Question about different objectives

[David Chapuis]

How do you guys like playing scenarios where the forces have different victory locations?

My opinion - right now - is that it should be seldom used or kind of a bonus objective. In theory it sounds like it would make for a better scenario, but in practice I have found it frustrating. You seize your objective, only to lose because your opponent also got his objective. That is just frustrating.

[Webwing]

You are right IMO.

I like the flexibility to be able to have different objectives for each side.

The more options you add to the scenario editor the more you have to rely on the designer to make good use of them though.

The designer must use his common sense and experience to avoid making missions that are ambiguous in their objectives. It can be very frustrating for the player.

Briefings are sometimes also not clear as to what the player should achieve.

Bottom line, it's all up to the mission designer. If you played a mission where that happened do write to the designer and point that out. Email or here in the forum. I'm sure he will be glad to hear from you. This kind of feedback is very important to make missions better.

--

[Paper Tiger]

I've never used this option but as long as I knew about those enemy VP locations, I would just view it as another location to defend to deprive him of his victory points. Not much wrong with that. NOT telling the player now, that would stink.

[Webwing]

One way I have used it is for instance. Blue has to TOUCH several points and OCCUPY two. Red must only OCCUPY one. This one is the same as the last one that blue needs to occupy.

--