How real is too real? Questions regarding simulated war crimes

[JonS]

I agree, that's why scenario designers should place friendly exit zones in their scenarios, but they don't

Instead of leaving the impression that scenario designers are just useless clods, how about a mention of /why/ scenario designers deliberately omit exit zones in most scenarios?

[JonS]

This is not CM's remit, what you describe is more suited to a strategical or role playing game which CM is not.

Actually, it is within CMs remit. Dealing with prisoners, like arranging battlefield ammunition resupply and dealing with casualties, is a major drain on resources at the tactical level.

Like buddy aid, CM encourages the player to deal with PWs, but only lightly (if you move friendly forces away from enemy units attempting to surrender they might 'un-surrender').

[noob]

Instead of leaving the impression that scenario designers are just useless clods

What a massive over reaction, if you think scenario designers are useless clods that's your business, i just stated a fact about scenarios.

how about a mention of /why/ scenario designers deliberately omit exit zones in most scenarios?

There is no mention of why scenario designers deliberately omit exit zones in most scenarios because i don't know the reasons why scenario designers deliberately omit exit zones in most scenarios, but i would be happy to find out.

[JonS]

I suggest you acquaint yourself with how exit zones function. You are probably breaking every scenario you modify with self-made exit zones.

[noob]

Actually, it is within CMs remit. Dealing with prisoners, like arranging battlefield ammunition resupply and dealing with casualties, is a major drain on resources at the tactical level.

Dealing with prisoners might be within CM's remit but it is a trivial factor in determining the winner of a CM battle, and also, if there was the capability of giving move orders to surrendered units like in CMx1, then prisoners wouldn't be an issue at all other than creating more move orders for a player.

Like buddy aid, CM encourages the player to deal with PWs

According to something i read on this forum buddy aid does not have any effect on the points in a game and so is irrelevant to the outcome, if i am wrong and it does reduce the negative points for a side if casualties are treated then that's a good thing to know, and a reason to have it in the game.

[JonS]

points

That isn't the only reason to have your guys do buddy aid.

[DavidFields]

[i sort of agree with you, JonS, but aren't you being a little harsh on Noob?]

[Bradley Dick]

I think his entire question was a bit tongue-in-cheek, fellas. Don't crucify the gentleman just yet.

[noob]

I suggest you acquaint yourself with how exit zones function. You are probably breaking every scenario you modify with self-made exit zones.

How does every scenario become broken if exit zones are introduced ?

[noob]

I think his entire question was a bit tongue-in-cheek, fellas. Don't crucify the gentleman just yet.

It didn't come across as tongue in cheek, none of the tell tale smiley faces one would associate with a joking manner, and given the some of the real issues with CM it was just a pointless thing to bring up IMO.

[JonS]

Units that are assigned to a DESTROY objective must exit or else grant points to the enemy.

You will be able to play the scenario, but the end-game scoring will likely be broken, so you'll have little-to-no idea who 'won.'

(a lesser issue is that the edge is often a useful route for lateral movement. Plonking an exit zone there might be unduly restrictive for that side, depending on the overall size and nature of the map)

[noob]

That isn't the only reason to have your guys do buddy aid.

I understand about recovering weapons using buddy aid but are you saying that buddy aid actually improves your points ?

[JonS]

are you saying that buddy aid actually improves your points?

I have no idea, because I don't care. I'm pretty sure it affects end game cas ratios (but don't know if that affects points) and I suspect it may have some effect during campaigns, but the weapons and the emotional satisfaction are enough for me. I would still do buddy aid even if it had NO other effect than simply removing the bodies - for me it is a game within the game.

To recap:

* I said the game encourages buddy aid (in relation to a larger point about seemingly peripheral things that are nevertheless within the scope of a tactical wargame).

* You demurred, pointing out that there is (probably) no points benefit associated with it.

* I pointed out that points isn't the only reason to do something.

* You agreed, but then moved straight back to the points issue.

* This post.

[noob]

Units that are assigned to a DESTROY objective must exit or else grant points to the enemy.

I don't understand what you are saying, please explain it again.

(a lesser issue is that the edge is often a useful route for lateral movement. Plonking an exit zone there might be unduly restrictive for that side, depending on the overall size and nature of the map)

I would say men being trapped on a map because of an invisible wall overides the issue you speak of, and a little editing of the map would resolve that problem.

[noob]

I have no idea, because I don't care. I'm pretty sure it affects end game cas ratios (but don't know if that affects points) and I suspect it may have some effect during campaigns, but the weapons and the emotional satisfaction are enough for me. I would still do buddy aid even if it had NO other effect than simply removing the bodies - for me it is a game within the game.

Well that's fine, i don't even know why buddy aid was brought up in the conversation in the first place, my objection to the opening post was because IMO the request for a function to allow the killing of prisoners was not only bizarre but also totally irrelevant to determining who is the better tactical player in a CM game.

[JonS]

I don't understand what you are saying, please explain it again.

Okay

In the scen editor, the designer has a range of tools with which to assign points to one side or the other.

An obvious example are Terrain Objectives. Exclusively OCCUPY them at the end of the game (or TOUCH them at any point during the game) and you get the points allocated to that terrain objective.

Another opition for the scenario designer are DESTROY and DESTROY ALL objectives. These are assigned to parts or all of each side's forces. There can be ... seven (I think?) unit DESTOY (or DA) objectives on each side, and each has a points value associated with it.

So far so good.

However, there is a particular type of terrain objective called EXIT. There are no points directly associated with this type of terrain objective, and the side which owns the EXIT objective can move any unit off the map through that EXIT. However, the way points are awarded for exiting is a little non-obvious. The EXITs work in conjuction with DESTROY (and DA) unit objectives. Every unit with a DESTROY objective that side A fails to exit awards points to side B.

An example: Say I have 5 tanks, and they are a DESTROY unit obj worth 100 points to you. In a 'normal' scen, you get 20 points for each tank you destroy. Knock out two; you get 40 points. Knock out none, you get no points.

If I have an EXIT terrain objective I must exit my five tanks, otherwise you get 20 points for each tank not exited. If you knock out two then obviously you get 40 points for those two, and if I lollygag about - or you block the exit - and the other three are still on the map at the end of the game, then you get 20 points for each of those three too, for a max score of 100points, even though three of the tanks were undamaged. If I exit all five then you get none of those 100 points. I don't receive any benefit either, other than denying you those points.

It is certainly possible to factor that into the scoring, and create Exit scens where the player's objective is to get their force off the map. Alternately, the designer can make chunks of either side worth no points, so the players can - but doesn't have to - exit those particular chunks. But those decisions need to be considered and included as part of an overall design. Just throwing down an exit zone in a scenario that wasn't designed for them will break it.

I would say men being trapped on a map because of an invisible wall overides the issue you speak of, and a little editing of the map would resolve that problem.

There is always going to be an invisible wall. With no exit zones then units you want to get rid of can't move off the map. With exit zones units unit you want to keep can't move close to the map edge. Which wall is more important is a matter for designers to choose, not a rule set in concrete.

[noob]

I said the game encourages buddy aid (in relation to a larger point about seemingly peripheral things that are nevertheless within the scope of a tactical wargame).

If something affects the performance of the units or the points at the end of a game it's not peripheral IMO, anything else is.

You demurred, pointing out that there is (probably) no points benefit associated with it.

I shouldn't of made a statement either way about whether you get point benefits for buddy aid as i do not know, but as i said before, if you do, then it's a good thing to use on top of the weapon recovery.

I pointed out that points isn't the only reason to do something.

The only reason to do something in a CM battle is to either increase your units ability to accumulate points and reduce your opponents ability to accumulate points, anything else is window dressing.

You agreed, but then moved straight back to the points issue.

Which means i'm an unreliable witness ?

[Bradley Dick]

You guys should just challenge each other to a duel.

[JonS]

my objection to the opening post was because IMO the request for a function to allow the killing of prisoners was not only bizarre but also totally irrelevant to determining who is the better tactical player in a CM game.

With which I fully agree.

I do think that 'dealing with' PW has a valid place in CM. But let me be really clear that 'dealing with' does NOT include 'let me shoot them.'

[JonS]

The only reason to do something in a CM battle is to either increase your units ability to accumulate points and reduce your opponents ability to accumulate points, anything else is window dressing.

Rofl

Ok then

You DEFINITELY need to thoroughly understand how exit zones work, then, before you continue to throw them around willy nilly.

[JonS]

Which means I'm an unreliable witness?

No, it means you have a focus that not everyone shares.

[noob]

However, there is a particular type of terrain objective called EXIT. There are no points directly associated with this type of terrain objective. However, the side to which the EXIT objective can move units off the map through that EXIT, but the way points are awarded for EXIT objectives is a little non-obvious. The EXITs work in conjuction with DESTORY (and DA) unit objectives. Every unit with a DESTROY objective that side A fails to exit awards points to side B.

An example: Say I have 5 tanks, and they are a DESTROY unit obj worth 100 points to you. In a 'normal' scen, you get 20 points for each tank you destroy. Knock out two; you get 40 points. Knock out none, you get no points.

If I have an EXIT terrain objective I must exit my five tanks, otherwise you get 20 points for each tank not exited. If you knock out two then obviously you get 40 points for those two, and if I lollygag about - or you block the exit - and the other three are still on the map at the end of the game, then you get 20 points for each of those three too, for a max score of 100points, even though three of the tanks were undamaged.

Ok, that's new info for me, thanks.

Alternately, the designer can make large chunks of either side worth no points, so the play can - but doesn't have to - exit those forces.

I do that already in operational CM games, retreating forces suffer operational morale penalties for using exit zones at certain times in the game with the units they are retreating from gaining the equivalent in morale benefits, there are no points for kills or terrain occupied.

[noob]

'dealing with' does NOT include 'let me shoot them.'

LOL, if CM went down that road CMx2 Russian Front would be banned

[JonS]

there are no points for kills or terrain occupied.

Wait! You mean it's possible to do something in CM for reasons other than increasing your points/decreasing the opponents?!

[noob]

Rofl

Ok then

You DEFINITELY need to thoroughly understand how exit zones work, then, before you continue to throw them around willy nilly.

Ok then: rolltesticles:

You have adequately explained the pitfalls of using exit zones in conjunction with certain unit objectives, however i don't care as i don't play one off scenarios any more, so it's not an issue for me