Guest David Harrison Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 There was a thread in the Wargames-Historical-Newsgroup about computer wargames' victory conditions compared to those typical in board wargames. It was suggested that board games are often more engrossing because they tend to have multiple or complex VC whereas computer games often leave you with one set such as control these objectives or kill enough enemy units. Perhaps difficulty in AI programming has prevented such implementation in computer wargames. The idea intrigued me and I found myself agreeing with the original poster; namely, having multiple ways to win a scenario or non-standard types such as exit VC would go a long way toward improving computer wargames, helping to recapture fond boardgame experiences. Looking at CM's FAQ I notice you have a list of VC but it was "tentative." Now I'm curious, have you finalized the types of VC in CM? Can you tell me what VC have already been implemented? Thanks! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 12, 1999 Share Posted August 12, 1999 CM does indeed support the "exit" victory condition. It also has (of course) the capturing of objectives and the causing of enemy casualties. However, we tend to reduce the weight of casualty VC, as the actual loss of the men is a direct punishment enough and often causes the loss of other VC (i.e. you can't capture an objective if your men are all dead). One thing to note is that CM judges "ownership" of objectives in a much more detailed way than most wargames do. For starters, we dispense with the "last man to move through this here town has control". That's a bunch of BS! I'd like to hear a conversation from the actual war that went as follows: Major: "Sergeant, have you taken control of the village?" Sergeant: "Yes, sir." Major: "Excellent. Tell your men to hold on and resupply will arrive soon." Sergeant: "Men, sir? My men took control of the village hex on turn 5, but have since moved to the other side of the map. But don't worry. There's still a big American flag icon there, so I'm sure it's a friendly hex even though we've got no one there to verify." Major: (veins bulging in forehead) "Sergeant! I mean... BUCK-ASS PRIVATE!! You #%#@!!!%^*@!!*!!!!!" CM judges control of an objective by measuring the current strengths, numbers, proximity, and lines of sight of units nearby. Running two guys armed with a canteen and a spoon through an objective isn't going to make any difference. You've got to have a combat-capable force there (although it can be small). Second, even a small enemy force in the local area will cause the objective to return to neutral status. It doesn't matter if you outnumber the enemy by a whole bunch - if he has a combat-capable force able to project decent firepower at (relatively) short range onto the objective, then the objective goes "neutral" and no one gets points for it. You've really got to clear the objective and the nearby area to get credit for control. We also do not "telegraph" the loss of an objective unless the enemy units causing loss of control are spotted. This avoids the problem of objectives acting as "radar beacons" indicating enemy progress. We also have two types of objectives (marked by flags): major and minor. You can have as many of each as you wish, depending on what kind of map you want and how important various map features are intended to be. CM also supports "surprise" objectives. Up to four (IIRC) flags are on the map, but only one is "real" and only the attacker knows which one it is. The defender has to guess, and be smart enough not to let the attacker fake him out with a feint in the wrong direction. The "real" objective is randomly chosen (or, optionally, by the attacker) each time you play the scenario. Campaigns are yet another thing entirely. Victory there is judged by the amount of progress your force makes over the "overall" map by the end of the campaign. There are no explicit objectives: just progress, progress, progress! Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted August 13, 1999 Share Posted August 13, 1999 This is perfect. This is actually the kind of info I was alluding to in my Destroying Enemy Units thread. CM sounds like it does victory conditions much better than most computer games. I also thought the way you wrote this reply was pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 13, 1999 Share Posted August 13, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also thought the way you wrote this reply was pretty funny.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here at Big Time Software we strive for one thing above all else: comic excellence. Charles (Hey! No saying "Ha ha your games are a joke!" ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted August 13, 1999 Share Posted August 13, 1999 Except that I think the last line of the dialogue should have been: Major: (veins bulging in forehead) PYLE!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted August 14, 1999 Share Posted August 14, 1999 Charles/BTS, Nice treatment on the victory conditions. Sounds very realistic and flexible. Just makes me look forward to this game all the more. Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts