Questions on QB scoring and Buddy Aid

[nuzrak]

I have a couple of questions and apologize if these have been covered elsewhere; I did do a search and couldn’t find any suitable answers and hope someone here might be able to help me understand the game a little better.

First up, scoring in Quick Battles.

I have recently finished a H2H QB Attack game and was surprised to see how high the points given for each objective were in relation to what KIA points was worth, which in this case was 216 points for each location.

Curious, I pulled up the map in the editor (Map 90) and saw that the points given per location in the data section were listed as 50 points per location!

I did a quick couple of tests on a couple of other maps and found that the points awarded for locations are always way higher than set in the editor!

So, does anyone know what the basic formula being used here is?

The reason I ask this is that because I occasionally create maps and battles myself it would be good know what the points set in the editor actually mean for end results.

Secondly, Buddy Aid!

I also noted at the end of the above battle that Buddy aid had no effect on the score at all.

Again, curious, My opponent and me re-played the last turns again and saw that apart from saving a few guys from being KIA there was indeed no point value to it at all!

So, if that is the case, other than scrounging ammo and weapons from fallen pixel truppen is there any other reason to ever risk troops to give it?

I should note again that this was a QB and all further tests were under the QB system too so no points were ever given specifically assigned for casulties percentages.

Thanks in advance...

[Vanir Ausf B]

So, if that is the case, other than scrounging ammo and weapons from fallen pixel truppen is there any other reason to ever risk troops to give it?

Not in a QB or scenario, AFAIK. I seem to recall there was some minor scoring difference in campaigns.

As for QB scoring, what I know for sure is that there is a total number of points available for owning VLs (terrain objectives). This total number has nothing to do with the point values assigned to the VLs in the editor. Instead it is set by the game type as follows:

ME: 400 pts

Probe: 500 pts

Attack: 650 pts

Assault: 750 pts

These points are distributed to the VLs in proportion to the values assigned to them in the editor. So in an Attack QB with 2 VLs with one VL assigned 100 points and the other VL assigned 50 pts the 100 pt VL will be worth 433 pts and the 50 pt VL will be worth 216. In this example it would not matter if the VLs were assigned values or 5 and 10, 50 and 100 or 500 and 1000 in the editor since all that matters is the ratio to each other.

The total number of point available in a QB is 1000, so whatever amount is not assigned to VLs is assigned to destroying enemy units. So for example in a Attack QB if you destroy all of the enemy units you would get 350 points. How these points are assigned to specific units I don't know.

[bisu]

That's really interesting data I i didn't know about. Vanir where did you get it from because I can't find it in the manual. Many of us play in some sorts of ladders and tournaments where point count matters at the end, so for them the knowledge about point calculation mechanics is essential. In CM1 these issues were predefined with point assigned for holding flags and destroying enemy units proportional to their purchase value which was reasonable and clear to me. You could more or less predict the final outcome of the battle knowing how many flags you hold and how much casualties you have suffered. The CM2 system is more flexible, more designer input is allowed on final calculations, but a detailed description of how it really works is nowhere to be found AFAIK. Maybe someone knows more about the scoring system in CM2 and could shed some light?

[Vanir Ausf B]

That's really interesting data I i didn't know about. Vanir where did you get it from because I can't find it in the manual.

You won't find it in the manual because it isn't there, at least not in the CMBN manual (I don't have CMFI). The manual is very vague and partially incorrect because the way QBs are scored for enemy units destroyed was changed shortly before the game was released and IIRC the 2.0 manual was not updated to reflect that.

The information above was gleaned from a combination of my own experimentation with that of others done in this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98983

There are still some things about the unit scoring I don't know about. One is whether points for destroying a unit are allotted based on the purchase value or by casualties, i.e. if you destroy a tank but the entire crew escapes do you get any points for that, and if so how much?

[nuzrak]

Thanks Vanir, that's really useful information to have.

OK, What follows is my personal opinion, I’m not bashing the game, I love it!

Unless I'm misunderstanding the basic formula for QB scoring, I'm left scratching my head about the logic of using it as the base for both the attacker and the defender, because although it seems rational at first glance that the point values / underlying percentages should increase for locations for each battle type as you move up from ME through to Assault, I wonder if it would not actually be fairer for some sort of inverse formula to be true for the defender in regards to causing casualties on the attacker?

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that this formula overly favours the Attacker/Assault player as the defender can never hope to recoup the points of lost objectives through casualties alone and yet faces increasingly larger forces as you move up the tree.

Now I’m aware that that may well be the intent of the system too, and that’s cool if it is, but somehow that just doesn’t seem to fit with the spirit of this game series. It simply feels a little off to me that something nearer to a draw can’t be achieved for a defender who racks up a huge butchers bill on the attacker.

On ‘Buddy Aid’

Given their huge workload this probably isn’t even on the radar but I think it is a real omission that this element of the game is only relevant in campaigns. Even in its abstracted form, dealing with casualties on the battlefield is a very real and immersive element and adds a unique factor to this series that should mean something tangible in all battles. I sincerely hope that a future patch or in CMx3 that BFC add a core point reflection for this as standard.

[Erwin]

"dealing with casualties on the battlefield is a very real and immersive element and adds a unique factor to this series that should mean something tangible in all battles. I sincerely hope that a future patch or in CMx3 that BFC add a core point reflection for this as standard."

Yeah, Buddy Aid is one of the greatest advances over CM1 and should be given points weight in all scenarios. IIRC, there is no advantage even in campaigns other than collecting better weapons for the next scenario.

If I am wrong please point me to the relevant section in the rulebook as it should be a very important feature.

[womble]

Buddy aiding changes the probabilities for whether a wounded (red cross base) casualty converts to KIA at the end of the battle. So if WIA count less against you than KIA, which I've gethered they do, getting buddy aid done will on average increase your points score. I don't reckon it's by very much though, and especially in VL-focused victory conditions with large forces, might even be invisible. It's certainly not worth putting troops in harms way to achieve.

[Holman]

Doesn't buddy aid also add to the chance that replacements will come back between campaign battles? Any soldiers who do not receive buddy aid on the battlefield automatically become KIA. WIA soldiers might return, KIA soldiers never do.

In any case, I always make buddy aid a priority because it's against the spirit of simulation not to.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Thanks Vanir, that's really useful information to have.

OK, What follows is my personal opinion, I’m not bashing the game, I love it!

Unless I'm misunderstanding the basic formula for QB scoring, I'm left scratching my head about the logic of using it as the base for both the attacker and the defender, because although it seems rational at first glance that the point values / underlying percentages should increase for locations for each battle type as you move up from ME through to Assault, I wonder if it would not actually be fairer for some sort of inverse formula to be true for the defender in regards to causing casualties on the attacker?

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that this formula overly favours the Attacker/Assault player as the defender can never hope to recoup the points of lost objectives through casualties alone and yet faces increasingly larger forces as you move up the tree.

Now I’m aware that that may well be the intent of the system too, and that’s cool if it is, but somehow that just doesn’t seem to fit with the spirit of this game series. It simply feels a little off to me that something nearer to a draw can’t be achieved for a defender who racks up a huge butchers bill on the attacker.

I haven't played enough QBs yet to make a fair assessment, but I have read more than a few comments on the forum that indicate that the defender is very much at a disadvantage. My solutions so far has been to play all attack/defend-type QBs as Probes. This makes casualties count the most (except for MEs) and gives the attacker the smallest force advantage.

But your suggestion about having different weights given to terrain and unit objectives for attacker and defender is an interesting one.

[Michael Emrys]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that this formula overly favours the Attacker/Assault player as the defender can never hope to recoup the points of lost objectives through casualties alone and yet faces increasingly larger forces as you move up the tree.

Now I’m aware that that may well be the intent of the system too, and that’s cool if it is, but somehow that just doesn’t seem to fit with the spirit of this game series. It simply feels a little off to me that something nearer to a draw can’t be achieved for a defender who racks up a huge butchers bill on the attacker.

:confused:

I may be missing something here, but as I read the above, it seems as if you are assuming that an attacker automatically ends up with all the VL points. That is far from necessarily being the case. In fact, it is the defender who usually begins a game with all the VLs in his possession and the attacker must take them away, and in doing so hazard all the dangers associated with being exposed to defensive fire. Of course, it is recognized that the defender is also likely to suffer some casualties in the fighting. But it seems to me that a good defender has a chance of retaining one or more of the VLs while inflicting more casualties on the attacker than suffering himself. If a good defender cannot achieve that, than likely the problem lies somewhere other than the way the game is scored.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

I must admit to a growing sense of dismay at the cack-handedness of a system for VP's which defies easy understanding AND is not even available to players. Sometimes I think BF should get awards for making things difficult in concept and then leaving it for players to discover years after the event how it actually works.

If you read the right posts in April 2011 though ...

Berto

Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: Italy

Posts: 183

I have reviewed the points of the QB.

There was an error in my conclusion, on ground targets.

Here's the new table:

Scontro (ME) unit pt 600 terrain pt 400

Probe unit pt 500 terrain pt 500

Attack unit pt 350 terrain pt 650

Assault unit pt 250 terrain pt 750

As you can see the total is still 1000.

Points of terreain are recalculated in proportion to those indicated on the map to give the desired value.

Example map ME with two obj 10pt and 30 pt, points will be counted 100 and 300.

So on the face it a cunning system but leaves one with the unpleasant idea that someone aware of its ramifications is going to do substantially better than someone who has not found out that the terrain and killed values vary from game type. My gut instinct is that there is something not quite right with this approach however I have to go out know - I will discuss it with my fellow CM [*1] today : )

[womble]

So on the face it a cunning system but leaves one with the unpleasant idea that someone aware of its ramifications is going to do substantially better than someone who has not found out that the terrain and killed values vary from game type.

I don't think so. Since terrain points for a given VL are either all with one side, all with the other or not with either (they're never shared), even in a ME, you have to make an effort to at least deny their control to the other side. All the casualty chunk does is change the level of victory at the edges; if someone could get a win out of just blowing up enemy while ignoring their VLs, the scoring system isn't really relevant, since the skill level advantage necessary to obtain sufficient differential in unit kill points to overcome even Assault levels of VL VP would mean the winner would have won pretty much whatever the scoring system.

I don't think there's room for "gaming" the VP system by knowledge differentials if the one on the wrong end of the differential operates in even a moderately reasonable and competent manner and knows there are points for territory and points for eliminating units.

[Erwin]

The very weird/complex CM2 scoring system and final victory calculations are one reason I have hesitated to play vs human.

The vast majority of times I play I get big victories when I expect/deserve a loss. Other times, I get a loss, when logic/common sense/lack of friendly casualties etc. would seem to indicate I won a good victory.

In addition, I have experimented by CF-ing frequently, sometimes every turn to see how the scoring is going in a battle. It has been shocking/surprising to find that many times, the loss of a single unit or a few units will turn a solid defeat into a solid victory and vice versa.

My conclusion is that the CM2 victory calculations system is extremely sensitive/unstable. CM2 is like a modern jet that is so sensitive it can only be controlled by computers vs an old CM1- style piston engine aircraft that can glide along on a predictable path that makes sense.

There are many other issues that need to be fixed that are more important regarding gameplay enjoyment, so this isn't a big problem (for me at least). But, a player has to be aware of the problem.

My way of dealing with it is to ignore whatever the game says, and figure out my own evaluation of how well I have done. Of course that mitigates against human vs human play, and doesn't help with campaigns.

[Childress]

It seems that aside from general goals BF left scoring factors deliberately opaque, i.e., 'under the hood'. This approach may have prevented a lot of anguished threads. They learned their lessons from CM1.

[womble]

The very weird/complex CM2 scoring system...

From what I've read about it in threads where people have explored it and documented it and elucidated for themselves how it works, there's nothing really wierd or complex.

and final victory calculations are one reason I have hesitated to play vs human.

So don't attach any significance in your own mind to the VP calculation and jump right in. It might have escaped your attention, but no one is going to kick in your front door and drag you in front of a firing squad for having been assessed by the end game algorithms as having suffered a total defeat.

The vast majority of times I play I get big victories when I expect/deserve a loss. Other times, I get a loss, when logic/common sense/lack of friendly casualties etc. would seem to indicate I won a good victory.

This is not an experience I personally recognise. If you examine the VP subsections closely, it is always clear what the actual scores for each of the relevant elements of the scoring matrix are.

In addition, I have experimented by CF-ing frequently, sometimes every turn to see how the scoring is going in a battle. It has been shocking/surprising to find that many times, the loss of a single unit or a few units will turn a solid defeat into a solid victory and vice versa.

That will be because the margin of victory is, IIRC from the threads I mention above, based on the ratio of VPs scored. So if it's a casualty-heavy matrix, nailing a tank or a couple of squads could boost your VPs considerably, and if the general level of casualties is low (because the game is still in progress, and nothing much has happened yet) small (relative to the total available VPs) changes in absolute numbers can cause large changes in ratios.

My conclusion is that the CM2 victory calculations system is extremely sensitive/unstable.

I'd suggest your data set is inadequate to draw that conclusion. Feel free to provide some actual numbers to support your assertion.

My way of dealing with it is to ignore whatever the game says, and figure out my own evaluation of how well I have done. Of course that mitigates against human vs human play, and doesn't help with campaigns.

Why does it have any effect at all on HvH play? You know how well you think you did. If you're misinterpreting and therefore not playing to the VCs, perhaps because the briefing is inadequate, you get some "official" results that don't match what you think should have been the outcome. So what? So you don't progress in a campaign? Try the scenario again, and see if you can hit the victory conditions now that you actually know what they are (I know there are a lot of scenarios where the briefing VCs bear only a passing resemblance to the actual VCs, but that's not a problem with the system, just the editing of the scenario "fluff".

[dieseltaylor]

womble - just so I understand where you are coming from:

1. Do you just play solo?

2. Are you an insider with BF?

[Erwin]

"Try the scenario again, and see if you can hit the victory conditions..." That is precisely what I do NOT want to do. First time through is enuff to spoil 90%+ scenarios. If I wanted to replay scenarios, I would be a RTS player lol.

My point was that in CM1 the scoring system almost always made sense and was easy to comprehend.

There was a gradation in CM1 results depending on VL's won and casualties. In CM2, it often feels like you take or inflict a couple of casualties and the game runs off a victory scoring cliff.

[GreenAsJade]

Why does it have any effect at all on HvH play? You know how well you think you did.

In H2H play, this is not sufficient.

There needs to be an unbiased declaration of "winner".

If the outcome is "well, _I_ think that _I_ did well" on both sides, the game system has not done it's job (unless it confirms a draw in that case).

While a significant component of H2H play is "for the fun of it, for the satisfaction of the gaming", another significant part is the victory or loss. If the game fails to deliver a verdict that reliably both players agree with, then it is not doing it's job.

GaJ

[dieseltaylor]

I opened up a QB on a huge map - my second ever. Firstly it was the suckiest map I have ever seen in terms of real life or even bad map making. Great advertisment for the game.

Setting thinks to automatic buy at no time did I see the cost of my units, ending the game revealed that the VL was worth 500pts so for the defender keeping one man alive there was a draw no matter if he was the sole survivor and the US had lost nothing. This accords with Berto's post repeated in my previous contribution.

The reason I opened it was to see if the values of the VL show and I did see three stars above the objective. Is this relevant or if I had three VL's I would not be aware of the actual game values if the designer allocates them unevenly?

I am still undecided whether this idea is genius or daft but being unexplained and apparently not in the manual it is still not well-done for the player IMO.

[Baneman]

From my brief foray into the map editor, the stars above a VL are merely a label assigned by the mapmaker and need not have any connection to its value

I agree that the manner in which VL values are divided up should be made plain to the player, not least scenario designers who might find that what they thought they had designed doesn't work quite as intended.

Also, the "one panicked guy hiding in a haystack" completely negating the capture of a VL is a bit silly. At least in CM1, a large enough force on a VL outweighed a shattered remnant that might also still be there - and made much more sense.

[womble]

womble - just so I understand where you are coming from:

1. Do you just play solo?

Nope. I hardly play any solo at all, though I do only have time for one H2H game at a time, currently.

2. Are you an insider with BF?

The answer to that should be self evident. Unless you're of the opinion that BFC have a bunch of "secret insiders" who shill for them on the forums. Just so you don't think I'm evading the question: the self-evident, and accurate answer is that I have no association whatsoever with BFC other than as a customer.

My turn:

Do you play the game at all?

Do you have some sort of grievance against BFC?

[womble]

In H2H play, this is not sufficient.

There needs to be an unbiased declaration of "winner".

If the outcome is "well, _I_ think that _I_ did well" on both sides, the game system has not done it's job (unless it confirms a draw in that case).

While a significant component of H2H play is "for the fun of it, for the satisfaction of the gaming", another significant part is the victory or loss. If the game fails to deliver a verdict that reliably both players agree with, then it is not doing it's job.

GaJ

Personally, I think that's overstating the case. Given the variables involved in the starting conditions, asking "the game" to reliably deliver any verdict is a stretch. In scenarios, it's up to the designer to set things up so that any evaluation is both relevant to what the players were told to do and to the forces provided to them. In QBs, to take a single example, anyone playing Italians-only against the US is doing pretty well to come out on even terms per the number crunching.

In spite of this, I think the system itself is capable of doing a moderately good job, if it's well handled by a designer. I've never looked at an end game screen and thought "Huh?" apart from where the designer changed their VCs and didn't alter their briefing. Claims of "arcanery" are bogus, flat out, IMO. As a designer, getting your head around how Exit conditions interact with destruction conditions is as complex as it gets.

[Baneman]

... In scenarios, it's up to the designer to set things up so that any evaluation is both relevant to what the players were told to do and to the forces provided to them.

...

In spite of this, I think the system itself is capable of doing a moderately good job, if it's well handled by a designer. ...

All the more reason why the designer should know how the points are allocated - thus this information should be in the manual and not tucked away in one forum post.

[womble]

All the more reason why the designer should know how the points are allocated - thus this information should be in the manual and not tucked away in one forum post.

Or they could test their map and actually look at how the QB conversion splits the points up.

[Baneman]

Or they could test their map and actually look at how the QB conversion splits the points up.

And this is quicker and easier than just having a line in the manual ?