective games and found they played quite well. Players leading factions such as Ra could very properly use lower-grade figures as massed cannon fodder without worrying that it might cost them the game. Conversely, eliminating an enemy’s 5 VP major character was generally cause for jubilation.
 
You may wish to try these minor variants – and naturally adjust the numbers “to suit” your vision of the game.
Thanks to Craig for his entertaining game system and for his encouragement of players to tinker and experiment. Enjoy!
- Walter Melnyk/Trumpeter Tabletop Games Society

[Craig]

An interesting take on the VP issue. Well done that chap!

I shall actually do some Majestic-math once we 've despatched HVF to Osprey. 

[gorillacrab]

Migawd,
Another reason to look forward to the first supplement - and you starting a new job.
Most impressive.
- W

[cmnash]

Well written, concise and well explained article groillacrab, I salute you!

I do have one question though ... Just to be clear, if your leader costs more than 30 BPs, as I suspect most do (I don't have the rules to hand), your opponent gets 7 VPs for eliminating them and not 12?
i.e. 7 [leader] + 5 [more than 30 BPs]

I understand you to mean that the leader gives 7 VP whether or not they are 30+ BPs; I just wanted to be sure I've understood you correctly

[gorillacrab]

It would be pretty well impossible to have a leader costing less than 30 build points. Also confirming that killing the starting leader earns 7 VP, not 12 VP.

Thanks for your feedback. I also see that the first supplement promises some math tweaks. The constant search for rules perfection.