Why do the victory conditions change?

[ASWO]

Why do the victory conditions change as the point value of the fleets vary?

100 pts -> 3 objectives = win. (150 pts)
200 pts -> 3 objectives + destroying 12.5% of opposing fleet = win. (250 pts)
300 pts -> 3 objectives + destroying 33% of opposing fleet = win. (400 pts)
500 pts -> 3 objectives = win. (600 pts)

Was this to keep the objectives at easy to remember numbers? (50,75, 100, 200) Or perhaps to make each build level play tactically different?

Any thoughts on this?

[computerizedfish]

I thought that you could only take 2 of the 3 objectives. So, the values have to go up a little every time so you dont have to kill so much of the other guys fleet to win. Although I dont have the rule book next to me so I dont remember if thats right.

[XAos]

Any thoughts on this?
Looks like the classic choice between the conspiracy theory & the incompetance theory.:D
Except that A/H is supposed to be "conspiring" to produce a tactically interesting game, with minimum rules complexity.:) Since this particular rule does increase the tactical complexity I'll go with the consipracy theory on this one.:cool:

[ASWO]

I thought that you could only take 2 of the 3 objectives.

If this is in the rulebook, I haven't seen it.

Looks like the classic choice between the conspiracy theory & the incompetance theory.

The changing victory conditions could be intentional or unintentional without being incompetent design.

How does being forced to destroy aspects of the opponent's fleet change gameplay, if at all?

[Uncle_Joe]

The thing I like about the 3 Objective = Win is that it makes it tougher on the heavy sub/air builds. They are in a real race against time to stop a surface fleet from claiming the objectives and they loses instantly if all 3 are taken.

When the objectives dont add up to a win, then the sub/air can make a concerted effort to kill ASW assets early on rather than defending objective. And once the ASW is gone, then surface fleet just becomes target practice.

[Bigblue2]

Doesn't the increase in the victory points mean that the larger battles will play quicker?

[ASWO]

Doesn't the increase in the victory points mean that the larger battles will play quicker?

I'm not sure what you mean. The objectives are worth varying amounts in proportion to the victory conditions. This changing proportion has an effect on how many points of the opposing fleet you must defeat in order to win.

[shousa]

I'm not sure what you mean. The objectives are worth varying amounts in proportion to the victory conditions. This changing proportion has an effect on how many points of the opposing fleet you must defeat in order to win.

What he means is that at 100 and 500 points you can win solely by claiming objectives, while at 200 and 300 claiming all the objectives does not necessarily result in immediate victory. Taking this further, claiming 2 of 3 objectives gets you closer to winning at 100 or 500 than it does at 200 or 300. Objectives become more or less important and claiming them a more or less viable strategy depending on the point level of the game. This is a bit confusing and I can see why the OP brought it up.

[Walgers]

Just like the 100 point games stated in the rulebook we give the objectives a pointvalue of half the maximum fleet sizes. Therefor the missionendings are similar to the standard mission.