Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Design flaw?
#1
Quote:In playing the Kokoda Campaign, the description of the first battle (Delusion) indicates that "all four scenarios come with victory points". However, the fourth scenario of that battle, Pursuit, does not list any VP's in its victory conditions, but rather occupancy of a village hex for which there are no VP's indicated . When both players have satisfied the "pivotal" requirements for victory,  VP totals are necessary to decide the winner, so it seems this scenario becomes meaningless unless there are points associated with it. Are there VP's listed somewhere else for this critical scenario other than in the scenario description itself?

I had posted the question above about a month ago, but have had no responses, so thought that I would try again. Having played through this campaign battle, with both players having achieved the "pivotal" requirements for a possible victory, the fourth scenario (which is a repeat of the second introductory scenario) has no VP's listed. Ergo, it seems superfluous to play it  since when both players have satisfied the pivotal requirements for victory, the overall battle outcome is decided by VP's, and the scenario has none. If anyone associated with the campaign design is out there, please lmk how to play this.
Reply
#2
If you want to use the victory conditions from Kokoda Trail, scenario #4: Pursuit, it should be the same:

Victory Conditions:
A player who scores three to six more victory points (VPs) than his opponent scores a Minor Victory, and a player who scores at least seven more VPs than his opponent scores a Major Victory. Any other result is a draw. Players score victory points as follows:

Australian:
* One VP for each Japanese step eliminated.
* Three VPs if the village hex is under Australian control at the end of play.

Japanese:
* One VP for each Australian step eliminated.
* Five VPs if the village hex is under Japanese control at the end of play.

Anyway, that is what I would use, as I do not own Kokoda Campaign but only Kokoda Trail but I'll bet the scenario is pretty much the same, as it uses the same counters and maps.
Reply
#3
No, conditions from Kokoda Trail and Kokoada Campaign are not always the same.

You may want to send a PM to Matt Ward about your post; he wrote the campaign conditions and I did a bad a bad job verifying them in this case.
Reply
#4
(01-23-2017, 04:31 AM)JayTownsend Wrote: If you want to use the victory conditions from Kokoda Trail, scenario #4: Pursuit, it should be the same:

Victory Conditions:
A player who scores three to six more victory points (VPs) than his opponent scores a Minor Victory, and a player who scores at least seven more VPs than his opponent scores a Major Victory. Any other result is a draw. Players score victory points as follows:

Australian:
* One VP for each Japanese step eliminated.
* Three VPs if the village hex is under Australian control at the end of play.

Japanese:
* One VP for each Australian step eliminated.
* Five VPs if the village hex is under Japanese control at the end of play.

Anyway, that is what I would use, as I do not own Kokoda Campaign but only Kokoda Trail but I'll bet the scenario is pretty much the same, as it uses the same counters and maps.

Thanks so much for your reply. I had purchased the game to introduce another gamer to the PG system, as it was described as a complete campaign game. However, the victory conditions for "Pursuit" in the monograph provided with the game indicate only village control for victory with no points listed for eliminations or village hex control. Your clarification is really appreciated as we'll use the Kokoda Trail option that you provided; it makes perfect sense and hopefully will be included in the rules booklet with any updates that AP does on the game.
Reply
#5
Pardon my absence.  "Pursuit" was originally included in Kokoda Campaign twice with different rule sets and different victory conditions.  First, as an introductory scenario with the victory conditions that you note and once as a component of "Delusion" with the following victory conditions:

Players score victory points (VPs) as follows:

Australian
● One for each Japanese step eliminated.
● Three if the village hex is under Australian control at the end of play.

Japanese
● One for each Australian step eliminated.
● Five if the village hex is under Japanese control at the end of play.

Minor Victory: Achieve three to six more VPs than your opponent.
Major Victory: Achieve at least seven more VPs than your opponent.

Which is what Jay provided upthread from the Kokoda Trail scenario and what was submitted for publication for Kokoda Campaign.  When the document was provided for the game a decision was made by the publisher to remove the duplicative scenarios and refer to the introductory scenarios as appropriate for the Battle Games in order to reduce the size of the document and its consequent cost (I believe).  I apologize that the victory condition change was not noticed by the publisher as it represents a significant difference resulting from the higher complexity of the full rule set.
No "minor" country left behind...
Reply
#6
(01-24-2017, 11:32 AM)Matt W Wrote: Pardon my absence.  "Pursuit" was originally included in Kokoda Campaign twice with different rule sets and different victory conditions.  First, as an introductory scenario with the victory conditions that you note and once as a component of "Delusion" with the following victory conditions:

Players score victory points (VPs) as follows:

Australian
● One for each Japanese step eliminated.
● Three if the village hex is under Australian control at the end of play.

Japanese
● One for each Australian step eliminated.
● Five if the village hex is under Japanese control at the end of play.

Minor Victory: Achieve three to six more VPs than your opponent.
Major Victory: Achieve at least seven more VPs than your opponent.

Which is what Jay provided upthread from the Kokoda Trail scenario and what was submitted for publication for Kokoda Campaign.  When the document was provided for the game a decision was made by the publisher to remove the duplicative scenarios and refer to the introductory scenarios as appropriate for the Battle Games in order to reduce the size of the document and its consequent cost (I believe).  I apologize that the victory condition change was not noticed by the publisher as it represents a significant difference resulting from the higher complexity of the full rule set.
Thanks for the clarification. When we got to that scenario, it seemed sort of pointless to play it since both of us had the pivotal requirements, and the VP's would then decide the battle winner. So, with no VP's for the scenario as listed, meh? This makes perfect sense and it's too bad that it got edited out....might be good to throw it in as an errata here until an updated rules booklet is printed?
Reply
#7
I will be entering the Battle Games as scenarios into the database and those adjustments/errata will be put there and into the scenario itself.
No "minor" country left behind...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)