Game option idea for those "Gamey-Tactics"

[Marnix]

Good idea Teach! This reminds me of an old (well, not that old) game that some of you might remember: Sid Meier's Gettysburg. The game automatically added game time if any of the major VLs were still being fought over by the time the official scenario time ran out. This could happen a few times in succession (two or three times, IIRC), so last-minute rushes didn't get you anywhere: if you took a VL that way, you still had to hold on to it during the overtime, giving the enemy a chance to rally and counterattack (to take the VL, or force more overtime) If the VL kept changing sides that way, it would probably end up neutral (I don't remember, it's been awhile).

[Bruno Weiss]

Yeah, I'd think maybe a little less on the variables might work better. Basically what appeals to me about this is the aspect of not being about to "count" on something in the game happening. Like, it "will" end at such and such a point. The idea in principle anyway, provides for more realism or less predictability and that to me equates to a stronger challenge. As is being pointed out by some, the devil if there is one, is in the details of how to tweak it so that it does not inadvertantly negatively impact some other aspect of the game.

Someone said Steel Panthers has always had this, and that is true, also did not Close Combat have an aspect where at least as an option, one could set the victory conditions to where a period of time was sustained after someone grabbed the VL's. Great alms of RA, I hope we're not taking CM/2 down the road of cosmopolitanism.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-14-2001).]

[Schugger]

Well, I like the idea too and it could be implemented without any additional programming, you just need a pair of ten-sided dice.

I think I have posted this " house rule " before, but I'm unable to find it.

Optional Rule; Variable Scenario End

This scenario is set for a duration of 27 turns

To make this a bit more unpredictable we have created an house rule during play testing for PBEM games that a battle may end sooner or later

than listed.

Simply roll a percent die ( two ten side dice, one shows the "tenths" the other the "units") starting in the order phase of turn 24.

If the roll matches the result from the table below, the game ends and both sides have to prepare for a cease fire. It is important that the player

who plots first in the order phase of a given turn rolls the dice and applies the result ( i.e cease fire or not) and informs his opponent of the result

so he can act accordingly.

Table

Turn 24 10%

Turn 25 15%

Turn 26 20%

Turn 27 25% ( normal game end )

Turn 28 35%

Turn 29 40%

Turn 30 50%

Well, it works only if playing against a human oppomemt and not against the AI.

[General Panic]

Variable game lengths was one of the features I always thought CMBO was lacking.

------------------

Two Rules to Live By:

1. Never Get Out of the Boat.

2. Charlie Doesn't Surf.

[Bruno Weiss]

Well actually I was thinking more along the lines of CM2, rather than any applicability to CMBO. Steve said CM is about ready to come out of the oven for good, and while I didn't like the sound of that when first said, the reality of it is he is right. If they don't stop monkeying with CM, they ain't never going to get to CM2. Someone said gremlins stole something outa 1.1, so now there has to be a 1.1.1, and if them lil gremlins steal something outa that then there's going to be a 1.1.1.1. What was that movie...Twilight Zone! That was it, William Shatner, he's at it again. Anybody notice anything funny on the CM battlefield, like maybe lil green things scurrying around in the underbrush?

I dunno Schugger, how would I know my opponent ain't being gamey and using weighted dice.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-14-2001).]

[Schugger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

I dunno Schugger, how would I know my opponent ain't being gamey and using weighted dice.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest Bruno, I've never wasted any thought about the cheating aspect when I came up with this house rule.

I suspect that my opponents are 100% trustworthy even though I get spanked occasionally.

All I can say is that it is quite thrilling to play with a variable scenario length and I recommend to try it out with someone you can trust.

[This message has been edited by Schugger (edited 01-14-2001).]

[Bruno Weiss]

To be sure Schugger, it's a fine idea. Was just surprised to see someone wasn't wasting their time thinking about cheaters, and gamers, and KingTigers, Oh my.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-14-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Good ideas guys.

Please note that It's too late to add new features to CM1. And there are so many competing ideas/features on the CM2 list that we already have more than we can possibly implement if we want to finish it before you are all too busy playing with great grandchildren to care about CM anymore.

But we've been thinking about variable end times for battles from the very beginning. A +/- to the turn limit is a very good start. We might even want to take it a step further and have the ending tagged to the activity level - i.e. as long as there's heavy fighting still going on, the scenario will continue. In other words, it ends when the time limit is up and when there's a relative lull in the fighting. Both would have to occur. Something like that. And also we plan to expand further on the automatic cease-fire rules to prohibit battles from degenerating to the point where your ex-halftrack crews are fighting my ammo-less mortar teams in close combat. Yes, that's how my last game with Steve ended, and we realized something needed changing.

Charles

[PawBroon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Yes, that's how my last game with Steve ended, and we realized something needed changing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aren't you lot gamey gits?!

Boy a wee whiley you said that you almost never had time to actually play your own game.

And there you are doing your coming out about rushing last minute crew members.

Ok now someone put the Padlock on Charles and have him read ALL of the posts...

------------------

You are not Obsessive-CMpulsive, you are Allied-Retentive.

Mark IV

[TeAcH]

Thanks BTS. I certainly understand there comes a time when you move on to the sequel and don't put anymore time into the first game. I see that now. I haven't been visiting the forum too much lately so I wasn't aware that that had been announced, but it makes sense. Therefore, I thought this would be a "quick" fix to prolong the playability of CM1 while we all wait for CM2.

I would like to say however, that CM1's theater of operations (the hedgerows, the US, the Brits, etc.) appeals to alot of people on its own so much so that they will likely play and mod it after CM2 (Eastern front) is released. Therefore, if you are ever stranded in a winter cabin somewhere with your laptop loaded with CM1 with you and all your CM2 data is elsewhere, maybe then you could find the time to pass the hours by coding a turn count modifier.

Thanks for a wonderful game,

TeAcH

[bradleyh]

My response is in favor of the modifications that TEACH spelled out in his original posting, but I'd like to add some additional perspective on why I think this is a good idea.

When I first started playing CM against my buddies, my tactic was to plan and steadily push towards the objectives that I planned on. For execution of the plan, I relied on the turn count for when to execute. In many, many games, my tactics failed due to my opponents rushing the objective flags near the very end of the game, and thus they were relying on the turn count also.

We can learn from past and recent history that battles are not encapsulated and decisions for battles are not made in a vacuum. That's why we have higher levels of battle command and decisions and outcomes in one battle effect other battles... in objectives, tactics, overall composite benefit. For example, if a win were to occur in one theater, the importance of other battles may be minimized and the original objectives for that battle are changed.

Obviously, in real battles there is no turn count, but we CM-fanatics need something to regulate the game, so this is needed. TEACH's suggestion of a limited random modifier on game "turns" could simulate the chaos and randomness of true battle and fluctuating objectives.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I think we may have a fundamental misunderstanding here. My suggestion was that at the time that the number of turns for the QB were being decided by the players, the program would choose how many turns would be randomly added or subtracted, and the players would only discover that number when the program announced that time was up.

The other thing is that its choice would be weighted. For instance it might look like this:

20% of the time it would choose +/- 1 turn.

15% of the time it would choose +/- 2 turns.

10% of the time it would choose +/- 3 turns.

5% of the time it would choose +/- 4 turns.

2% of the time it would choose +/- 5 turns.

The rest of the time, it would make no change at all.

Thus, nearly half the games would play to the limit that the players had chosen, but they couldn't be sure in any particular instance that it was so. Does this seem reasonable?

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I REALLY like this suggestion!

very well thought out.

The whole idea of varying time when the scenario ends is a good one.

-tom w

[TeAcH]

Though I'm all about this topic (hehehe) I don't like the idea posed by Michael Emry as much as I do my own, at the risk of sounding pompous (and I really don't mean to sound that way).

First off, I think neither the percentages of occurrence nor the amount of the turn modifier is high enough to have an impact (although + - 3 or above is getting there). Furthermore, if it is an option that the players and scenario designers have at their disposal, it allows everyone or no one to use it.

TeAcH

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 01-14-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

Though I'm all about this topic (hehehe) I don't like the idea posed by Michael Emry as much as I do my own, at the risk of sounding pompous (and I really don't mean to sound that way).

First off, I think neither the percentages of occurrence nor the amount of the turn modifier is high enough to have an impact (although + - 3 or above is getting there). Furthermore, if it is an option that the players and scenario designers have at their disposal, it allows everyone or no one to use it.

TeAcH

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 01-14-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK

Maybe I am mistaken but I think the idea here is to some how generate some UNKNOWN +/- value that is kept hiden from both players that determines when the game will conclude.

Michael Emry simply formalized the suggestion with real numbers.

Maybe those numbers should look like this:

edit by tom w

20% of the time it would choose +/- 7 turns

20% of the time it would choose +/- 6 turns.

20% of the time it would choose +/- 5 turns.

15% of the time it would choose +/- 4 turns.

10% of the time it would choose +/- 3 turns.

5% of the time it would choose +/- 2 turns.

5% of the time it would choose +/- 1 turns.

5% of the time it would choose +/- 0 turns.

just another set of numbers

a suggestion nothing more

I Really like Charles' idea about trying to tie in some "lull in the fighting" factor as well that would be very inovative!!

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-14-2001).]

[Bruno Weiss]

BTS wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Please note that It's too late to add new features to CM1. And there are so many competing ideas/features on the CM2 list that we already have more than we can possibly implement if we want to finish it before you are all too busy playing with great grandchildren to care about CM anymore.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank the Great Alms of RA!

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[TeAcH]

I understand your point and yes the idea is to make the ending unknown to players. But if for example the player choses a 35 turn game, they will always have an idea when the game will come close to ending or at least when they are nearing the end of the scenario. Nothing will ever change that as long as we have a given and known set of turns.

My proposal allows players to dicatate how much of an effect they want to on when the last round will occur. Moreover, there are going to be some people out there, for whatever the case may be, who will want to disable a feature like this altogether. They may want to design a scenario that says it is 15 turns long (simulating severe time constraints like the rail bridge must be held at XX:XX time as an example). Personally, I would probably always use random endings.

As you know, there are those who both use and disable the timer in TCPIP games.

BTW, I also like the idea Charles suggested too in addition to this concept.

Thanks for the input,

TeAcH

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

I agree that there should be variation on when the final turn comes. I have a simple idea on how many turns could be added or subtracted from the set number of turns.

Make the range of variance coincide with the number of turns the scenario was designed for at the rate of 1 for every 10 turns. So it would look like this:

1-19 turns: +/-1

20-29 turns: +/-2

30-39 turns: +/-3

and so on...

Matt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would make it too predictable, which is the very thing we are trying to avoid.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

Charles, I could definitely live with your idea. I thought mine might be a bit easier to program, but if you see a way to get yours to work, by all means, go for it!

Michael

[CavScout]

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

TeAcH,

Your idea is so simple and yet it is profound. I like it.

One thing though. If the game ends early -say 10 turns early, it may be that neither side is in control of the victory locations and hence there could possibly be a high number of draws as a result. It may make people artificially race to the VLs which is also just as "gamey" as what you and others want to avoid.

Would it be better to leave the minimum number of turns untouched with there being the possibility of only extra turns? With these extra turns, you could then take your reserve and smash these last ditch gamey "banzai" charges. Say- ten extra turns max?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like the + or - turn because it gives a sense of urgency.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

I am not totally against having random turns, but, having a maximum of 10 is way too much. A maximum variance of 2 would suffice. I am in a game right now where we are on turn 16-17 of a 30 turn game. My opponent has just started his offensive using the previous 11 turns to manuver. If somehow the variance left the game over at turn 20, it will be too unfair. That is like losing 1/3 of the proposed battle time. It is totally unfair to the Attacker.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It adds urgency to an attacker not present in a fixed game time.

[Lt Bull]

I suggested this to Teach in a TCP QB and he thought it may be worth posting...

How bout a battle system where an ATTACKER must control the VLs for X amount of turns in order to win (or to "convert" the VL to his control).

Or even, victory points accumulating for controlling VLs for every turn in a battle (much like some board wargames use Victory Points allocation for VLs controlled at the end of a turn).

I think this could be argued to be the more "realistic" means of determining "control" of an area ie. not for the last few fleeting seconds in the last turn of a scenario, but a few solid turns (minutes) of occupying the VL(s) to gain CONTROL>

Lt Bull

[Papa Smurf]

IMHO the best solution would be to have UP TO +/- 20% of the game length as a random modifier in a nice (flattish) bell curve kinda probability way.

i.e. a 20 turn battle could end on any of turns 16 to 24 with (slightly) higher chance of it ending around turn 20.

Just my 2p's worth, although as BTS said, it's all pretty academic now.

Also you could use one of the many random number servers on the internet if you wanted to use Schugger's house rule and wanted to ensure no cheating...

Neil

[This message has been edited by Papa Smurf (edited 01-15-2001).]

[Dr. Brian]

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

Therefore when, lets say you are playing a 35 turn game with a turn modifier of +/-10, then it COULD end on turn 25 or 45.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that it is not realistic. However, as member of the "gamer" crowd (as opposed to "simulator" crowd), this can totally skew the play balance of a fun scenario.

I'm looking for scenarios that are evenly matched no matter what side you play. Your request goes against the very fiber of competitive game play for a "gamer" like me. A scenario must be balanced, and the length of the game is paramount to that.

However, in a campaign (operation) type series of scenarios, this would be okay, as victory is only determined after a number of days.

Just a "gamers" $0.02.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Jeff Heidman]

A different perspective:

Everyone seems to agree this is a good idea (even BTS!). I am wondering who should control it though?

Should the parameters be set up by the scenario designer, or by the players of the scenario? Obviously a QB will be set by the players, but I would hope that the scenario designer could set the end parameters himself for a pre-designed scenario, and then choose how much info about that he gives to the players in the briefing.

Jeff Heidman

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lt Bull:

I suggested this to Teach in a TCP QB and he thought it may be worth posting...

How bout a battle system where an ATTACKER must control the VLs for X amount of turns in order to win (or to "convert" the VL to his control).

Or even, victory points accumulating for controlling VLs for every turn in a battle (much like some board wargames use Victory Points allocation for VLs controlled at the end of a turn).

I think this could be argued to be the more "realistic" means of determining "control" of an area ie. not for the last few fleeting seconds in the last turn of a scenario, but a few solid turns (minutes) of occupying the VL(s) to gain CONTROL>

Lt Bull<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this suggestion is VERY good.

The scenario designer should be able to set the suggested turn by which the attacker should control each flag. The number of turns there have that the attacker maintains control should also count towards victory points.

in a QB the number of turns the each sides controls a flag for could be counted for victory points. Yes this would mean that a victory points calculation would have to be made by the computer after every turn, and a running tally maintained until the end of the game.

I really like the idea that the vicotory points could be tallied for the number of turns (in a cumulative way) that one side maintains control of a Flag.

Great Idea.

Sounds like something we can lobby for in CM2.

-tom w