Battle Games Poll?

[Matt W]

"If there was some sort of point system to rebuild units or if later battles had more units show up then what could happen is if someone loses battle one badly they just 'retreat' from battle 2 and... no that's not going to work. If it's a linked battle, say, around capturing a town running from battle 2 gives the town to the other side negating the rest of the battles. "

Look for the Winter Soldiers scenario book. It includes one of the first real campaign games for PG. Called "Steadfast and Loyal" it gives you the chance to take the 4th Infantry from Normandy to Germany. Like "Brave but Futile" in the Panzer Lehr supplement, it includes a point system that permits you to rebuild units, etc. at the cost of being less active in a turn (a turn being a PG scenario. As I mentioned before, though, the scenarios aren't historical but rather evocative.

"Where preserving the troops is as important as winning so you have them around for later battles."

You won't like the 1941 Soviets or the NKPA....

Seriously, though, some of the armed forces that we have modeled in PG were less concerned with force preservation than others. We need to pay more attention to that in the victory conditions.

One victory condition I have been introducing is the ability of the operational defender to blunt the attacker by reducing their initiative. I know that I could do the same thing with loss targets but the idea of taking the wind out of the attacker's sails seems to me to be a better fit viscerally. Get the attacker down to a zero initiative and you've done your job. From an operational perspective that means no "advance after combat", for example.