UO: How To Take Hostile Buildings

[Sgt.Squarehead]

17 minutes ago, IanL said:

Preserve means you have to occupy it (or your opponent surrender it) and not damage it.

Is that really so (and across all the games)? 

If so you've just freed a bunch of objectives for me, and also royally screwed a core concept (easily fixed) in a scenario of mine. 

On balance you probably have my thanks. 

[A Canadian Cat]

57 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Is that really so (and across all the games)? 

Well I only fired up Shock Force but I have no reason to think anything would be different in other games.

57 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

If so you've just freed a bunch of objectives for me, and also royally screwed a core concept (easily fixed) in a scenario of mine. 

On balance you probably have my thanks. 

Your welcome. I think

[General Jack Ripper]

On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 5:48 PM, ncc1701e said:

Hello,

Several methods have been discussed here. Personally, this is my nightmare.

Cheers

Oh god, I thought that was dead and buried by now... LET IT DIE!!

[Bozowans]

12 hours ago, IanL said:

I just did a quick test: Red has only a bonus objective worth 100 points Blue has only a preserve objective on a two story building for 100 points. If Red surrenders right away the game is a 100 - 100 draw. Surrendering does not forfeit your bonus points. If Blue does serious damage to the building (wrecked the roof and top floor) and red surrenders it is a 0 - 100 red win. Surrendering does not protect Blue from damaging its preserve objectives.

So if you want the points for a preserve objective blowing it up will never work no matter what the enemy does.

Okay that's interesting! Thanks for doing that test. 

Kinda makes me want to get into scenario design. I've played the CM games for a long time but never made any maps or scenarios for it. I still haven't played most of the CMSF scenarios, but most of the ones I've seen give loads of points for destroying enemy units and for occupying objectives. If there are preserve objectives, I haven't seen any yet that are worth so much that they can cancel out an entire Red force surrender and all other objectives. It would be very interesting to see a scenario that the Blue force can still lose even if they wipe out the entire Red force.  

[domfluff]

4 hours ago, Bozowans said:

It would be very interesting to see a scenario that the Blue force can still lose even if they wipe out the entire Red force.  

There are definitely quite a few of those for CM - CMBN Buying the Farm, for example, I was playing as a multiplayer game as the defending Germans, and was wiped out, with the US in command of the field. I'd caused enough damage for the end result to be a Draw.

The victory conditions in CM are often awkward or counter intuitive, but you can do quite a lot with them. 

[MOS:96B2P]

19 hours ago, IanL said:

Preserve means you have to occupy it (or your opponent surrender it) and not damage it.

Hmmm, are you sure?  Maybe I'm not understanding the above result / conclusion.  I just did a quick test in CMSF2 to double check.  Below are my results. 

A 2 floor, 2 action spot building is a 100 VP Preserve Objective for Blue.

Type Ending           Damaged          Occupied             Result       

Cease Fire                  No                         No                  Blue 100 VPs

Blue surrender           No                         No                  Blue 0 VPs

Cease Fire                  No                       Red                   Blue 100 VPs

Blue Surrender           No                       Red                  Blue 0 VPs

Cease Fire                  No                        Blue                 Blue 100 VPs

Blue Surrender           No                        Blue                 Blue 0 VPs 

Cease Fire                  Yes                        No                  Blue 0 VPs  

Blue Surrender           Yes                        No                  Blue 0 VPs

Cease Fire                   Yes                        Blue               Blue 0 VPs

Red Surrender             Yes                        Blue                Blue 0 VPs

From my scenario design notes:

VPs or partial VPs are earned for preserving or partially preserving an objective (you do not lose points for failing to preserve an objective.   

Partial VPs can be earned for preserve objectives. Only one blown out wall on a large preserve objective and the player may be awarded ½ the preserve VPs.   

I think the VP choices with destroy and preserve objectives are 0, ½ and all.  I have never seen any other choice.   

While it is possible to make a building a destroy objective for one side and a preserve objective for the other side it is probably not necessary. By making the building just one or the other you will save a terrain objective to use somewhere else.

When creating a scenario the best way to determine how preserve & destroy objective VPs will be handled is through testing.   

When used as a preserve objective the independent building ½ action spot barns will never go below ½ VPs even when all barns are destroyed.  (CMSF2 does not have independent buildings.) 

 

[A Canadian Cat]

7 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Hmmm, are you sure?

LOL well I was before you posted that. I did not have both side cease fire runs in my testing.

10 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Blue surrender           No                         No                  Blue 0 VPs

Cease Fire                  No                       Red                   Blue 100 VPs 

Interesting I interpreted my test where Blue surrendered and received no blue points for preserve as they had to occupy it. Looks like that is not true.

So, if you surrender you give away your occupy objectives and your preserve objectives - regardless of the condition of the buildings.

[RockinHarry]

still enjoy mouseholing in from unsupected sides with demo team. I usually don´t care on detail mission goals, like do not damage this or that. The frontline guys usually know better. Better loose points for damage, than for killed friendlies. 

[ncc1701e]

17 hours ago, General Jack Ripper said:

Oh god, I thought that was dead and buried by now... LET IT DIE!!

Well this thread is sticky there: http://community.battlefront.com/forum/53-cmsf-strategy-and-tactics-forum/

How surprising it is back? 

[MikeyD]

Here's a thought. If you're playing against the AI (and nobody is watching) you can always consider it a 'win' if you've done a good job tactically and completed objectives to your satisfaction regardless of the points total! We've all had those games where the final tally tells us we've won a major victory but we don't feel like it, or the final tally tells us we had a major defeat when we though we had won handily.

[RockinHarry]

most the mission goals and end game tally appears stilted to me anyway. Thus I ignore, or don´t play any such games. It´s matter of the players (the force commander) style to deal with things and objectives. At least it was so in WW2 german army. Don´t need freekin points etc. to achieve my objectives (or not). A simple and clear task  should do it. I´ll also adhere to this for my future mission designs, even if it´s basically newbie unfriendly. Less is more.

[MikeyD]

When I assign points in my own scenarios I most often tend go heavily on the unit destroy objectives rather than terrain objectives. Most importantly armor, then vehicles, officers, specialists, infantry, then terrain objectives at the bottom. You can sometimes earn more points killing enemy officers than sitting on a terrain objective.

[domfluff]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Here's a thought. If you're playing against the AI (and nobody is watching) you can always consider it a 'win' if you've done a good job tactically and completed objectives to your satisfaction regardless of the points total! We've all had those games where the final tally tells us we've won a major victory but we don't feel like it, or the final tally tells us we had a major defeat when we though we had won handily.

Sure, but that line of argument obliviates the need for vp at all.

Since vp exist, they should serve a useful purpose as a means to measure the player's success. That's not straight forward - the WW2 games are broadly symmetric, so setting up roughly balanced victory conditions is a lot easier there, whereas the modern games (and especially cmsf) require a lot more thought.

[RockinHarry]

I also meant to say that not every single VP allocation needs to be radioed to the player in the mission briefings first hand. I oftenly find mission briefings overloaded with all sort of this details like, 100 points for this, 50 points for that, keep your guys healthy and when the sun shines in africa. I like the idea to not reveal any such many info and also opt for using "not known to player" objectives more oftenly. It´s usually up to a (good) player determining important tactical terrain and such by himself and not forced upon him by a mission maker. The higher echelon commander usually gives a simple and clear task, not messing with micro details, unless he wants a particular house beeing his next CP.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 3:07 PM, MOS:96B2P said:

Hmmm, are you sure?  Maybe I'm not understanding the above result / conclusion.  I just did a quick test in CMSF2 to double check.  Below are my results. 

Aaaaarrrrggghh! 

22 hours ago, MikeyD said:

When I assign points in my own scenarios I most often tend go heavily on the unit destroy objectives rather than terrain objectives. Most importantly armor, then vehicles, officers, specialists, infantry, then terrain objectives at the bottom.

Likewise, although this can be complicated if you use Exit Zones (which I do, a lot).....I'm also very fond of hidden objectives, of one sort or another, with a few clues in the briefing and on the map they can add a bit of immersion to the game (Ask @MOS:96B2P about his pushbikes one day.  )

Edited April 13, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[MikeyD]

Ah yes, I've used hidden objectives once or twice as a 'sweetener of the deal', additional points to incentivize the player to do a thorough sweep. But never enough to make or break a battle. That was on a revamped CMSF1 scenario, not one of my own.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

You can use them add a bit of tension too.....I had hidden 'tunnels' (AI reinforcement zones) in Ashsh al Dababir, placed fairly close to the player's s starting positions, presenting him with the dilemma of whether to leave forces to watch those tunnels and if so how many troops to use and where to position them.

PS - In CM:A & CM:SF2 I've taken to using similar chicanery with Exit Zones, there are always clues as to where they are, but the player has to actively look for them and then do something about interdicting them (which can be more challenging than simply cutting off a map edge).

Edited April 13, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[RockinHarry]

12 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Ah yes, I've used hidden objectives once or twice as a 'sweetener of the deal', additional points to incentivize the player to do a thorough sweep. But never enough to make or break a battle. That was on a revamped CMSF1 scenario, not one of my own.

I´d even go as far as going entirely with hidden ones. The briefing gives the task, which as said should be clear and rather simple. This leaves the players mind free to tackle things to his understanding and liking. The end game screen then tells him if he´d done well, more or less (replayability?). A newbie player might be deterred from this approach, but there´s already tons of missions for a more easier and detailed beginning IMO.

[General Jack Ripper]

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 1:43 PM, ncc1701e said:

Well this thread is sticky there: http://community.battlefront.com/forum/53-cmsf-strategy-and-tactics-forum/

How surprising it is back? 

[domfluff]

There are a couple of problems with Hidden Objectives - they can certainly be "unfair", especially if they're badly defined - e.g., a hidden Occupy objective, and you miss the action spot by one square.

The other issue is - how hidden are they, really? They're always available in the editor, and certainly accessible on repeat plays, so they're often not the most elegant solution to the problem.

If randomness was desired, I'd imagine that points for taking out specific units with randomised reinforcement times, might be more appropriate.

[RockinHarry]

yep, every mission and designers goal would be somewhat different. Haven´t made an "all hidden objectives" mission yet, but when time has come and I see a viable opportunity I´ll try. The hidden one I used in a published mission actually is a multi AS spot one and fairly hard to be missed. It´s also geared and adapted to the attacking AIP general attack plan, reflecting its general importance to both players. Whether it worked out the way I intended I can´t tell for lack of player feedbacks.

With the rather limited objective zone options in the game, one can hardly create lots of elegance. One way would be to make these zones more random by use of different AI plans though.

I personally do not aim at "randomness" much. I can´t leave much to it if carefully pulling off reasonably constructed AI attack (or defense) plans. Anyway, I much prefer the "puzzle" type of mission layout and let a player find the best solution to a battle problem. Not to everyone´s taste for sure. But I approach attacking and defending AI layouts different anyway, with defensive AI plans somewhat easier to pull off usually. There´s always more than one solution to a mssions goal and its design. What works well in one mission, might be totally crap in another. But this is what makes mission creation so interesting. 

Edit: just noticed this goes now heavily off topic in this thread.

Edited April 15, 2019 by RockinHarry

[Glubokii Boy]

In thoose somewhat larger/ more compex scenarios that includes multiple terrian, multiple destroy and perhaps also casulty/amno level objectives it can be quite tricky to get the scoring right...the player may fail in securing some terrain objectives that is pretty vital but still score - full point - in all the others...friendly, enemy casualties...killed the right enemy unit and keept the right friendly units alive etc...resulting in a draw or maybe a minor victory...but they still failed to secure all the terrainobjectives for the mission. Kind of the primary objective...a skilled designer usually manages to get the scoring pretty much right to be able to handle every possible outcome...but this could get pretty tricky to do at times.

What if the objectives could be classified as primary and secondary objectives...and the game end-screen could include success or failure for both of these...?

For example...securing the terrain will be the PRIMARY objective for the scenario and maintaining a low casulty level will be the SECONDARY objective...

Both of these sets of objectives can be a succes or failure individually...

Terrainobjectives seccured...primary objective achived.

Casulties to high...secondary objective is a failure...

In another scenario some terrain objectives may be classified as primary objectives and other, less important, as secondary objectives...

If the primary objective is achived the mission will be considdered atleast a win (at various levels dependant on the result of the secondary objectives...).

If the primary objective fails...the mission will be at best a fail (or maybe a draw)...dependant on the result of the secondary objectives...

[MOS:96B2P]

3 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

With the rather limited objective zone options in the game, one can hardly create lots of elegance. One way would be to make these zones more random by use of different AI plans though.  

By "objective zones" do you mean terrain objectives?  I don't think terrain objectives can change with different AI plans (I hope I'm wrong).  Only the AI orders change with different AI plans. 

Example:  The "West Crossroads" is a 200 Victory Point occupy terrain objective.  My understanding is that no matter the AI plan the "West Crossroads" will always be a 200 VP occupy terrain objective.   

[Sgt.Squarehead]

8 hours ago, domfluff said:

There are a couple of problems with Hidden Objectives - they can certainly be "unfair", especially if they're badly defined - e.g., a hidden Occupy objective, and you miss the action spot by one square.

This is where careful coordination of the briefing and visual clues on the map come in.

Not all players will pick up on it, but some do.....'Them's the breaks!' as they say. 

8 hours ago, domfluff said:

The other issue is - how hidden are they, really?  They're always available in the editor, and certainly accessible on repeat plays, so they're often not the most elegant solution to the problem.

Once you start pulling things apart in the editor, all bets are off.....You seem to expect miracles? 

Edited April 15, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

By "objective zones" do you mean terrain objectives?  I don't think terrain objectives can change with different AI plans (I hope I'm wrong).  Only the AI orders change with different AI plans. 

Example:  The "West Crossroads" is a 200 Victory Point occupy terrain objective.  My understanding is that no matter the AI plan the "West Crossroads" will always be a 200 VP occupy terrain objective.   

you are correct. That was a quick pull from my erroneous memory. So we don´t have even this option.