More wish list for CM2 = Victory Conditions and Reinforcements

[MrSpkr]

Okay, some of this has been discussed before, but I am curious how opinion currently stands:

1) Victory Conditions: I think scenario designers ought to have more flexibility in setting victory conditions. For example, rather than a strictly 'points' basis, victory conditions might require seizing and holding one or more houses or other locations. I like the current flexibility one has with exit scenarios (you can have all, some, or none of a side's units required to leave teh board), but would like the same flexibility in non0exit scenarios.

For example, in my scenario, 'Hide-N-Seek', the original SL scenario required the Allies to seize two of three buildings to win. It is impossible to recreate that in CM because the Allies will have a very difficult time winning if the Germans hold on to one of the victory locations and inflict ANY significant casualties on the Allies. I think having that kind of flexibility would be very useful.

(2) Reinforcements. I think a scenario designer ought to be able to grant the player some degree of flexibility as to where reinforcements are to arrive. For example, the player might be able to designate one of two areas predesignated by the scenario designer as the place at which the reinforcements will arrive. The scenario designer ought to be able to give the player the ability to choose which location he prefers at the start of the turn prior to the reinforcements entering. This give the scenario designer some flexibility in designing his scenario, and helps prevent gamey tactics (like targeting artillery on an area where you know your opponent is going to receive reinforcements in a turn or two, thus destroying the reinforcements before they can even be used). If you know your opponent can bring in the units in one of several different places, it is harder to use 'gamey' tactics like that to gain an unfair advantage based on your knowledge of the scenario's design.

What do you guys think?

[SlowMotion]

2) I think this idea of reinforcements arriving to one of several predesignated locations would be really useful. Maybe the player should select the place or maybe the computer just randomly picks one of the locations?

[MrSpkr]

Either way. It would certainly bring a bit of uncertainty into the process, something currently lacking in pre-made scenarios.

[Bobbaro]

Another possible thought along the line of the Victory Position for desingers: since VPs represent a sort of magnet for the AI troop movements, it might be interesting to have MPs, Magnet Positions, which are hidden and which carry no win point that count in the score. That way a designer could influence the behavior of the AI without cluttering up the battlefield with excessive VPs. These MPs would tend to hold troops in positions rather than heading off on jaunts towards the VPs. The MPs could also carry varying values for holding. Their influcence would have a range factor so that other troops would not head for them unnecessarily.

Alternatively, another way to accomplish the same is to be able to issue unit "stance" conditions which might place them into a position holding stance until suitable triggers had been tripped. Such triggers could be a given number of turns, enemy troops behind them, or having occupied certain VPs or having friendly troops haveing reached designated goals.

It is quite a challange for a designer to work the AI into acting within a design concept. With enough design tools in hand the AI could be made to be pretty tricky. Design elements with random capabilities are most helpful in obtaining replay value from a scenario. Already AI placement has random characteristics that can be useful in that regard.

[Steve McClaire]

Since we're tossing out our 2 cents on reinforcements, I'd like to have the ability (as a scenario designer) to set up the exact formation that reinforcements arrive in. Yes, I know you can select wedge, vee, or column, but you still have no control over where in the formation each unit ends up.

[CMplayer]

While we're at it would this be an

interesting idea?

Attackers in QB's can designate part

of their force as 'reserves' and

let them start the game off board

(where they are safe from arty or

other nuisances). Then some command

would allow them to drive onto the

board anywhere along the ex-setup zone.

This could be useful against players

who buy 300mm rickits and TRPs and

target the attacker's setup zone on

turn one.

just a thought,

--Rett

[mPisi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve McClaire:

Yes, I know you can select wedge, vee, or column, but you still have no control over where in the formation each unit ends up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to know excatly how this is done... I thought we had no control at all!

I'd also like to see more control of reinforcement placement and organization. At least code it so it keeps the platoons together!

[Keith]

If the scenario is designed properly you can most certainly model the requirement that a certain area must be taken in order to win. It is just a question of placing the proper value objective flags at the right spots, while keeping an eye on the number of troops involved and expected casualtes incured. I believe the current system is very flexible and works fine as is.

[benpark]

I would hope for a "way point" system for setting up the AI attack, optionaly set for 2 player games. This way the designer could, if a historical path of attack is desired, set 3 or 4 points along which the assault was to proceed. This could be varied. As an attack met with heavy casualties or resistance, the regular AI kicks back in. Flags are an abstraction of this, but visable to the human player as well, giving away the path of attack. Exit points would be ideal for this set up. This would lead to a more realistic strategy of defence.

[SlowMotion]

The same for defense. Some new tools for assisting the AI without the human player knowing, would be great. Generalizing from what Bobbaro wrote, it would be cool if scenario designers could set locations that should be used for certain action in certain conditions. This way the strategic AI (or whatever decides on troop movement) could consider some map position for ambushing tanks, but only until say turn 15. Or a group of defenders would try to hold location1, but only until own troops have arrived to location2. After that, location1 wouldn't have any specific meaning.

The way point system for attack could be done the same way.

[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: SlowMotion ]

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Keith:

If the scenario is designed properly you can most certainly model the requirement that a certain area must be taken in order to win. It is just a question of placing the proper value objective flags at the right spots, while keeping an eye on the number of troops involved and expected casualtes incured. I believe the current system is very flexible and works fine as is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really - particularly in situations where

1) you have to take, say two of three buildings at different points of the map (or worse still, two of four buildings at different points of the map) since, if you simply satisfy those victory conditions and go no further, you can only get at best 2/3 of the possible points; or

(2) situations in which casualties simply do not matter - for example - hold this bridge until relieved regardless of cost. Now, if I hold the bridge in CM but lose 7/8 of my men in doing so, I will still lose. Conversely, if my opponent is to seize the bridge regardless of costs (think 'Nijmegen' or 'Pegasus'), and I simply withdraw from the bridge and pound the heck out of his forces as he seizes it, I can still 'win' on points.

The problem with the current system is that it makes no distinctions whatsoever between casualties and victory locations. Having the ability to do so would make scenario design easier, and give more flexibility to the designer.

[edited because I really, REALLY miss the spellchecker]

[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]