bigus wrote:I don't want to ruin this tournament by divulging Cities and their worth. I won't state their worth unless asked by the tournement organizer.
I'm with Daxil! This bewilders me.
Why should the value of a military objective be secret? It seems a simple matter to examine the difference in VP/turn after an objective is taken or lost. ...Or do the values vary, dependent upon weather or troop concentrations or something equally obscure...?
I regard this particular scenario as among the best of all scenarios: good balance, good duration, an element of sudden death, and all the tricks, traps, and nuances that the scenario provides. I'm just confused as to why the "hidden" VP values are necessary. I'm fairly sure there's a good reason, so I'm not griping... just wondering.
This brings up an ethical question: is it considered "cheating" to run a self vs self game (i.e., AI turned off) for tournament preparation? I've been doing this to explore detection and the effect of different tactics and so on; and it would be fairly easy to deduce VP values while doing so. Is this wrong?
bigus wrote:...I will say this though... ...In Missouri you must garrison a VP city with Line infantry or Cavalry (not Militia) Or you will not get VP's for the City...
I predict a mad scramble...
bigus wrote:...I'll also state that Depots and Indian villages are not worth any VP...
Then why are some cities labeled as "strategic", if they hold no value to the player who controls them? Is this just a "flavor" thing?
bigus wrote:...You can check out the VP cities by clicking on the appropriate tab.
I'm assuming that you mean the "Objectives" tab in the ledger, where the three objective cities are listed on the right. If that's the case, does this mean that
all scenarios only award VPs to cities whose capture also affects NM? IMHO, this is a
profoundly significant thing, with sweeping implications for
all scenarios; and I believe that if this is the case, not only should it be mentioned in the manual, but
emphasized.