Firstly this is now about the missed orders, let's not get side tracked.
Not sure I get what the argument is, here. Extra resources are supposed to provide an advantage and all. The system as outlined by me also has some precedent, the Heroes series (granted, "spawn points", aka cities, were not the only resource points on the map), and several civsim games work on the same basic principle: cities/planets/whatever are the place where income is gained and units are built. Extra nuance there on whether "spawn points" are freely placeable on the map (you can more or less freely designate where you'll start a city) as opposed to imposed (that solar system has these habitable planets; those are your spawn point options).
It's all about the tipping point and game interest. In order for games not to end in stalemates/draws there needs to be a tipping point where one players advantage becomes insurmountable. If this happens too quickly games tend to be uninteresting. I certainly agree that some resource points should be spawn points to help cement an advantage, but if all resource points are spawn points I'd contend you get to the tipping point too quickly. What you want is a variety of resource points with different worths, some spawn points so that it a) forces players to fight away from their position of strength, b) provides more options about how you approach the scenario tactically.
WaterMonkey314 wrote:Without knowing 1) what orders of yours got skipped and 2) what will happen these next few turns, I can't say whether Mine Island will turn into a stalemate.
Remember as well that Two Cities is only on Turn 10 and Mine Island on Turn 6. A good portion of Two Cities has been my team falling back after losing two major stacks, and Mine Island has barely had any inter-team interaction until this last turn. It seems to me a bit early to declare them stalemates.
Trust me when I say Two Cities tends towards stalemate, and Mine Island appears to (but only because I don't have the knowledge that Bland has whether it be a significant difference in quality of unit design, the affect of some item(s), or some blindside twist built in the setting). The main problem with the games in general is as both sides always get a equal increase in resources, and can resupply from only fixed points, a sides positions becomes weaker the further it advances. Imagine the difference between playing a normal game of chess, and one where you can at the start of your turn return a captured pawn to the board on one of it's starting squares. I'd contend the later version would end up with a lot more stalemates.
The game I think of as most similar to the way we're playing these games in the Advance Wars series on the Gameboy advance (and earlier/later consoles). They are very well designed games, with a variety of unit types balanced with assorted rock-paper-scissor set ups. In those resources come from controlled buildings, and some of those buildings are unit spawn points, however because victory comes from either wiping out the other side, or capturing their HQ (which is typically surrounded with unit spawning buildings) victory requires you to claim the various resource city tiles from the opposing team to gain a resource advantage, and then park units on their spawn points to prevent them from creating more units each turn. Compare that to the games we've been running, where there is no real way to stop an enemy spawning units (unless you wipe them out completely) and there's no way to out resource the opposing team.
In that game advancing allows you to control more territory to increase your income, in the games we play advancing doesn't increase your resources it just takes you further from your supply base.
This is without even getting to how the way we run scouting only compounds this issue.
So yes while it might be a bit early to suggest they will end in stalemate, the scenarios as presented to the players (no hidden GM knowledge as with Mine Island) tends towards a stalemate.