I've been thinking about this, and when I woke up this morning I think I arrived at something:

5pt gambit is not enough of an incentive (or penalty) to encourage engagement (or to penalize avoidance). I agree with Randy, who is not interested in playing hide-and-seek for 45 minutes and then killing 30 or 40pts of pieces at the end of the match to get a "win." 5pt gambit allows this, because if you're the avoidance-minded player there's no real danger of putting yourself in too much trouble if your opponent only has 25 or 30 extra points. But 50 or 60 extra points? That's a big deal, and not to be taken lightly.

I think that part of the deal with gambit points is that they have to actually mean something. If a gambit deficit is easily overcome then it hasn't done its job. In order for gambit points to work properly, they should present the threat of causing the game to end before the avoidance-minded player wants it to.

I say 10pt gambit pieces at 10 paces. May the best fodder piece win!!

With all due respect - no you haven't. Your scenarios don't make logical sense. Any scenario that has been presented is currently possible.

You have to actually engage to kill the other squad - correct? (I don't see how this can be argued)

You can get gambit and not engage - correct? (again - lock doors, different rooms of gambit without doors connecting them {opposite sides of a wall}, outactivate go into gambit run away, etc)

So gambit can allow someone to not engage, and still earn points.

With my proposal, both squads MUST engage if they want a 3 point win. It would be bad for either side to not engage, because that means they are less likely to get a full win.

The scenario that was laid out with someone stalling is far more specific and less likely than what we currently have. Currently players can game gambit to get ahead and stall all day with literally zero engagement. And you theorize that by forcing games to go on that would give even more incentive to stall? That makes absolutely zero sense.


Look - I'll go back to the bottom line - people abuse gambit. Players are literally building squads to NOT engage, and simply score enough gambit to win. It has made the game much less fun. Many people agree with this.

If we force people to keep playing until one squad is killed or time - they are going to go after more kills more quickly.

Just so you all are aware - I proposed my change based on not only conversations on the boards, but also conversations with people directly (phone, bloomail, in person)

There are some who are EXTREMELY against any change to gambit scoring (lowering, not scored if both teams are present, etc).

Knowing it would get INTENSE resistance, I proposed a change simply to end of game conditions.

I see a few of you getting all excited about changing gambit, and it is something I put great thought into and discussed with many people.

Those people are by in large remaining silent right now. But if it looks like there is a chance of it happening, there will be thunderous resistance.

I'll be honest - I was SHOCKED at some of the vitriol I received when this was all brought up several months ago. We had lots of threads, with many voices and many suggestions. It all got muddy for sure. I was struggling to understand all the different pulls myself.

Thus I did, in earnest, talk to several people individually that seemed upset, and tried to understand their PoV. That is when I started to understand how invested some players were in our current system of gambit. I honestly had no idea before.

So after much thought, and trying to keep those considerations in mind, (and letting some of the vitriol die down) - I came to pinpoint what I thought would be the least controversial thing - simply that one specific endgame condition.

I think the players I spoke to that are adimantly against gambit changes, are ok with my proposal. I do not think they would be with Trevor's.



I think many of us are on the same page more or less - same general goal. Different approaches and theories on what will work best. That's to be expected.


I do think gambit being scored only if one team is in it alone would be better than what we have now. I also think it has less chance of happening. Thus why I made my proposal.


I think there is a change needed, that much is pretty clear. What change is the question.


What I don't want to have happen - is infighting here (so to speak) costing us the chance for any meaningful change. There are players biting there tongue - hoping this will all go away.

I don't intend to let it. Too many people share my concern and have acknowledged that is legitimate, even if some disagree with how to solve it.

Games need to be decided in battle, not in occupying a space. It's as simple as that

Heck I'd even go one step further and say Trevor's suggestion (Gambit scored only is one team is alone in it), and my suggestion (games don't end early unless everyone is dead) COMBINED would be ideal, but I don't see that happening.

Can we summarize what the options are from all this? (so far)

I would think some play testing would be in order...knowing this is not something that will be easily changed. (in minds or on paper)

* Gain gambit for a 10pt piece, 10pts if alone in gambit, 0pts each if both in gambit, game ends at kill-em-all or time (Timmer+tint)

If this is true, maybe refrain from comments such as...



It could lead someone to believe that you are merely bringing it up so that you can shout down any opposition. Especially when you ignore the the point that the post was trying to get to.



Thank you Trevor for translating my apparently incoherent ramblings for everyone.

I just caught up on this thread. As an old player testing the waters by playing in some Vassal tournaments, my position in the game... and thus my perspective... has changed. After 'retiring' from the game in 2017 and returning this year to play a bit on Vassal, I don't share the investment that many of you have. I think in reading my comments that should be taken in consideration, but not to the point that my opinion would be irrelevant.

Like Tint, I thought Timmer's concern was valid. I waited for more voices here.

I really like Randy's suggestion of 10pts if you are the only one in gambit, opts if you both are. I thought Tint demonstrated how that starts to address Timmer's concern. Does it solve it? I don't know, but I DO know that it is the right direction to go. We should at least implement that.

With that adjustment in place, is there an issue with not ending the game before time is called because of points? What if we let the game go to time THEN award a 3pt win based on points?