rocketman Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 One thing that bugs me with the current engine and which I guess we will have to live with for now is how one single pixeltruppen can negate an entire occupy objective, no matter how many units you have on it. Very annoying if he is hiding in a house not to be seen. Ideally points for occupy objectives could be devided by both sides depending on size/strength of force on it rather than "all or nothing". But unitil that is implemented I've been thinking about ways to deal with it. One solution would be that instead of having one large objective (like in many missions in the US campaign) worth X points, it could be devided into four smaller objectives each worth 1/4 of X points - and that those objectives are separated by just one action square. But of course, the objectives shouldn't be too small either as that could make the opponent camp a lot of units in it and hold it that way. Is there an optimal size for occupy objectives? Other ways to deal with this "all or nothing"-problem? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 +1. Yes, the way CM1 calculated victory and ownership of VL's was far superior. IIRC it was based on the ratio of friendly to enemy present. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveNoMore Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 I agree with Rocketman. The force needed to negate the occupy condition should be large enough to actually make the occupying troops feel threatened. A single jeep driver with a .45 Colt would not threaten a squad of grenadiers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) I actually like that occupy objectives need to be completely cleared. If the objective is too big, I think it's the fault of the scenario designer. Edited October 16, 2016 by Bulletpoint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nik mond Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 10 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: I actually like that occupy objectives need to be completely cleared. If the objective is too big, I think it's the fault of the scenario designer. Yes thinking that as well. Objectives could be broken into smaller blocks if required. Also wouldn't want ratios to negate the scenario and AI surrender if there is an intact Pak left ready to take on a platoon of tanks. Although discounting a single crewman is OK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted October 16, 2016 Author Share Posted October 16, 2016 53 minutes ago, nik mond said: Yes thinking that as well. Objectives could be broken into smaller blocks if required. Also wouldn't want ratios to negate the scenario and AI surrender if there is an intact Pak left ready to take on a platoon of tanks. Although discounting a single crewman is OK. If obejctive is determined by ratio it should be by comparing forces strength based on how much those units would cost in a QB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 I don't think that a change like that would be appropriate. All the scenarios that have been created would suddenly become unbalanced because they were designed with all or nothing objectives in mind. A new type of objective would be more appropriate. Frankly I don't think having two types of occupy objectives would be good. You guys can make the ask but I really don't see it happening - ever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nik mond Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 42 minutes ago, rocketman said: If obejctive is determined by ratio it should be by comparing forces strength based on how much those units would cost in a QB. There could be a flaw in that, because there are some very cheap but effective rock/paper/scissor units in game as in real life, and again based on the location and scenario design this could be unfair. I think it just comes down to scenario design with the tools at hand as they are now. Manageable Occupy objectives, and if clearing them becomes a tedious affair for ineffective remnants then consider making more objective blocks for the same area as rocketman pretty much said. As for the exact size, depends if it is a built up or open area. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted October 16, 2016 Author Share Posted October 16, 2016 31 minutes ago, IanL said: I don't think that a change like that would be appropriate. All the scenarios that have been created would suddenly become unbalanced because they were designed with all or nothing objectives in mind. A new type of objective would be more appropriate. Frankly I don't think having two types of occupy objectives would be good. You guys can make the ask but I really don't see it happening - ever. Agree that it would ruin many scenarios. But a change could be made in coming new games so that's one reason for pitching the idea at this stage. And for newly made scenarios maybe refrain from using too large occupy objectives. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted October 16, 2016 Author Share Posted October 16, 2016 14 minutes ago, nik mond said: There could be a flaw in that, because there are some very cheap but effective rock/paper/scissor units in game as in real life, and again based on the location and scenario design this could be unfair. I think it just comes down to scenario design with the tools at hand as they are now. IMO it would be more fair to base occupation on some sort of ratio (even a less then perfect one) than being entirely negated by one pistol wielding jeep driver. Units in locations outside an objective, let's say a well placed AT gun, doesn't affect the points for the objective as it is today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 If some kind of unit-values are included when calculating the holder of terrain-objectives maybe such a function could also be expanded to include terrain-objectives when used with the trigger function. Right now a single soldier entering a terrain-objective will start a trigger movement attached to that objective. Sometimes a scenario designer might prefer an AI-group to remain in place rather then attacking a lone, scouting sniper. Having an option to delay such a attack until a platoon sized force (an example) have entered the terrain-objective might be a good thing... Something like: - Infantry value in zone > 500 ------ start trigger movement - armour value in zone > 1200 ------- start trigger movement Maybe also... - infantry value in zone > 500 ------ target area with indirect fire support 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 46 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said: If some kind of unit-values are included when calculating the holder of terrain-objectives maybe such a function could also be expanded to include terrain-objectives when used with the trigger function. Right now a single soldier entering a terrain-objective will start a trigger movement attached to that objective. Sometimes a scenario designer might prefer an AI-group to remain in place rather then attacking a lone, scouting sniper. Having an option to delay such a attack until a platoon sized force (an example) have entered the terrain-objective might be a good thing... Something like: - Infantry value in zone > 500 ------ start trigger movement - armour value in zone > 1200 ------- start trigger movement Maybe also... - infantry value in zone > 500 ------ target area with indirect fire support this gind system sounds good idea. all sou it could work then reverse way on triggers . example if AI unit get wiped out ( inf value in zone droo under 500 ) trigger get active and AI sending more units that area . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I think that when you get an occupy objective, that's the same as a direct order to make sure that place contains literally no enemy units. A lone guy with a pistol (or more likely: a rifle) could pose a danger to any unit passing through that area later. But of course occupy objectives should be used sparingly. A good example of how to do that in practice is the mission Crossing the Dives from the Kampfgruppe Engels campaign. You're tasked to take a village, but there are actually only three occupy objectives in that town, and they are all very small. They are difficult to take, but once you get there, it only takes 1 or 2 teams to make sure the zones are clear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.