What is victory? A simple question with a complicated answer. Before the TPG2 site (and considering TPG2 only), I would have said "victory is having more victory points than Earl at the end of the allotted time." I would probably have added something about being in a position to capitalize on the victory after the game was over. How many times have you won by the skin of your teeth and known that if the game was one turn longer you would have been dog meat?
That was before such scenarios as 'Death Stand' and my own Island scenario. Death Stand was difficult to lose on points, but what is victory when you know you're going to be completely eliminated in the end. I believe that any one who played the game could be considered victorious, for it takes a great deal of courage to go into that kind of situation. I have a feeling that most everyone who played Death Stand went into that first turn saying, "I don't think Ron could have made it that hard. I'll bet I can beat it."
In the case of Death Stand, victory was declared by Ron, and the rest of us, as 'the player that survived the longest.' BTW: Death Stand still has not been beat. I've played it dozens of times and 35 turns is almost easy for me now. I also tried a variation where the reinforcements came in on turn 10 (like the original LD said). It helped, but not quite enough to survive the whole 40 turns.
So we have a game where the victory point numbers show a win, but the players entire force dies in the end.
What does this do to us as designers and as a community?
The designer now has the option of creating other victory conditions within the scenario. Victory Point Locations are still useful as they tend to direct Earl, but they aren't necessarily necessary as victory conditions.
For Example: The long description of the game states that 'to win you must own all VP locations.' That seems obvious until you realize that you don't have to own all the VP locations at the end to win by VPs. Forcing the player to own all VP locations at game end requires a different strategy than just winning by VPs. The player might have to conserve his forces and make a final push at the end instead of a mass assault at the beginning.
Now that the ice has been broken a little by some scenarios, we can get even more creative. For Example: Every airplane that starts the game must survive until the end to win. Why? Who cares? (I'll let Pense come up with the rational for that one.) Again, this changes the player's strategy (not tactics). Instead of using the airplanes all willy-nilly, the player must choose his targets very carefully, making sure that there are no MGs around and not attacking areas that aren't sighted perfectly. Not to mention the kind of defenses the airports themselves need.
The community has to accept whatever victory conditions are placed on the scenario by the author. I don't think that'll be a problem with our group. We're all honest and love a good challenge. If one player didn't follow the victory conditions, his results wouldn't be valid for the scenario anyway.
One more thing for consideration: Remember those table top wargames with the little cardboard counters? Several of the ones I still have (and some are very old. I have one with a price list for new material and a new map board (2ft. by 3ft.) costs 60 cents.) offer multiple victory conditions like this:
Each type of victory had a list of required conditions to be met.
I have attempted to do this with Kev's Isle. I think that the addition of various 'levels' of victory would be a useful indicator of both a scenario's design and other player's ability. Beginning players would have something to work toward without feeling the scenarios are too hard and the Expert player would still have (hopefully) some challenge.
I'm certainly not suggesting everyone do this, but consider something like it for your next scenario. If you can, try it out once to see what the results are and if it meets with community approval.