Points in the Editor

[Heirloom_Tomato]

In the latest version of the manual I have, ver 3.0, it says the points values of units is displayed in the editor for force balance purposes.  I am not seeing this in the editor.  Am I missing something? A hotkey turned off?  Or is there a mistake in the manual?

[ASL Veteran]

The manual is incorrect.  There are no points in the editor.  Points are only present in the QB menu.  No, points are not scheduled to be added to the editor at any point in the future per public comments by Steve.  No, there is no argument or case that you can put forward that will alter that.  No, it actually isn't necessary to balance a scenario through the use of points.  Balancing is first and foremost a function of victory point allocations when it comes to scenarios because no matter how unbalanced the forces are you can always balance a scenario through victory points, reinforcements, scenario length, troop quality and other soft factors, weather and ground conditions, time of day, as well as map and terrain, etc.  In other words, things that are typically not a factor in Quick Battles.  Focusing on points for the purchase of forces in an effort to balance scenarios is a very limited and narrow approach to scenario design.   

 

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just trying to be thorough and anticipate all your questions and other comments in advance because this has come up before - seemingly more frequently lately for some reason, but it isn't going to change so a dead horse is being beaten.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

I thought that was the case, thanks for the answer.  If this is not in the game and has no plans for the future to ever be included in the game, why is it still included in the manual? Perhaps the questions about it would go away if it were not stated as fact in the manual.

[ASL Veteran]

I thought that was the case, thanks for the answer.  If this is not in the game and has no plans for the future to ever be included in the game, why is it still included in the manual? Perhaps the questions about it would go away if it were not stated as fact in the manual.

A corrected manual is planned.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

Thanks for the heads up.

[Lt Bull]

There are no points in the editor.  Points are only present in the QB menu.

 

Having played around with the scenario editor for other things besides actually making a scenario, I never realised that this was actually the case.  Now that I know this I am actually quite surprised.

 

This has got me thinking that perhaps there are other things about the scenario editor/scenario designs that I probably have misunderstood/been getting wrong all along.

 

I was almost certain that in a scenario victory points are assigned based on destruction enemy units in proportion to their "value".  I would have expected these values to be editable by the scenario designer, with perhaps a "default" point value available to use for all unit configurations just like in a QB.

 

In this way, a scenario designer could perhaps design a scenario where destruction of particular units count for more/less victory points than others in ways that wouldn't necessarily match conventional understandings of unit "values".

eg.  in a scenario based on a mission to eliminate a particular unit/set of units, the scenario designer would bump up the value of these "objective" units.

 

Surely the editor allows this flexibility?

 

If it does then it makes sense to show the unit values assigned to the units.

 

If it doesn't, then it bloody should.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Lt Bull

[JonS]

It does. You have misunderstood the conversation.

 

In QBs you 'buy' forces, trying to spend your budget to extract maximum value from the pool of purchase points available. The value assigned to different units and vehicles gives a reasonable approximation of their respective fearsomeness, all other things being equal. Given it's nature here are some quirks - a PIAT, for example - costs the same in a built up urban area as it does on a flat open map, even though your far more likely to be able to use it effectively on a built up map. But, still, for what it does it works reasonably well despite some quibbles here and there regarding the value of specific pieces of kit. And it's utterly necessary for QBs.

 

What is being asked for is that those QB values also be visible in the scen editor, where they have no function. I'm a bit sympathetic to the request. Even though the QB points have no value. And ASL Vet's very valid point that other factors - time, weather, map, opposing forces, etc - are all really important factors that the scen designer must take into account when selecting forces to employ. Despite all that it's still useful to know that the game thinks that two Tigers are worth five PzIV, or that a UK para company is worth about the same as an Italian Bersaglieri battalion (examples completely made up. Do NOT take them as gospel) as a rough and ready guide when starting the design process. But it's not. So *shrug* We press on regardless

Edited September 1, 2015 by JonS

[Lt Bull]

Maybe I did but I'm not sure if I'm any more the wiser yet.

 

I get the mechanics for how to "buy" units in QB and how they are in many ways arbitrarily "weighted" depending on factors that have nothing to do with the map as you say for example.  I'm fine with that, in part. No misunderstanding there.

 

However how do these units "buy" values relate to victory points towards their destruction?

 

In any generic QB, I am kind of sure that destruction of enemy forces DOES count towards victory points.  If this is so, then you would expect that the destruction of a King Tiger would give the Allies more points than the Germans destroying a jeep. If this is the case then it follows that you would possibly expect that the points awarded would at least be equal to (or related to) the QB "buy" cost of the unit.

 

If all that is true, then in a custom designed scenario, I would at last expect the following to be the case:

A] destruction of enemy forces DOES (or at least can) count towards victory points and

B] the points assigned for unit destruction (can) depend(s) on the unit.

 

If those two things are true then how are the points awarded for unit destruction determined?

 

I would guess it would (at least) be determined just like it is in a QB, which is (if I am correct) based on the unit QB "buy" cost.  However, as I tried to mention originally, I also expect that the scenario designer could "over ride" these values with their own based on how they see fit/what kind of scenario they are trying to create.

 

If this is correct then it absolutely makes sense for a scenario designer to know exactly how many "destruction points" worth of units exist on each side so that they can then balance out the scenario with other victory point conditions.

 

Which of my expectations/assumptions are wrong?

Edited September 1, 2015 by Lt Bull

[ASL Veteran]

 

Having played around with the scenario editor for other things besides actually making a scenario, I never realised that this was actually the case.  Now that I know this I am actually quite surprised.

 

This has got me thinking that perhaps there are other things about the scenario editor/scenario designs that I probably have misunderstood/been getting wrong all along.

 

I was almost certain that in a scenario victory points are assigned based on destruction enemy units in proportion to their "value".  I would have expected these values to be editable by the scenario designer, with perhaps a "default" point value available to use for all unit configurations just like in a QB.

 

In this way, a scenario designer could perhaps design a scenario where destruction of particular units count for more/less victory points than others in ways that wouldn't necessarily match conventional understandings of unit "values".

eg.  in a scenario based on a mission to eliminate a particular unit/set of units, the scenario designer would bump up the value of these "objective" units.

 

Surely the editor allows this flexibility?

 

If it does then it makes sense to show the unit values assigned to the units.

 

If it doesn't, then it bloody should.

 

I'm not sure if I understand what you are getting at here, but victory points for destruction of enemy units are assigned manually by the scenario designer.  First you use Shift # in order to assign a specific 'target' to a unit.  So if you want an American Rifle Company to be Destruction target 1 you go into the purchase screen for the American, you select A company and you hit Shift and the number 1.  That allocates a unit objective to A company.  Once you have done that you then go into the Mission menu, select the 'Unit Objectives Axis' tab and you will see seven 'target' symbols labeled unit 1, unit 2 etcetera.  If you used the Shift 1 on A company then the Unit 1 choice will be available to be named.  Name it A Company.  Now you have to assign a point value to it.  You can assign any point value you want to and you then simply select destroy and whether the objective is known by the player only or by both sides.  I always choose player only because it is much cleaner.  So if you have an American Rifle Battalion in your scenario and you want A company to be worth 1000 points you just type 1000 points in the little box and presto, that's how many victory points it is worth for the Germans if they destroy it entirely.  If the Germans only destroy half the company then they get 500 points.  If you want B company and C company to be worth nothing then you just don't assign any points for their destruction.  If you want A company to be 1000, B Company to be 500 and C Company to be 250 then you can do that too.  If you want the entire battalion to be worth 1500 then you just assign the entire battalion as Target 1.  If you have multiple units and you don't want to have multiple targets then you can assign other units the same target.  So if you have a tank battalion and an infantry battalion and you want them to be worth 1000 points collectively then you just do your little Shift 1 dance for both units and they will both be associated with Target 1.

 

So the reality is that the current system is much more flexible with regards to victory conditions than static assigned points from QBs.  You can assign any point value that you desire to any units in the game as it is currently set up in the editor so I'm a little confused about your remarks.  If you were unaware of how to assign victory points for unit destruction then no - there is no point value assigned for unit destruction unless you assign it manually.  However, once you learn to assign the point values you can assign any point value that you want to in whatever ratio you want to or you can assign nothing at all.  The sky is the limit.  QB points are not needed for victory conditions.  The current system is much better because the designer manually assigns any point value he wants to and that's the way it should be.  QB points are only necessary for QBs because they offer a framework for a competitive match between two players without too much fuss.

[JonS]

If those two things are true then how are the points awarded for unit destruction determined?

That's up to the scenario designer. Who else?

 

If I decide that in this scenario that King Tiger is worth 5% of the available points pool, that's my decision. And if I decide in that scenario it's worth 95% of the available points pool, that's my choice too. And they are both perfectly valid and correct decisions for the designer to make.

[Lt Bull]

Wow somehow lines are getting crossed but I think I now understand (this discussion suffered from reply lay but I have now hopefully fixed that)

 

 The current system is much better because the designer manually assigns any point value he wants to and that's the way it should be.  QB points are only necessary for QBs because they offer a framework for a competitive match between two players without too much fuss.

 

I can now comment on the accuracy of my assumptions. Seems everything was correct except this bit regarding custom scenarios:

 

 

...how are the points awarded for unit destruction determined?

 

I would guess it would (at least) be determined just like it is in a QB, which is (if I am correct) based on the unit QB "buy" cost.  

 

 

That's up to the scenario designer. Who else?

 

Up until now, I would have thought CM did....just like it does in a QB.  I don't see why that expectation would be so surprising.  Maybe not raw values themselves, but the relative weights.

 

So what you are saying is that, unlike QBs, scenario designers can not "leverage" the same "unit cost" database/sliding scale of values that QBs naturally leverage, and that the scenario designer has to manually configure everything. I am assuming the default value is zero points unless otherwise specified by the designer.

 

You mentioned how a designer could assign a destruction points valus to anything from a single unit to the entire force side and how points can be assigned for incomplete destruction.  Your example however is potentially misleading/ambiguous because in the example you used, you said 50% destruction of a 1000 destruction point US infantry company would yield 50% of the 1000 points = 500 points.  Are you implying that destruction victory point allocation can be directly proportional to the % of the unit destroyed ? ie. destroying 25% would (or at least could) yield 25% of the total unit destruction value?

 

If that is the case, then assume the entire German unit force is made up of theoretically of a King Tiger and three Kubelwagens and the scenario designer assigned the value of 100pts for the destruction of the formation.  Would destroying 2 Kubelwagens yield 50% of 100pts = 50VPs for the Allies?  If not, then how is it determined?  How does he game assign the points in this extreme case?

Edited September 1, 2015 by Lt Bull

[ASL Veteran]

Yes, the default is zero points because in a scenario there are actually no victory points that are automatically assigned to anything at all.  It is possible for a scenario designer to create a scenario and have no victory points assigned for anything at all.  Unlike a QB there is nothing assigned automatically for any purpose.  The designer has to create everything from scratch.  Of course this isn't an issue like you seem to think it might be because any scenario designer who is minimally competent will assign victory points as appropriate. 

 

I believe that it is a function of the number of crew.  So if the King Tiger has a crew of 5 and each Kubel has a crew of 1 then destroying the two Kubels and killing their drivers would yield 2/7 of the total points although I'm not positive about the exact breakdown of how the points are allocated if you choose the proportional option. 

 

I'm not implying that destruction can be proportional and my response is not misleading or ambiguous.   I believe it is directly stated in the manual that when you use that victory condition the points allocated are proportional.  I should add that there are three destruction options available.  Destroy.  Destroy All. Spot.  Those are your three options.  If you select Destroy All then you have to completely destroy the entire formation in order to gain all the points, so in that case it wouldn't be proportional.  So you have Destroy which is proportional and you have Destroy All which is not proportional.  There are also parameter victory points available which include casualties.  These are all or none points assigned based on a percentage of the entire force.  So for example you can assign a casualty parameter of 25% with an associated award for 500 points.  Therefore if you destroy 25% of the opposing force you get 500 points.  If you destroy less than that you get nothing.  That can be applied to a friendly force too, so if a player has a friendly casualty parameter of 25 percent for 500 points then if the player loses more than 25% they get no points and if they lose less than 25% they get 500 points.

 

If you want more specificity as to how points are allocated then you can set up some test ranges and figure it out.  I'm not really interested in a lengthy editor 'how to' micro discussion about victory points.  Just know that if you should decide to go into the editor and poke around a whole world of options awaits you.  Maybe JonS might want to engage in a points micro discussion - if he chooses to I guess he will.

[Pak40]

If that is the case, then assume the entire German unit force is made up of theoretically of a King Tiger and three Kubelwagens and the scenario designer assigned the value of 100pts for the destruction of the formation.  Would destroying 2 Kubelwagens yield 50% of 100pts = 50VPs for the Allies?  If not, then how is it determined?  How does he game assign the points in this extreme case?

 

The scenario designer has complete control of which units count towards VPs. You could theoretically design a scenario where the Germans have a battalion of infantry and 1 King Tiger. The designer could choose to assign all the VPs just to King Tiger and have the mission briefing say something like "You're primary objective is to eliminate the King Tiger that has been spotted in the vicinity". If the allied player destroys 75% or even 100% of the infantry battalion but fails to kill the King Tiger then he fails the mission because the infantry have no VPs assigned to it.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Pak40

[JonS]

Maybe JonS might want to engage in a points micro discussion

Not really. I've already done that elsewhere, and Bull seems more interested in waving his pecker than designing scenarios. And if he isn't going to be designing scenarios then this whole thread-tangent is a waste of time. If he was interested then he'd already be, as you say, minimally competent.

Edited September 1, 2015 by JonS

[Lt Bull]

Thanks ASL Veteran,

 

Looks like I will be off to the scenario editor to do some testing.

 

You seemed to think I thought it was "an issue" that a scenario designer has to create all the victory points from scratch.  No, I never said that, there is no real issue I had except not knowing for sure how things worked.  Not really a huge jump to assume the QB points system was perhaps also available to a scenario designer should they, for whatever reason, want to use it/reference it given the amount of time and effortt it would have taken to compile all those numbers and create all those algorithms that cover every possible unit variation/combination.  It really is a lot of work just for one mode of gameplay.

 

Given what you say, that all victory  points for unit kills are determined by the scenario designer, how do we then reconcile the "common knowledge" that vehicle crew casualties in scenarios are "more costly" to lose as far as victory points go, than regular infantry units (and hence should;t be used as cheap scouts/front-line infantry etc)?  Are ALL scenario designers ALWAYS specifically editing scenarios to ensure crewmen casualties are weighed more as far as victory points?  Or does the game somehow "enforce" high VPs for killing vehicle crew in every custom scenario? In the example given with the three Kubelwagens and the King Tiger, how then are the proportions of points dished out in relation to whether the vehicle gets KOed as opposed to the crew getting killed?

 

 

The scenario designer has complete control of which units count towards VPs. You could theoretically design a scenario where the Germans have a battalion of infantry and 1 King Tiger. The designer could choose to assign all the VPs just to King Tiger and have the mission briefing say something like "You're primary objective is to eliminate the King Tiger that has been spotted in the vicinity". If the allied player destroys 75% or even 100% of the infantry battalion but fails to kill the King Tiger then he fails the mission because the infantry have no VPs assigned to it.

 

Its good to know this kind of flexibility is available to scenario designers.  I'm all for creative ways of defining victory conditions.

 

 

Not really. I've already done that elsewhere, and Bull seems more interested in............

 

Wow! I don't need to express anything more about your comment and even that is probably too much..

Edited September 2, 2015 by Lt Bull

[ASL Veteran]

Thanks ASL Veteran,

 

Looks like I will be off to the scenario editor to do some testing.

 

 

Given what you say, that all victory  points for unit kills are determined by the scenario designer, how do we then reconcile the "common knowledge" that vehicle crew casualties in scenarios are "more costly" to lose as far as victory points go, than regular infantry units (and hence should;t be used as cheap scouts/front-line infantry etc)?  Are ALL scenario designers ALWAYS specifically editing scenarios to ensure crewmen casualties are weighed more as far as victory points?  Or does the game somehow "enforce" high VPs for killing vehicle crew in every custom scenario? In the example given with the three Kubelwagens and the King Tiger, how then are the proportions of points dished out in relation to whether the vehicle gets KOed as opposed to the crew getting killed?

I would presume that the game allocates the VPs using some sort of weighted basis vs the number of VPs allocated to that group by the designer.  However, I don't know exactly how the points are divvied up between different units.  If you decide to do some testing I would be curious to know, however, during the course of making a scenario I'm not generally too concerned about how the points are split up within a group.  I'm more worried about the big picture and how the VP values for different groups are balanced against each other and how they relate to the Terrain objectives and the Parameter VPs.  It all forms a big package that has to be balanced among the various component VP parts and that is difficult enough to do without worrying about how the points are allocated within the context of an single group.  It's just too small of an issue for me, although I can see where some might want to know.

[Lt Bull]

So I did some testing to shed some light on the finer details of how CM assigns VPs for destruction of units and to re-examine the comment that made me post here in the first place:

 

There are no points in the editor.  Points are only present in the QB menu.

 

Yes I understand that in custom scenarios the scenario designer has "complete control" over both which unit (or group of units!), if any, get assigned with one of seven possible "Unit Objective" tags, and what VPs are associated with each of them.

 

I also understand that there are three kinds of Unit Objective designations:

 

1. Destroy

2. Destroy All

3. Spot

 

I already kind of knew this but its when I considered how VPs must be allocated when the "Destroy" tag is assigned to a mixed group of units (the extreme case being when an entire mixed force is assigned the same Unit Objective tag) that led me to surmise that there probably is/must be some kind of underlying "weighted points" system that splits up the points depending on what units are destroyed.  Technically yes, not the arbitrary QB points system per se, but a "weighed" points system that works something like it distributing the VPs proportionately.

 

The preliminary testing I have done confirms this.

 

For example:  I made a random German force of a Tiger tank (green) and three Kubelwagens (green, reg and vet) and assigned all four as a Destroy "Unit Objective" worth 100VPs. I had the Allied force destroy different combinations of units and record the VPs after calling a ceasefire.  The results have a few surprises (I used CMRT for some reason).

 

Tiger and crew(5) killed: 45 VPs

Tiger killed: 28 VPs

Tiger crew(5) killed: 12 VPs

 

Kubel (vet) crew(1) killed: 2 VPs

Kubel (vet) killed: 9 VPs

Kubel (vet) and crew(1) killed: 12 VPs

 

All Kubel crews(3) killed: 34 VPs

All Kubels killed: 9 VPs

All Kubels and crew(3) killed: 45 VPs

 

Tiger and crew(5) and Kubel (vet) and crew(1) killed: 62 VPs

 

It is evident that not only is the game assigning VPs depending on what is killed (not too surprising and really was the point of why I engaged this thread), but the numbers don't actually all add up as you might expect.

 

eg. Destroy a Kubelwagen (vet) and crew: 12 VPs.  Kill a Tiger and crew: 45 VPs.  However, kill a Kubelwagen (vet), Tiger and all crews: 62 VPs.  Not the 12+45= 57 VPs you might expect.

 

Of course to understand the way CM proportions VPs for partial kills of units that form a mixed group of Destroy "Unit Objectives" involves much more testing.  However, the principle of having CM automatically assign/weight different proportions of the destroy VPs for the different units within a group of units all assigned the same "Unit Objective" tag is obviously something that does exists.

 

So in summary, to say that "points" are only present or matter in QBs or that CM does not use/reference a (victory) "points" database in custom scenarios, is false.

 

I might do some further exploratory testing.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Lt Bull

[ASL Veteran]

Well the weighting may or may not be similar to the weighting in QBs, but since the points themselves are allocated by the scenario designer then no - the QB points themselves are irrelevant to scenarios.  I suppose if you want to equate weighting with QB points then I guess that's your prerogative, but the fact is that whatever the actual purchase price is for a King Tiger for a QB has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the victory points that a player may gain by destroying said King Tiger in a scenario.  It can't because the victory points are assigned by the scenario designer himself and if the designer assigns zero points to the King Tiger then even the weighting doesn't matter because zero weighted by a number still equals zero. 

[Lt Bull]

.....the QB points themselves are irrelevant to scenarios.......the fact is that whatever the actual purchase price is for a King Tiger for a QB has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the victory points that a player may gain by destroying said King Tiger in a scenario.  It can't because the victory points are assigned by the scenario designer himself and if the designer assigns zero points to the King Tiger then even the weighting doesn't matter because zero weighted by a number still equals zero. 

 

What I think you meant to say was "Yes there is an "undocumented" unit points weighting system (probably based on similar weightings to the points used in QBs) that is referenced by scenario editor scenarios that comes in to play if and when a scenario designer decides to allocate mixed groups of units the same Destroy/Unit Objective tag.  The fact that a scenario designer may choose not to assign a Destroy/Unit Objective to a mixed group of units and hence no utilise this weighted points systems does not refute the fact a weighed points system similar to the QB points system does actually exist and can be referenced by a scenario."

 

Actually knowing the actual price of a KT in a QB as compared to (or even relative to) a Kubelwagen would actually give you an idea for how this "undocumented" unit points weighted system would divide up and assign VPs for the destruction of the KT or the Kubelwagen if both these units were tagged with the same Destroy Unit Objective by the scenario designer and assigned "x" VPs.

[ASL Veteran]

What I think you meant to say was "Yes there is an "undocumented" unit points weighting system (probably based on similar weightings to the points used in QBs) that is referenced by scenario editor scenarios that comes in to play if and when a scenario designer decides to allocate mixed groups of units the same Destroy/Unit Objective tag.  The fact that a scenario designer may choose not to assign a Destroy/Unit Objective to a mixed group of units and hence no utilise this weighted points systems does not refute the fact a weighed points system similar to the QB points system does actually exist and can be referenced by a scenario."

 

Actually knowing the actual price of a KT in a QB as compared to (or even relative to) a Kubelwagen would actually give you an idea for how this "undocumented" unit points weighted system would divide up and assign VPs for the destruction of the KT or the Kubelwagen if both these units were tagged with the same Destroy Unit Objective by the scenario designer and assigned "x" VPs.

Fair enough.

[Lt Bull]

Fair enough.

OK., may peace be with you.