Michael Emrys Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 Not sure how hard this would be to code for, but this is an idea I would love to see implemented. The defender either begins on the map or enters by a designated map edge. A specified number of turns later, the attacker enters by the same map edge. The defender's mission is to exit as many of his units off the opposite map edge while preventing the attacker from doing likewise. Points are scored by multiplying the purchase value of a unit by some number related to the turn it is exited. The earlier the turn, the greater the multiplier. Points are also accrued by destroying enemy units. For the defender, the problem is choosing which units to use for rearguards and how long to leave them in place before withdrawing to the next fallback position. For the attacker, the problem is finding the right balance between agressiveness and recklessness. If he goes hell for leather, he just might run into a PAK front, but if he plays too cautiously he will run out of time before exiting his units. Ideally, this should be played on a LONG map. Comments? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Juzzy Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 I'm playing around with a few ideas for these types of scenarios at the moment. Currently, I'm struggling with just the opposite problem: How to formulate an interesting game revolving around a column moving up a road with an enemy trying to disrupt their advance. The way CM is wired at the moment exiting units just isn't rewarded with winning points scores. Similarly, the AI won't interdict the road without VLs, so it looks like I'm going to have to place low value flags along the route. This presents the problem of the column having to detach units to hold onto these flags against the AIs advances, which in this particular scenario, would be an unhistorical alternative My current solution is to provide follow up units sufficiently far behind the main column to be militarily unavailable but capable of securing the flags. I'm going to try a game based on a fighting withdrawal. This will provide less of a problem I feel, but is still an intersting challenge. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted October 6, 2001 Share Posted October 6, 2001 i made a scenario where you had to evacuate troops in a town over a river while a huge -ss german army is on your tail. i could never balance the germans to be that aggressive or to get it so exiting unit points outweighed the flag points i placed so the germans would advance. but most ppl liked it. it is the scenario i talk about in my sig: decision bridge demolition AND has the names of members of the ubb! it is actually a small-med map(the standard map size when u open a new scenario), not a long one i made the defending rear guard units worthless so as not to affect the score greatly. ----- . . . to solve the small flag problem you may wish to make an island type area far far away from the action. then have the retreating side have small reinforcements there at the end of the game: a few sharpshooters etc to outweigh the points from the flags along the raod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 6, 2001 Author Share Posted October 6, 2001 I think what I have in mind requires coding for a whole new type of QB. The problem I foresee is getting the AI opponent to understand the subtleties involved, especially on defense. May not be a reasonable thing to ask, alas. I suspect that design of a scenario played by two human players would not be as hard, maybe even possible within the existing system. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted October 6, 2001 Share Posted October 6, 2001 This is a fine idea, and I for one would like to see more such scenarios. There is one significant problem with trying this with the current system, though. You can't set both sides to exit from the same map edge. If you do, one side just snaps to no exit. (You may think you've set them to the same. Go back and look - they won't both read the same anymore). I think it is because the game wants to display those silly "enemy exit here" billboards around the map edge. Which incidentally are another pet peeve of mine for a different reason - I don't think the enemy objective should be broadcast in neon lights like that. If side A is supposed to know which way side B is trying to exit, then the briefing can tell him. If he isn't supposed to now, it won't. Right now the second option doesn't exist, because of those billboard "exit" signs. There are two obvious work arounds for the prohibition on same side exits. The first is to let the defender exit from one of the other, long sides. This does make it easier than it should be for him to exit, but he still faces the primary dilemma, to defend or to run, and how soon. The exit VPs available to the attacker should be high enough that he will win if the defender just runs immediately, allowing all the attackers to exit who want to. The second work around is to put several high value flags near the same exit edge, as the defender exits from, instead of an attacker "should exit" setting. But that may have two problems. One, the points for successful exit of designated "should exit" defenders would be so high, you'd need a lot of them, and tuning would have to be done with care. And two, the defender might just defend the objectives until the last turn, and the attacker can't bypass, as he realistically could. It would be nice to have the option to allow both sides to exit from the same map edge in CM2, and to hide the other side's exit VCs when fog of war is on. I was interested enough in this idea that I've made up a scenario based on it, set in the Ardennes in December, with the Germans attacking and the Americans playing rear guard for a change. If anyone is interested, mail me and I will send the scenario. It is called DelayAction. Playtest comments welcome, if anyone gets it. My email to ask for the .cmb is - jasoncawley@ameritech.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted October 6, 2001 Share Posted October 6, 2001 I am about 30 some turns into a PBEM match of Road to Luneville II playing the German side, which is so far pretty interesting. I am not sure how the scoring is going to work out, hope I can exit enough units to get some points. Some additional scenario types as you suggest would be great. I still play quite a lot of games against the AI, and some greater variety of mission types would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 7, 2001 Author Share Posted October 7, 2001 Jason, I can think of a workaround for the exiting thing, but it's clunky and I don't like it. Anyway, here it is: This entails some bookkeeping by the players, which is one of the main things I don't like about it. Each player has to keep score (like on a piece of paper) of which units he manages to exit off the map. (This has the added advantage of doing away with those godawful billboards, BTW.) At the end of the game, the units are multiplied by their value (determined by a formula yet to be worked out) and this score is added to whatever they got by destroying/capturing enemy units. Regrettably, such a system cannot be played against the AI and the scoring will no doubt be seen as an unacceptable bother by all except the most adventurous (or most desperate for a new game ). But there it is. More comments? Michael [ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 7, 2001 Share Posted October 7, 2001 I have no heartache with paperwork, Mike. Your system also lets you change the exit zones to include more than one board edge - trying to convert ASL scenarios, I noticed that many exits were restricted to roads, and some involved two adjacent map edges (one on the short side, one on part of the long side), etc. It's a good concept, if you can work out the point values. You can also vary the point values - give a flat rate, say, 2 points per "squad" (but since casualties are tracked, you can say 2 points per "man" exited) and give victory as a flat "must exit 200 points" to win, or break it up as in Total Victory - exited 200 Major Victory - exited 150-199 Victory - exited 100-149 Draw - exited 75-99 Minor Loss - exited 50-74 Major Loss - exited 25-49 Total Loss - exited less than 25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 7, 2001 Author Share Posted October 7, 2001 The points per man is in the direction I was thinking, but I would throw in some multipliers for troop types, experience, and maybe even their morale level when exited (that adds another fraught decision for the player: "Should I exit my panicked squad now, or keep it within command radius of my double heart HQ in hopes that it will recover its morale before one of those nasty advancing tanks comes along and bumps off both of them?" :eek: :eek: Michael [ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted October 7, 2001 Share Posted October 7, 2001 Might also have the points per exited unit depend on how soon it gets off the map - for the attackers at least. If one is willing to do the score by hand, which certainly works for board wargame VCs and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 7, 2001 Author Share Posted October 7, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Might also have the points per exited unit depend on how soon it gets off the map - for the attackers at least.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep. Mentioned that at the top. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkut Posted October 7, 2001 Share Posted October 7, 2001 I had tried this with a scenario I designed called nachut(rearguard)It was quite a short map, and despite Jason saying that a large graphic advertising where the enemy was to evacuate I still had a few playtesters complain that the allied brief was not indepth enough The main problem is that the AI simply cannot handle the withdrawl of units from the map very well, and it can be too easy to hammer them. With the AI in the attack role, even the position of victory flags does not make the AI any more aggressive, but will bring AI controlled units up the map. It's a scenario idea thats better handled in PBEM&TCP/IP games. Once pointer to remember. Whatever units you decide are going to leave the map, remember to tag them as such in the editor. Jason, I think you had one called get the guns? You had a force of Germans who had to destroy a battery of 105mm guns and then get off the map. The allied player had to hold off the germans and get the guns out of harms way. Not much of a challenge against the AI, but well worth it against a human opponent. regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted October 7, 2001 Share Posted October 7, 2001 I really really like this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 8, 2001 Author Share Posted October 8, 2001 To embroider around the edges just a bit, it can be played by live players within the game as is, if they are willing to put up with a bit of bother. However, it would be really swell if sometime in the future (say, around the engine rewrite) BTS could add code so that it becomes a standard QB type playable against the AI and with the program keeping score. Just keeping my fingers crossed... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 8, 2001 Share Posted October 8, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: To embroider around the edges just a bit, it can be played by live players within the game as is, if they are willing to put up with a bit of bother. However, it would be really swell if sometime in the future (say, around the engine rewrite) BTS could add code so that it becomes a standard QB type playable against the AI and with the program keeping score. Just keeping my fingers crossed... Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mikey, its about time you and I crossed swords. Design a scenario with these kind of objectives, and I will playtest it with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 8, 2001 Author Share Posted October 8, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Mikey, its about time you and I crossed swords. Design a scenario with these kind of objectives, and I will playtest it with you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hate to be a soggy towel to such a gentlemanly offer, but I just can't bring any enthusiasm to playing a wargame (any wargame) against a human opponent. Similarly, I can't stand to play Chess or Go against a machine. Call me eccentric... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts