Victory Conditions

[With Clusters]

How will victory conditions be implemented in SC2? SC1's point scoring system was fairly unsatisfying. Based purely on number of 'kills', a player got one point for every enemy unit destroyed, whether it was an expensive carrier or cheap corps. This would lead to the illogical situation where a victorious player could actually get a higher score by taking longer to conquer his enemy, while taking the time to destroy larger numbers of enemy units, rather than getting some kind of hefty bonus for a swift and efficient victory. So pretty much the only victory condition that mattered was 'total'. Play until you stomped the other guy out of existance, or he resigned.

Perhaps a victory condition system similar to 3R or CM is in order? I think SC2 will have some sort of system like that (PZGNDR mentioned 'victory conditions' briefly on 4/22 in a post regarding 'I Want North America off the Map', and it seemed mainly relevant to the new multi-player aspect of the game). How will it work? Will it be based on 'kills'? 'Victory locations' controlled? Resource tiles controlled? Will they be adjustable with the editor?

I would think varying levels of victory/defeat might keep players in the game even if it was obvious their 'side' would not win the war. IIRC, in old 3R, the Axis could gain a 'Minor Vicory' if they still held Berlin at the end of 45. Meaning, sure, the Axis still lost the war, but the Axis 'player' won. As it is in SC1, the game goes on until 47, and if the Axis loses in 46, too bad, you still 'lose'! If there was some kind of tournament or ladder that scored varying points for different levels of victory (or just for pride's sake), players would keep at a game to the bitter end (trying for a mere 'Major Defeat' as opposed to a 'Total Defeat', say), rather than packing it in once things started to go a little downhill.

So, any word as to what's on tap here? Ideas on how victory conditions should be scored? Especially in multi player mode?

P.S. - sort of off my own topic, but how about scenarios that have a time cap? Say, not just a 39 'campaign' game, but a 39-41 game, or a 40-42 game (see who can achieve the most victory 'stuff' before time expires)? Or should we just wait for someone to 'mod' that later?

[ May 22, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: With Clusters ]

[Retributar]

Im no expert on victory conditions,...i just prefer 'total victory'...meaning that i now own the opponents country and that he is out of business, any other victory is just a diluted form of that prize...and can/could be defined in this game!.

Time-Caps have their uses...they could be set up in the editor i would hope...though i prefer to rarely use a time-cap...unless there is a Historical Precident for such!.

[With Clusters]

'Total Victory' is certainly enjoyable. But how many opponents in any game where that is the sole victory condition will actually stick around for you to enjoy it? IMO, it is the rare gamer who will continue for the full monty when they are losing (not a dig at all these folks - in a game that takes a long time to complete, some people might have something better to do, maybe). But if there was something to achieve other than the innevitable 'Total Defeat', they might just hang in there. Going down fighting and all that, but with a way to recognize the effort.

Allowing an Axis player to achieve some sort of victory, even though the 'Axis' is eventually defeated (say, if the 'defeat' happens after the historical date) might be one option. The premise of 3R was that the Axis would probably have been defeated at some point, thus the idea of 'minor' and such victory conditions if they could last past a certain date. Whether that was some sort of real historical innevitability or not is another matter (check out the CM forums for plenty of debate on these 'what ifs' if you've got time to kill). Game balance is another issue. 3R did favor the Allies (players being equal I suppose) in the long run, but the complaint was that SC1 was the other way around, and that the Axis was (w/o bids and such) in the best position to achieve total victory (at least in the 39 game). If SC1 had had victory conditions, perhaps it would have been the Allies who would have needed the option for 'minor victories' and such. The problem I found was that Axis players tended to give up once the Allies had turned the tide, because they felt they had nothing left to play for, which is unfortunate, as that part of the game in 3R was one of the most interesting. How best to defend, when you have no real hope of ultimate victory (in 'real' terms, not game terms)? Throw in time related victory conditions (or something like that), and now you have the reason.

And I would admit that time-cap games are probably more a-strategical (they would lend themselves to gamey situations to achieve short term goals that would be extremely risky had the game continued), but fun none the less. But they'd certainly be faster to play, and might allow a player to try some interesting strategies that they might not otherwise go for in a 'full' game.

[ May 22, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: With Clusters ]

[Desert Dave]

With Clusters,

Excellent points all around, and very well stated.

I too have occasionally "chafed" ... when, playing as Allies, I do NOT get my opportunity to "play it on out" because the Axis player has realized, perhaps even prematurely, that his strutting on stage time... is up.

This is not even half-hearted fair.

If you have suffered through the long, arduous struggle, when you cannot hardly fight back due to slowly aggregating Allied resources, then it seems patently selfish for the opponent to just fold up his bountiful blitz cards.

Hubert will have to elaborate on this at some point, and I'm confident that he will.

When? We'll just have to wait and see.

But, I too am awaiting some further elucidation, and am also hoping for a way to extend campaign games... in determined hopes of achieving a "small or minor victory" when all was thought completely lost!

__________________

And, oh, BTW, in this new version of SC, there WILL be a better opportunity for the Allied player to finally have his day... the new game will be noticeably better balanced, and, more importantly, due to compelling and historical reasons, and not because of any artificial "equalizing methods."

[... such as "bidding processes"... more likely that sheer and pure skill will carry the day, either Allied OR Axis... though, some accident and "luck" will attend each encounter... this is, to me, very realistic since "battlefield fog-slog and confusions" were as rife and evident in the real war, as exactly planned and executed battles, true?]

[ May 22, 2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[With Clusters]

Thanks DD!

As an annecdote (sp?) from my second CM(BB) game ever, I got totally mowed over by the Germans (lost my sole bunker the first turn, and had my green Russian infantry scattered by arty, while invincible German tanks drove on toward the victory locations), I hung in there a long long while after my opponent/friend suggested I pack it in (give the 'surrender' order), and managed to eek out a 'draw' (with me having the higher percentage of victory points no less). Totally different game, I know, but having something to play for other than 'total victory/defeat' kept me in it long enough to make a thouroughly enjoyable game for both of us. Something worth considering IMO...

[reiver]

As a point of etiquette I think it is only polite that when you believe you have "blown it" that you should offer your opponent the option to play it out or your surrender.

It can be quite entertaining making victory as arduos as possible for your opponent.

[With Clusters]

Bump.