Variable endings

[WWB]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

IMO, the huge amount of luck added to the scenario is too heavy a price to pay to prevent flag rushes. This luck element could be reduced easily and substantially simply by cutting max variability to 5 turns or 12% of original scenario length. Flag rushes would still be more difficult to time.

Treeburst155 out.

I disagree. There are huge amounts of luck in CMBB already without considering variable endings. Should we not use battles with ground conditions other than "dry" so people will not bog? Should we not use armor, since penetration is really a luck thing now? What about cover? Spotting units is quite tied to the random number generator. You can't take all the luck out of the game.

WWB

[Nidan1]

Let me first qualify that I do not take the time to study the mechanics of the way the game works as you guys have obviously done, so my suggestion may seem dopey to you in some ways, but based on what I have been reading here, and my experience with the game here goes.....

Suppose all scenarios designed strictly for competition/tournament play were "exit zone" type games, where one side was required to exit the map at some point rather than capture and control VLs. The designer could lock the setup zones for the "defending side" so as to prevent him from setting up along the "exit" edge of the map, and force him to deploy along likely avenues of approach to the exit zone instead. I am not familiar with what this does to the "mechanics" of the game or scoring, but it would seem to me to be a simple way of eliminating flag rushes and the variable ending issues. Historically they could be designed in such a way as to simulate a "breakout from encirclement" or as an "advance to assault positions" or objectives simulated to be off the map edge. Does this sound reasonable or is it off base?

[ December 12, 2002, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

[Lane]

What's VL? :confused: Leave VL till last turn?

Lane

[Ted]

Lane, VL = Victory Location or Flag

TB,

Having been the victim of a last turn flag rush in tournament play I do like the idea of the VTE.

A problem, I agree, is it becomes difficult to score fairly two scenarios of varying lengths.

But, drawing an opponent who is or is not averse to using gamey tactics is also a luck of the draw.

I think I’d prefer to play a tournament scenario where the ending is of different lengths. I’d rather that than to take the chance I have an opponent who does a flag rush while at the same time another player in my group is playing the same scenario with someone who doesn’t.

I’d also agree with you TB that if you do design a scenario with the original intention of a 30 turn game, to design it for 25 turns with VTE.

[Hat Trick]

From Eden Smallwood:

And I've also lobbied that a flag behind one's lines should stay owned, regardless of whether one's troops remain there, which would have fixed that problem in the first place. But I was cruelly shot down by the vicious meanie *Emrys*,

Uhm, what was the reasoning behind not implementing this? It seems to me that once one side "owns" a victory flag, it ought to continue to possess it until the other side takes it away. I hate having to leave little half-squads, crews, anti-tank teams, whatever, well behind my main force solely to maintain control of a flag that the other side has no chance of getting.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Hat Trick:

From Eden Smallwood:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And I've also lobbied that a flag behind one's lines should stay owned, regardless of whether one's troops remain there, which would have fixed that problem in the first place. But I was cruelly shot down by the vicious meanie *Emrys*,

Uhm, what was the reasoning behind not implementing this? It seems to me that once one side "owns" a victory flag, it ought to continue to possess it until the other side takes it away. I hate having to leave little half-squads, crews, anti-tank teams, whatever, well behind my main force solely to maintain control of a flag that the other side has no chance of getting.</font>

[Hat Trick]

Kingfish --

Thanks for the reference. Don't know how I missed it.

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Treeburst155:

IMO, the huge amount of luck added to the scenario is too heavy a price to pay to prevent flag rushes. This luck element could be reduced easily and substantially simply by cutting max variability to 5 turns or 12% of original scenario length. Flag rushes would still be more difficult to time.

Treeburst155 out.

I disagree. There are huge amounts of luck in CMBB already without considering variable endings. Should we not use battles with ground conditions other than "dry" so people will not bog? Should we not use armor, since penetration is really a luck thing now? What about cover? Spotting units is quite tied to the random number generator. You can't take all the luck out of the game.

WWB</font>