The CMBB "Rope-a-dope"

[Andrew H.]

I think that there is a lot of merit to a modified version of GJK's system. Perhaps in a 30 turn game, a side would get 0 pts per VL per turn for turns 1-10, 10 pts/turn per VL for turns 11-20, and 20 pts/turn per VL for turns 21-30. This would be for a 300 pt VL. (And the computer would calculate the actual point per turn depending on how long the game actually went).

With this scheme, even having a VL be undecided would be of some value, since no one would get the points for it.

[dieseltaylor]

Hat Trick's idea of a longer period after a flag changes hands has a lot of merit - simple to implement and effective.

[Crash Deaton]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Hat Trick's idea of a longer period after a flag changes hands has a lot of merit - simple to implement and effective.

I agree wholeheartedly. Although I'd still like to see something that has even more flexibility, that would be an outstanding quick fix for the slightly premature endings we tend to see right now.

Good thinking Hat Trick!

[Flesh]

You could have a "gentleman's agreement" with your opponent that one or more contested flags (or a flag changing hands within the last five turns or so) results in a "compulsory rematch".

By that I mean that you import the map and units into a new QB and go again. Another five to ten turns or whatever you and your opponent agree to.

You could either disregard the result of the first QB and only consider the result of the second, or you could average both results.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

[GJK]

I say do away with silly flags and fight to the last man! GGgggrrrrrrrr :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

like that or somefink.....

[Ligur]

Hat Trick's proposal gets my money, its not inventing a new system or anything just a simple solution that might work very well.

The last minute rush was a terrible affliction in CMBO but I'm happy to say it hasn't been that much of a problem in CMBB, but still evident in many ways. Usually the player not controlling the flags times his most serious push so that he should get the flag during the last 1-5 rounds. The last few should be made meaningless somehow.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Crash Deaton:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Hat Trick's idea of a longer period after a flag changes hands has a lot of merit - simple to implement and effective.

I agree wholeheartedly. Although I'd still like to see something that has even more flexibility, that would be an outstanding quick fix for the slightly premature endings we tend to see right now.

Good thinking Hat Trick! </font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by GJK:

If the flags were worth a certain percentage of their total value at the end of each turn (total value of flag divided by # of minimum turns) that it is held, then it wouldn't matter who had it at the end of the game but who held it the longest.

Certainly makes sense in scenarios that have objectives such as "keep (something) open for as long as possible" or "keep (something) in control for as long as possible".

I TOTALLY agree with some form of this, it should perhaps be a little more complicated so the scenario designer can commuicate the victory conditions in the brief and then somehow (?) program them into the scenario so as to account for ownership of flags NOT just at the end of the game. (this is the root of the problem IMHO because flags are only worth something after the final minute and EVERYONE knows it).

This is could be as complicated as to allow for the value of the flag to each side to be dependant on the turn number. Say the attacker has to old a certain flag by turn 10 and another flag by turn 20, and the game is 30 turns long, then the scenario designer should be able to program the value of the flag based on the approximate turn it "should" be taken and held. Holding the flag over a period of time, NOT just at the end of the game should somehow be part of the victory point scoring system. I think it should be flexible enough to let scenario designers program some really interesting and perhaps radical victory conditions based on flags and turn number and who holds what when and for HOW long!!

OF course then the defender would not KNOW the attacker's mission was to hold that flag at turn 10 so there would be nothing gamey about a flag rush in one flag location at turn ten of a 30 turn game.

Like wise the defender would not now the attacker needs the other flag at turn 20 to be successful. Thus in a 30 turn battle there would be no incentive to take those two flags in the 28th and 29th minute because they would be worth ALOT LESS to the attacker at that time.

Some new scoring system (perhaps more refined and maybe even MORE complicated) is needed in CMX2 IMHO (maybe something new here for CMAK??)

-tom w

[ June 27, 2003, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Lady Roxanne]

Dynamic victory flags with the variable point value would solve some of this; but the feature isn't used much in scenarios for some reason, and isn't available for QBs.

Completely removing time limits is the way to go IMO. How long will the attacker keep sending files while doing nothing? He will attack when he is fully prepared, and not a minute later, because he is ready. There is no reason to delay his attack any further because there is no artificial ending of the world.

Some argue that commanders were often under heavy time pressure. If time is that important to the scenario then put in a time limit. There will be no waiting around for the last turns to launch the attack if the time limit is short enough. If time is that critical, the player should have barely enough time to do it. The attack will come on the last turns because the player couldn't get there any sooner.

In the case of a rush attack, the attackers heavy losses should be compensated with a point bonus to even things out. The bonus should be mentioned in the attacker's briefing so he knows he can go all-out. With variable point victory flags the attacker should be told the value of the flag.

Finally, if you are on defense, you WILL have to wait much of the time. This is the nature of defense. You're not waiting 20 long turns. You're waiting 20 short minutes. Scenario design causes the wait in many cases, and rightly so IMO. It's the difference between preparing your own attack or letting the designer do it for you.

Kris

[ June 27, 2003, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: CrankyKris ]

[tar]

Maybe part of the solution is to allow a variable length game to end EARLY as well as late. That would presumably not require much in the way of programming effort.

[GJK]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

This is could be as complicated as to allow for the value of the flag to each side to be dependant on the turn number.

-tom w

I think Tom has expanded upon my idea greatly. The inherent problem with my proposal is that it won't work in defending actions; the defender will be racking up points sitting on flags each turn until the attacking force can get there to do something about it.

Giving scenario designer's the ability to set what turn a flag becomes "active" and the points per turn does complicate things a bit but I think it's a great solution to the last minute flag rush issue.

It would though, require scenarios to be playtested quite a bit more I would imagine, because you would have to find that perfect balance of when a flag should become active and for how many points per turn it should be worth for the team holding it. But thats where The Proving Grounds could come in handy.

(sorry, gots to pimp the site whenever I can)

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by tar:

Maybe part of the solution is to allow a variable length game to end EARLY as well as late. That would presumably not require much in the way of programming effort.

I am in favour of that suggestion as long as it is not predictable and both sides know what the earliest possible final turn is.

(Obviously :eek: )

As it is now (I think) the variable turn end mechanism in the game only adds extra minutes to the battle and never takes any away.

That would be an interesting thing to try

-tom w

[ June 27, 2003, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by GJK:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

This is could be as complicated as to allow for the value of the flag to each side to be dependant on the turn number.

-tom w

I think Tom has expanded upon my idea greatly. The inherent problem with my proposal is that it won't work in defending actions; the defender will be racking up points sitting on flags each turn until the attacking force can get there to do something about it.

Giving scenario designer's the ability to set what turn a flag becomes "active" and the points per turn does complicate things a bit but I think it's a great solution to the last minute flag rush issue.

It would though, require scenarios to be playtested quite a bit more I would imagine, because you would have to find that perfect balance of when a flag should become active and for how many points per turn it should be worth for the team holding it. But thats where The Proving Grounds could come in handy.

(sorry, gots to pimp the site whenever I can) </font>

[Le Tondu]

One real good fix for this is to play MEs and turn off the flags --and just go at it. Let casualties determine victory and pretty much ignore that endgame battle "report." You'll know if you're defeated or not.

I mean isn't that how it is done in real life?

Sure, there are such things as objectives and all, but does it really matter (with such relatively small maps that CM has) where you defeat your opponent? Biting the dust is biting the dust.

Anyways, with the flags on, you know exactly where your opponent is heading -all of the time. That doesn't seem very realistic to me.

[V]

How about invisible victory locations and a none gamey opponent.

[V]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

Anyways, with the flags on, you know exactly where your opponent is heading -all of the time. That doesn't seem very realistic to me.

Excellent post. It is best to play this way with a trusted opponent. But then again, every game is better against a trusted opponent.

[KiwiJoe]

In my opinion its real simple... you get x number of points for each turn you hold a flag. Thus say its a 30 turn game at 20 points for a flaf per turn... if u hold a flag for 29 turns and the enemy rushes it on the last turn and takes it thats: 29x20=580 points for you, 1x20=20 points for him.

This would dramicaly change the strategy of the game. It would make things a lot more ergent and bloodly as I asume they would have been in these smallish tactical battles.

[GJK]

Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

In my opinion its real simple... you get x number of points for each turn you hold a flag. Thus say its a 30 turn game at 20 points for a flaf per turn... if u hold a flag for 29 turns and the enemy rushes it on the last turn and takes it thats: 29x20=580 points for you, 1x20=20 points for him.

This would dramicaly change the strategy of the game. It would make things a lot more ergent and bloodly as I asume they would have been in these smallish tactical battles.

We agree, in some form, but the problem with just making them worth x points per turn, every turn, is in defending actions. If you have a large map and some of the flags are tucked way in the back, the defender will be racking up points every turn until the attacker can get to them, which may or may not be fair (I don't know, should the attacker be penalized in game terms for not getting to the flags sooner?).

If a scenario designer could designate on which turn for each flag that the points would start to accumulate, and then be able to breakdown the points per turn, I think that would be game changer right there.

For example, a large flag is worth 300 points total. The scenario designer designates that this large flag that is in the middle of the map should be reached by someone by turn 4. This is a 15 turn game. The designer breaks down the points as such:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Large Flag (OBJ Alpha)

TURN POINTS

4 5

5 10

6 15

7 15

8 20

9 20

10 25

11 50

12 75

13 25

14 25

15 15

----------

300</pre>

[Crash Deaton]

Lots of good discussion on this!

While I think the simple solution of adding some more turns whenever a flag changes hands late-game would work as a fix to the current problem, I'd still far prefer something that really created a way to design a wide variety of situations and drive a lot of different behaviors in the players through thoughtful use of victory flags with objectives that can vary in value on different turns for both sides.

The problem under discussion right now of overscoring the defense for objectives they have at the start could be solved (and a lot of additional flexibility would be added as well) if a seperate Objective Value table was set up for each side with definable vales for each turn.

With that, you could score the Defender zero points on the turns that the attacker should be advancing to contact and only award them for hanging on during turns when the assault should be taking place.

It would take more thoughtful work on the part of scenario designers and more playtesting, to be sure, but it would add a TON of flexibility to the game. Scenario designers could incent or discourage an agressive commander with higher or lower than normal points for taking an objective early in a scenario if they wanted to. If we could assign negative points for getting there too early you could do some really interesting things with that like run Special Ops and give the order that they are absolutely NOT to step on the objective before turn X lest they blow an ambush or whatever and then if they DO get there early, slap them with some negative victory points. Anyway, I run on (as usual), but if we want the most flexibility, I think this is a relatively clean way to go and as I said before, you could still convert all existing scenarios to use their current values on the last turn only without having to recreate all of them.

[aka_tom_w]

interesting

good thread

interesting points here

I hope someone at BFC HQ is listening

-tom w