Victory conditions editor question

[~Viajero]

Never done a map yet, but some of you that have may know the answer:

When preparing a custom battle map with its victory conditions etc, is there always a default set of victory points imposed by the game in addition to the ones I create?

If yes, can that default set of conditions be removed leaving only the ones I created (i.e. an objective zone "maintain" objective with, say, 500 points) and that´s it? Let´s say I intend not to have troop losses points in the equation, only objectives. Or do we always have to "swallow" those "default" additional conditions?

[Sergei]

No, the victory conditions are what ever you set them to be. If you don't set any, there is no way for either side to gain points.

[noob]

Never done a map yet, but some of you that have may know the answer:

When preparing a custom battle map with its victory conditions etc, is there always a default set of victory points imposed by the game in addition to the ones I create?

If yes, can that default set of conditions be removed leaving only the ones I created (i.e. an objective zone "maintain" objective with, say, 500 points) and that´s it? Let´s say I intend not to have troop losses points in the equation, only objectives. Or do we always have to "swallow" those "default" additional conditions?

A word of advice when creating terrain objectives, don't make big ones that fill a town etc because you only need a one legged blind man in any part of it at the end of the game to contest it and deny the opponent the points, when you come to place them make them small enough so only one side could feasably occupy them at the end of a game, for example in towns put small ones in important buildings so the player has to actually occupy the building to get the points and not the just the outhouse or a bush near it

[Ranger33]

Yeah, please be aware that right now, a lone totally broken and out of ammo crewman can contest a territory objective being occupied by a battalion of infantry, giving neither team any points. Multiple small objectives make things more interesting and flexible anyway. Maybe the player was able to capture 3/4 of the important buildings or intersections in a town, this allows him to score accordingly, as opposed to one big all or nothing objective.

A small request: clearly indicate terrain objectives as either occupy or touch, unless you do a high-quality briefing that makes this clear via the description. I've seen some scenarios where this will be in the on-map label (ie. Hill 134-T or Town Hall-O) and this is much appreciated by me and I'm sure many others.

[JonS]

A small request: clearly indicate terrain objectives as either occupy or touch, unless you do a high-quality briefing that makes this clear via the description. I've seen some scenarios where this will be in the on-map label (ie. Hill 134-T or Town Hall-O) and this is much appreciated by me and I'm sure many others.

While that's a reasonable suggestion, it looks kinda clunky and it's not really needed anyway. Touch objectives vanish once you've touched them, while Occupy objectives remain in place.

[ChrisND]

Another word of advice:

If you are rewarding VP for casualties inflicted on the enemy, doing it using Target objectives is best. That way the VP is scaled based on how much damage you inflicted. If you use Parameters as the bulk of VP for casualties, then you are forced into an all-or-nothing arrangement. A player can come just shy of the required % and not get any reward for it at all. Consequently, Parameter casualty VP should usually be used as small points bonuses for a certain level of performance.

[~Viajero]

Thanks guys

[noob]

Another thing i would consider is a method to avoid the need to come up with balanced forces by creating delaying action scenarios where time is the determining factor not points.

This can be achieved by giving the defender an exit zone strip along the rear edge of the map, thus allowing them to exit off the map when things got to hot as in a real battle, rather than being trapped on it and suffering unrealistic casualty levels or having to surrender.

The hard part would be in determining how long the defender has to stay on the map to achieve a victory given the OOB's of each side.

[A Canadian Cat]

Another thing i would consider is a method to avoid the need to come up with balanced forces by creating delaying action scenarios where time is the determining factor not points.

This can be achieved by giving the defender an exit zone strip along the rear edge of the map, thus allowing them to exit off the map when things got to hot as in a real battle, rather than being trapped on it and suffering unrealistic casualty levels or having to surrender.

Can you elaborate please? If the defender has exit zones then they can win by just rushing off the battlefield couldn't they? How do you reward him with points for holding on for x minutes?

[noob]

Can you elaborate please? If the defender has exit zones then they can win by just rushing off the battlefield couldn't they? How do you reward him with points for holding on for x minutes?

Whoever creates the scenario can just mention in the briefing how long the defender is expected to delay the attacker for, if the defender succeeds they win, if not they lose, the exit zones are there to allow players to exit blown units and their total force in a realistic way.

The whole point is to remove points as a determining factor for scenarios as they are so subjective and create mathematical complications, battles were usually fought for time, or locations, so you either buy the time or take the location, casualties tended to be a by product of those victory conditions, some units suffered horrendous casualties but still held ground and or bought time therefore winning the battles, Stalingrad is a perfect example.

Casualties could still be a factor if the historical situation demanded it, but casualties are more relevant to operational play than one off battles.

[mjkerner]

I've done that for my own scenarios, Noob, and have been working on one that I could release for the community, but I didn't think just stating in the briefing how long the defenders had to hold out before exiting would be too popular.

[noob]

I've done that for my own scenarios, Noob, and have been working on one that I could release for the community, but I didn't think just stating in the briefing how long the defenders had to hold out before exiting would be too popular.

I can see you point, most players like an official recognition of their win via the result screen, but if the scenario is good and well thought out and the briefing clear then that would certainly compensate for the lack of a marching band at the end of it in my experience i want a scenario that gives a reasonable chance for both sides to win or lose (i'm not bothered what sort of victory or defeat) and one that doesn't entail being a maths wizard to workout how the result was calculated

[A Canadian Cat]

Whoever creates the scenario can just mention in the briefing how long the defender is expected to delay the attacker for, if the defender succeeds they win, if not they lose, the exit zones are there to allow players to exit blown units and their total force in a realistic way.

Thanks for the clarification - I thought I was missing cool combination of victory conditions. Actually that might be kind of cool - touch objectives that are only available for a certain amount of time. After 30 min they disappear so if you cannot get there in time you cannot get those points. That might work.

[A Canadian Cat]

I've done that for my own scenarios, Noob, and have been working on one that I could release for the community, but I didn't think just stating in the briefing how long the defenders had to hold out before exiting would be too popular.

Wait a second! Can't we get this feel just by setting the scenario duration? The defenders need to delay the enemy for 30min. Create occupy or touch objectives towards the "back" of the map and set the scenario duration to 30 min. If the attackers get there before the scenario runs out the attackers win. If the defenders can prevent them from getting the objectives before the scenario time runs out the defenders win.

I think we can already do "defenders need to delay the attack for 30 min" type of scenarios.

[noob]

Thanks for the clarification - I thought I was missing cool combination of victory conditions. Actually that might be kind of cool - touch objectives that are only available for a certain amount of time. After 30 min they disappear so if you cannot get there in time you cannot get those points. That might work.

There are no objectives that disappear in CM, but what you could do is use the landmark function to place messages on various locations with the victory conditions for that location displayed as text, so for example if there is a church in a town in an attack / defence battle, the message could say "Whoever occupies the church at the end of the game wins", that way you do away with points and have a simple win or lose battle.

It makes the scenarios a lot easier to build and play as you don't have to calculate or try and predict the different point parameters to work out what you need to do in a game to win, it's all there written as text on the objectives.

[noob]

Wait a second! Can't we get this feel just by setting the scenario duration? The defenders need to delay the enemy for 30min. Create occupy or touch objectives towards the "back" of the map and set the scenario duration to 30 min. If the attackers get there before the scenario runs out the attackers win. If the defenders can prevent them from getting the objectives before the scenario time runs out the defenders win.

I think we can already do "defenders need to delay the attack for 30 min" type of scenarios.

That's true, but the exit zone allows the attacker to try and get on the defenders rear and bag the lot by being able to place fire on the exit lanes, so an attacker could win by a brilliant flanking move that could force the defender to exit early just to avoid the embarrassment of being surrounded and captured en masse.

[A Canadian Cat]

...you could do is use the landmark function to place messages on various locations with the victory conditions for that location displayed as text, so for example if there is a church in a town in an attack / defence battle, the message could say "Whoever occupies the church at the end of the game wins", that way you do away with points and have a simple win or lose battle.

But you could do that with the current victory point system too. There is only one occupy objective - just the church. Nothing else. Now whom ever occupies the church wins. No wordy land marks no nothing.

[noob]

But you could do that with the current victory point system too. There is only one occupy objective - just the church. Nothing else. Now whom ever occupies the church wins. No wordy land marks no nothing.

That's a fair point, as long as it's simple it's good IMO, so whether you get points or not as long as both parties know the church is the objective that's fine, using points would also generate a score and thus a result on the end of game result screen for the players that like that, so terrain objectives for points are fine as long as they are small enough so it's not easy for them to be contested, however i would dispense with points for casualties unless it's a block number for all the units in the OOB, which would then factor into how costly an objective was to take and possibly create a pyrhic victory situation which would be good.

In fact the more i think about it the more i agree with the fact that players like the end of game result screen so it would be good if CM introduced a point system for time as well as objectives and casualties.

[JonS]

terrain objectives for points are fine as long as they are small enough so it's not easy for them to be contested

But, that's the thing. Terrain objectives /should/ be contestable.

As an example, imagine a bridge in a valley (or a crossroads in the open). The bridge is considered Key Terrain, but where is the Vital Ground? It's not on the bridge, becuase you can own the bridge in the sense of having friendly forces on and around it, but the enemy can make it unusabe by having forces in the high ground around it (or, for the crossroad, in a building that overlooks it).

The whole point about controlling terrain is /controlling/ it. Yes, it's annoying when ... what was that phrase? When a one legged blind man cowering in an attic (OLMGCIAA) prevents you from receiving points. But I my opinion, if you haven't cleared the objective then, well, you haven't cleared the objective. Sure, Mr OLMGCIAA isn't much of a threat. At the moment. But he'll recover. And then he changes from being a potential threat to an actual threat. Its also probably true that you could easily clear Mr OLMGCIAA from the the objective by sending a clearing patrol through the place ... but if it was so easy why didn't you do that? Instead you left it to some other poor virtual sap to do the job after the scenario is complete, but you still want the points for it? Pfft.

Haivng said that, when setting terrain objectives, I tend to make them a reasonable size, but also to use a lot of them. And how I use them varies depending on the narrative of the scenario. In a recon scen I created a series of smallish touch objectives of various values at places of interest - fords, bridges, crossroads. The thinking there is that the recon actually needs to go to those places and see if they're mined, or if the ford is crossable, or if the bridge is blown. The unit target objectives that are also set mean that blundering around just trying to drive over all the green spots as quickly as possible will see the player lose. They'll need to use care, attention, and patience to gain the Touch points without losing too many Unit points.

in towns I tend to break up towns - and other defended areas - into logical subdivisions, based on feasible objectives - the Church and precinct, the market area, the north-west housing area, etc. Or, alternately, based on logical defensive zones - 1 Platoon Obj west of the crossroads, 2 Platoon Obj east of the crossroads, 3 Platoon Obj in depth, Company HQ Obj in and around the big building. Or Outpost Line, Main Defensive Position, Reserve Position. That kind of thing, rather than just having a single obj covering the whole town. That way both the attakcer and defender get recognition for partial acheivement of the overall objective of taking/holding the town.

It also means that the final points spread is a bit more nuanced, and draws or close fights become more likely. If all the points budget is loaded against a single objective, then the final scoring tends to be a bit boring: Axis 0: Allies 1000, or Axis 1000 : Allies 0, or Axis 0 : Allies 0. Meh. That doesn't really tell me anything interesting. By using a range of terrain objs (and unit objs) and giveing them useful names that end-game victory screen becomes something interesting to read.

IMO

[noob]

But, that's the thing. Terrain objectives /should/ be contestable.

I wasn't saying they shouldn't be, just a bit harder to retake if lost.

As an example, imagine a bridge in a valley (or a crossroads in the open). The bridge is considered Key Terrain, but where is the Vital Ground? It's not on the bridge, becuase you can own the bridge in the sense of having friendly forces on and around it, but the enemy can make it unusabe by having forces in the high ground around it (or, for the crossroad, in a building that overlooks it)

But if the actual bridge is the objective you would of had to have cleared the areas you mention to get men onto the bridge, and to be able to cover any one on it, so the bridge as a small objective forces you to remove any enemy overwatch positions as a precursor to getting and holding it, therefore the points should go to the player possessing the actual bridge at the end of the game.

Why don't you make a scenario design tutorial with diagrams for public consumption, you seem to put a lot of thought into designing, if there was a guide then it could make life easier for beginners and increase the quality and amount of H2H scenarios available, and also allow other players / designers to discuss the content and make suggestions.

[JonS]

But if the actual bridge is the objective you would of had to have cleared the areas you mention to get men onto the bridge

Not the ones on the other side of the river.

Why don't you make a scenario design tutorial with diagrams for public consumption, you seem to put a lot of thought into designing, if there was a guide then it could make life easier for beginners and increase the quality and amount of H2H scenarios available, and also allow other players / designers to discuss the content and make suggestions.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm going to have to politely decline Scenario design is like opnions, and you know what they say about opnions

But if I were to try and distill some advice down to a short paragraph, it'd probably go something like this: Your scenario should create a situation in which the player has to plan and think his way out. Not a puzzle, but not just driving the bulldozer foward either. Think long and hard about the situation you're trying to create, and then think through what are the important factors. Take this, hold that, save these guys, kill those ones. Then think about how you're going to weight those factors. Is holding the village more, or less, important than losing all your men doing it? What does 'holding the village' actually mean? Resist the temptation to turn every scenario into a kitchen-sink scenario. Your scenario should create a interesting and unique sitauation, with interesting and unique forces. So only use objectives and forces if they make sense within the context of your scenario, not just because they're available in the editor. But it all comes back to the situation you're creating. What is the One Big Idea for your scenario? Defend the village against an armoured attack? Cool. Base everything around that. Attack across a river to secure a bridge? Cool, just think through carefully what 'securing the bridge' really means, which will generally mean telling the player why /his/ virtual commander has got a bee in his bonnet about the bridge, and then structure the objectives along those lines.

Most NATO-aligned militaries use an orders format which includes a section on intentions. When giving orders you must explain your commanders intentions in detail, and /his/ commanders intentions in outline. So in the bridge example, say you are a company commander. You battalion commanders intention might be to secure a bridgehead 1km out from the river, anchored on the ridge at GR123456 and the villages of Erewhon and Dullsville, in order to allow unimpeded use of the bridge. /His/ commander, the Brigade Commander, might have as his intention something like secure the bridege and bridgehead in order to allow the forward passage of exploiting forces. When you design a scenario you should - I think - think through those kinds of things. Don't just throw a company of this with a platoon of that down on the map, point them at a village or hill and yell 'GO!' Create a solid context to ground all your design decisions on, and use that context situate the player in your scenario.

Ok, that's two longish paragraphs

[noob]

Not the ones on the other side of the river.

Those positions should be suppressed if you mange to get men onto the bridge itself.

[JonS]

Those positions should be suppressed if you mange to get men onto the bridge itself.

Yes, they should. But what if one of the positions hides for a bit? What if there's an FO with access to artillery over there somewhere?

You cannot call the bridge secure until the bridge and all terrain that overlooks it is cleared. Really cleared. Because even Mr OLMGCIAA can call in artillery fire, or snipe Patton as he flounces across the bridge you told him was secure.

[noob]

Not if it's an FO with access to artillery.

True, the point about the bridge in your paragraphs is good, this would shift the emphasis off the bridge and onto the bridgehead which makes more sense.

Also i like your summation, scenario design is more like being a war film director, so if the design is good the film will be and the actors will enjoy the experience

[JonS]

shift the emphasis off the bridge and onto the bridgehead

Yep. I don't particularly want a hammer, or a ladder, and I especially don't want a hole in my wall. But if I want to hang up this painting I'm going to need all those things.

The design of The Bridge at Varraville scenario is a really good example. The focus is the bridge, but the bridge isn't an objective. The Canadian force of paras is very small, so the 'bridgehead' they hold is correspondingly tiny, but well chosen since that building dominates the bridge. By holding the building - rather than trying to position guys on the bridge itself - the Canadians deny use of the bridge to the Germans.