Problem with victory condition

[JonS]

The occupy VL has long been a problem. The current setup is poorly designed and rarely reflective of the mission the player is actually tasked with. It really is a primitive system and an especially poor design choice given the context of the game and the times in which they are used.

Occupy means occupy. THAT is the mission the player is tasked with. Duh.

If you don't or can't occupy then you don't get the occupy points. Duh.

That you don't understand it, or aren't a good enough player to achieve it, doesn't make the design decision a poor one.

[MikeyD]

I can sympathize with people becoming frustrated. Trying to ferret-out that last suppressed green soldier in the VL before the clock runs out. But QBs are QBs, they're not hand-made scenarios. Back when I was doing scenarios (its been quite awhile) I'd fill the game with separate kill awards point for practically everything on the map, from enemy officers to HMG teams. And my secondary VLs were often 'touch' instead of 'occupy'. This is a luxury that QBs don't have. If you play on QB maps you play by QB rules. Otherwise build your own maps, create your own victory parameter from the wide selection available to scenario designers.

[poesel]

Occupy IS occupy - ok. But the case of the single broken soldier which would surrender when found shouldn't deny you all points.

Also the last-minute-rush tactic - which I admit doing myself - is also one aspect I don't like.

A simple solution would be to calculate VPs proportionally to the number of soldiers on the objective. So for a 100 pt objective, 1 defender and 19 attackers the defender gets 5 and the attacker 95. Or to emphasize the defenders double their numbers before calculation.

Since CM has to find out who is on the VL at the end of the game the numbers should already be in the game.

The more fancy solution would be to sum up the number of occupants over the last say 5 minutes of the game. That would prevent last minute rushes. A bit more effort necessary to accommodate for variable game endings.

[JonS]

calculate VPs proportionally to the number of soldiers on the objective. So for a 100 pt objective, 1 defender and 19 attackers the defender gets 5 and the attacker 95.

Nah. Sort-of-clear is like sort-of-a-virgin. Either the objective is clear, or it isn't. According to your ratios-based metric*, Op MARKET GARDEN was an overwhelming Allied victory

Remember that there's two side to this particular razor. While it sucks to be the inept attacker who fails to properly clear an objective, from the defenders POV it's pure gold when you can organise a stay-behind party to contest the objective and deny points.

Jon

* which would be astonishingly easy to game and, paradoxically, also very fragile. If I know I'll only be able to take part of an objective, I'll just load the part I can take with all the forces I can muster, avoid casualties, and reap the points without fighting. But on the other hand if I think I've taken an objective (but fail to clear it properly) and move on I'll just leave a notional garrison of one man behind, get minimal points at the end of the game because the enemy still had some men there, and we're right back to square one.

[Michael Emrys]

Nah. Sort-of-clear is like sort-of-a-virgin. Either the objective is clear, or it isn't.

Depends on how we define virginity. If the only question is whether the hymen is intact, then almost invariably it is a go-no-go question. If on the other hand we are concerned is whether some kind of sex act has occurred, there are an abundance of alternatives available to the imaginative couple. And that's just the beginning. If we are concerned with virginity as a psychological state, the range of possibilities becomes near infinite.

Somewhat the same is true re control of a victory location. What actually constitutes "control"? Is it the ability to move on or through a location unhindered by enemy fire? That might also include clearing terrain outside the defined VL. Currently, if I have it right, it means removing any enemy units who are not dead or seriously wounded. I'm not clear if a single lightly wounded soldier with no ammo is considered by the game as successfully contesting control of a VL.

Michael

[womble]

I'm not clear if a single lightly wounded soldier with no ammo is considered by the game as successfully contesting control of a VL.

That soldier would put the VL into contention if, at the time of assessment, even if they were also surrendering, I believe. Opposition have to be down and out not to count.

[Michael Emrys]

That soldier would put the VL into contention if, at the time of assessment, even if they were also surrendering, I believe. Opposition have to be down and out not to count.

If so, IMHO that is carrying the matter too far. You could make a case, though not a conclusive one, that a single healthy, armed soldier is capable of contesting a VL, but I don't think a wounded, effectively disarmed one (and by disarmed I also mean not in possession of a radio or other means by which he could report the enemy's situation) could be said to be much of a threat.

Michael

[poesel]

Nah. Sort-of-clear is like sort-of-a-virgin. Either the objective is clear, or it isn't. According to your ratios-based metric*, Op MARKET GARDEN was an overwhelming Allied victory

The wonders of this forums never cease. I even get to be educated about virginity!

Re: MG - I doubt the Brits were sitting on a VL at the end of that scenario!

And yes, a ratio based metric can be gamed, too. But it is IMHO a better system than the current one.

[Pelican Pal]

Occupy means occupy. THAT is the mission the player is tasked with. Duh.

If you don't or can't occupy then you don't get the occupy points. Duh.

That you don't understand it, or aren't a good enough player to achieve it, doesn't make the design decision a poor one.

Are you really arguing this?

In what world could I have been said to have failed to occupy a position when I have a company+ of men on it and there exists a single, broken, lightly wounded, ammo-less, conscripted, crewmen hiding in a bush somewhere?

Should I also be required to execute the wounded to be sure they don't "contest the position"?

The occupy that we have isn't the worst thing in existence, but don't try to argue that it is good design. There are far too many problems with it to be called that.

Edit:

"That soldier would put the VL into contention if, at the time of assessment, even if they were also surrendering, I believe. Opposition have to be down and out not to count."

JonS, is this a good design decision?

[A Canadian Cat]

Oh man wild discussion. We even have @Michael Emrys redefining the meaning of sex - Where have I heard that before?

But in all seriousness. What @Yankee Dog said earlier is how to look at it. The current definition of occupy means that scenario authors can paint the village to signify "you need to sweep and clear this whole village and have total control over it" or have a few smaller key areas the signify "you need to be mostly in control of this village but it does not need to be cleared". It gives the flexibility to scenario designers to create the scenarios the way the want.

If the game did some kind of weighting then you would be unable to specify the the player that they had to have total control of the village.

Sounds like the issue is Quick battles and their use of occupy objectives. It also sounds like Mark is planning to make changes that will make you happier.

Frankly when my opponent does a rush at the end with some broken crew member and pulls it off I say well done and congratulate him (and mutter you bastard under my breath:-) Usually when I am planning to take an objective I want to take key near by terrain as well to prevent that kind of stuff and I get right at clearing buildings and woods floor by floor action square by action square. It is an excellent use for those XO and 2IC units that have been buddy aiding during the attack

[MarkEzra]

...Sounds like the issue is Quick battles and their use of occupy objectives. It also sounds like Mark is planning to make changes that will make you happier....

I posted a CMBN QB Map (Hills-Town-River Attack/Assault/Probe) using the formula NOW found in Some CMRT QB Maps. That is a simple box outline for V Obj. It looks far more pleasing to the eye during a game. I played the map as attacker and won a total Victory... a very tough nut to crack but I had mix Mech Inf-armor and the AI had Random selected Kriegmarine! Fought me for over an hour. Point being I got all points for control of the Objectives even though there was something around 75 combat effective AI Troops still on the board.

So just a clarification: Did the original poster "ceasefire" or play to the end of the time limit?

If a player ceasefires the AI troops haven't given up. If that was the case then the manner in which an Obj is painted is not relevant. Keep in mind Troops "near" a painted area control the obj just as well as troops sitting "on" an Obj. This does not change my view of using an out line formula... it's simple and testing as proven it successful.

ANOTHER Idea for Stretching The Limits of QB Objectives

I will be posting a Meeting engagement using an enlarged version of the afore mentioned CMBN Hills-Town River Map. This map uses the out line objectives but also has one Hidden objective for each AI Side. As the Human player you will see your "hidden" Obj But you will not see The AI's I've given it enough points to alter the victory but not change it completely... (unless the AI is handing you your ass anyway)

I am of two minds about this: cool idea or gimmicky, one time AI trick? I will place it on the CMBN Maps portion perhaps today or tomorrow. I would appreciate any input.