The [U*] Designation?

[Canuck21]

I've searched here, the manual (and I know it's in there but I just can't find it) and from Google every which way I can with no luck. In the Units window some units have the designation [U*] (where * is a number unless it's an HQ with several different designations for the units within). What does the "U" stand for please? I know about "A*" and "R*", but not U.

Thanks.

[Combatintman]

It signifies a unit objective - this is what the manual (page 88 refers) says:

To designate a unit or formation as a scenario objective, you have to first assign it to a “unit objective group” in the Unit Editor. To do that, select the unit or formation and hold down the SHIFT key while pressing a number key from F1-F7. The selected unit(s) will then show a [U] next to its name followed by the corresponding group number you pressed.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Combatintman

[Canuck21]

Ah yes, now I see it. I've never made a unit (yet) part of the victory conditions so I glossed over that section a bit. Thanks very much for this.

[Combatintman]

18 hours ago, Canuck21 said:

Ah yes, now I see it. I've never made a unit (yet) part of the victory conditions so I glossed over that section a bit. Thanks very much for this.

Highly recommended - it is a useful mechanism for balancing your VPs.  I often just do a head count for each side and allocate 1 VP as a 'Destroy' objective.  So if there are 130 dudes on one side and 150 on the other, the VP count is 130 and 150 respectively.  The beauty of it is that each side picks up points as they go along ... provided they kill people of course.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Combatintman

[Canuck21]

Good to know. I hadn't thought of doing that, but it makes a lot of sense. I'll definitely look into that for the scenario I'm working on now. It's fairly large and would lend itself rather nicely for this type of VP allocations. Thanks for this.

[Combatintman]

10 hours ago, Canuck21 said:

Good to know. I hadn't thought of doing that, but it makes a lot of sense. I'll definitely look into that for the scenario I'm working on now. It's fairly large and would lend itself rather nicely for this type of VP allocations. Thanks for this.

The trick with VPs is to understand how they work, identify which options work best in your scenario and then see how they all combine.  I generally use about four or five of the different types in all of my scenarios.

[Canuck21]

Thanks for this again. I got my 2nd vaccination yesterday and I'm down and out today so I'm not ignoring you, I'm just not straying far from the couch today. Back in a day or two.

[A Canadian Cat]

30 minutes ago, Canuck21 said:

Thanks for this again. I got my 2nd vaccination yesterday and I'm down and out today so I'm not ignoring you, I'm just not straying far from the couch today. Back in a day or two.

Bummer man. Well good to get the second shot, bummer that you are feeling off the next day. I had my second last week. I was a little tired by the end of the next day and my arm was a little sore but the impact was in the middle of reactions from other vaccines I've had.

[Ultradave]

48 minutes ago, Canuck21 said:

Thanks for this again. I got my 2nd vaccination yesterday and I'm down and out today so I'm not ignoring you, I'm just not straying far from the couch today. Back in a day or two.

Good. Just rest up. For my second shot I felt lousy for a day, but then the next day I was completely back to normal. My wife was lucky. Her second shot she didn't even notice. Same vaccine (Pfizer). 

Dave

[MikeyD]

Your question stumped me until I realized the context. In the editor, looking at acquired forces, and seeing some have been assigned 'unit destroy' objectives for the other side. In my scenarios I usually assign unit objectives to 'destroy' for armor, infantry, officers, and specialists. They're in the editor as U1, U2, U3, U4 and U5. After you designate them you go back to Mission / Unit Objectives and you can select, name and give points scores to the units.

[Canuck21]

Well, that was quite the experience. I was flattened by that thing, with a temp of 38.8ºC/102ºF, aches, etc. Apparently if you have a strong reaction to the shot, it means your immune system is in good shape. If that's true, then I should be able to ward off the plague. Friends of my sister have had an even stronger reaction in some cases. Anyway, it sure beats having Covid (I know - I had it a year and a quarter ago - that was a whole lot less fun!!). Anyway, dramatically better today, and in another couple of weeks I'll feel a whole lot safer to boot.

So, back to the question at hand. 

On 6/23/2021 at 4:36 AM, Combatintman said:

The trick with VPs is to understand how they work, identify which options work best in your scenario and then see how they all combine.  I generally use about four or five of the different types in all of my scenarios.

I'm guessing that's where I'll have to experiment a bit to see just how they play into things. I've mostly dealt with Terrain Objectives and to a lesser extent, Parameters. Of the three types, what sort of importance do you place on each (Parameters, Terrain, Unit Objectives)?

20 hours ago, MikeyD said:

In my scenarios I usually assign unit objectives to 'destroy' for armor, infantry, officers, and specialists. They're in the editor as U1, U2, U3, U4 and U5. After you designate them you go back to Mission / Unit Objectives and you can select, name and give points scores to the units.

Are these in addition to Terrain and Parameter Objectives? Also, do you set values for all the officers (for example), or do you get selective based on a particular unit? By that I mean, do you assign a Unit Objective to Infantry (for example) for the entire infantry force opposing you, or only specific units out of the entire force?

Thanks people.

[Combatintman]

31 minutes ago, Canuck21 said:

I'm guessing that's where I'll have to experiment a bit to see just how they play into things. I've mostly dealt with Terrain Objectives and to a lesser extent, Parameters. Of the three types, what sort of importance do you place on each (Parameters, Terrain, Unit Objectives)?

I have no set rule.  Your weighting will depend on the type of scenario it is.  If grabbing or not losing bits of terrain is the key bit of the mission concept then it is logical to weight VPs towards terrain objectives.  If your mission is about killing the enemy or not being killed then you can weight towards parameters and unit objectives.  If you then follow that logic and you have a mission which emphasizes grabbing a piece of ground but not losing too many troops in the process then you're looking at balancing your terrain, parameters and unit objectives.

That should be the starting point but always needs refinement.  If your scenario is going to be playable by both sides, how do you stop one player getting a turn one victory by hitting ceasefire because they are the defender sat on all of the high VP terrain objectives?  How do you keep one or both players in the game by ensuring that neither side has an advantage until just past the mid point in the scenario?  The mechanism I use for the latter eventuality when testing is to save and ceasefire at between five and 15 minute intervals and screen capture the end game screen.  The numbers there inform me as to how the casualties tick over and allows me to adjust unit objective values for instance.  It is rare that my original VP schema survives testing so you shouldn't think narrowly about 'terrain is the most important' or whatever.  You need to just use what is perhaps the biggest and most flexible toolkit in the editor to get the right scores on the doors.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

1 hour ago, Combatintman said:

I have no set rule.  Your weighting will depend on the type of scenario it is.  If grabbing or not losing bits of terrain is the key bit of the mission concept then it is logical to weight VPs towards terrain objectives.  If your mission is about killing the enemy or not being killed then you can weight towards parameters and unit objectives.  If you then follow that logic and you have a mission which emphasizes grabbing a piece of ground but not losing too many troops in the process then you're looking at balancing your terrain, parameters and unit objectives.

That should be the starting point but always needs refinement.  If your scenario is going to be playable by both sides, how do you stop one player getting a turn one victory by hitting ceasefire because they are the defender sat on all of the high VP terrain objectives?  How do you keep one or both players in the game by ensuring that neither side has an advantage until just past the mid point in the scenario?  The mechanism I use for the latter eventuality when testing is to save and ceasefire at between five and 15 minute intervals and screen capture the end game screen.  The numbers there inform me as to how the casualties tick over and allows me to adjust unit objective values for instance.  It is rare that my original VP schema survives testing so you shouldn't think narrowly about 'terrain is the most important' or whatever.  You need to just use what is perhaps the biggest and most flexible toolkit in the editor to get the right scores on the doors.

This. Set your objectives and then go play the scenario and see if your results on screen match how you think you did. Tweak the conditions based on your results. 

[Canuck21]

Excellent. This helps. What I'm finding is that I have the mechanics of building scenarios down reasonably well. It's the nuances like this that need a lot of work. The scenario I'm building currently is pretty big. I'm thinking I may shelve it for the time being and build a smaller one which will make it easier to play with while varying up the VP's. Thanks for this.

[MikeyD]

Quote

Are these in addition to Terrain and Parameter Objectives?

I tend to (largely) ignore parameters objectives. Terrain objectives are important if the scenario demands you "Capture/defend that road at all costs!", but are otherwise just incentives to get the player to move across the map. Unit objectives are usually my primary method of assigning victory points.

You can assign unit objectives any weird way you want. In a Fire and Rubble scenario I entirely ignored German infantry but assigned big kill points for SS HQ units.

Edited June 28, 2021 by MikeyD

[Canuck21]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

I tend to (largely) ignore parameters objectives. Terrain objectives are important if the scenario demands you "Capture/defend that road at all costs!", but are otherwise just incentives to get the player to move across the map. Unit objectives are usually my primary method of assigning victory points.

You can assign unit objectives and weird way you want. In a Fire and Rubble scenario I entirely ignored German infantry but assigned big kill points for SS HQ units.

Ok, gotcha. Time to start experimenting. Lots of good info here - thank you as always  .

[kohlenklau]

Here is a nugget or 2 I have gathered over the years...

I think you get 8 U groups U1-U8 (?) I never went up that high...might be +/-

If you create a distinct U group, say U1 and it can be set to be 3 equal units, let say 3 blue tanks that the red side must destroy. You can set 50 points per tank for the 3 tanks, but U1 is equal to 150  and the computer works out the points assigned. Partial of 50 for immobilized. KO all three U1 tanks and you get 150.

This ties back to your scenario briefing and maybe (your call) on if knocking out the 3 tanks was critical and clearly described, etc

Exit objectives tied to the U group points value and how it is evaluated always messes with my mind.

If those 3 blue tanks was also supposed to exit off the map edge for 50 points each...then stopping them adds to red sides total? Or subtracts? I always get it confused.

[Combatintman]

20 hours ago, kohlenklau said:

If those 3 blue tanks was also supposed to exit off the map edge for 50 points each...then stopping them adds to red sides total? Or subtracts? I always get it confused.

Adds to red is correct.  Always one to be aware of if you don't want a turn one or relatively early ceasefire to result in a victory for one side or the other.