Victory conditions, cease fire, and exploits

[ChrisND]

Just ran a little experiment (OK, and I also wanted to get a save file of each scenario in the campaign), and I have found that in 4-5 scenarios in the Thunder campaign, the US player can win the scenario by requesting a cease fire on the first turn.

The culprit seems to be awarding a player a disproportionate amount of points for his friendly force's condition or casualties (as opposed to giving an enemy points for inflicting damage).

So, a note to you campaign designers out there: Give points for inflicting damage, not preserving it. Unless you want to give the player an "out" for skipping scenarios that are too hard, of course.

[Combatintman]

Thanks for that advice - I'm really struggling with getting the balance right with victory conditions. I plan on revisiting some of my scenarios when I get the time because I'm not happy about the victory conditions.

[MarkEzra]

OK...let's talk about this a bit. First calling an immediate ceasefire is not really a way of testing Victory point status. Second: Real World dictates that Blue forces cannot sustain large number of casualties without being perceived as losing an engagement. Third: Red Forces can sustain any number of casualties with out penalty. I often use a penalty for high Blue force casualties because it reflects a Commanders reality. I do my best to make sure the player is aware that he can capture all his objectives but still lose the game if casualties raise above some %. This and other Victory conditions were not available in old CMx1 and allowed Victory to be claimed by the player with just enough live troops to occupy a Victory Flag...How many games were "won" by Mortar teams, empty arty FO's, or a forlorn jeep jockey?

It is vitally important that scen designers Point out Friendly/enemy casualty impact on Victory so players are aware of WHATEVER force preservation needs must be met. Here is an example of how I attempt to do this.

I hope that improved Victory conditions display will be considered in future CMx2 titles.

[Paper Tiger]

Interesting. In a scenario, this really isn't a problem but it's a really big one in a campaign. But there's an extremely simple solution to this problem. Give the AI controlled force an even bigger victory point bonus for preserving his force. That's what I've done in my campaign. And trust me, it's set very high you'll have to kill almost everybody to get rid of that game winning bonus. It's not set like that because it's 'realistic' to do so, it's done simply to prevent players from achieving a victory by doing these sort of 'gamey' things.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Is it really a problem?

I think the utmost attention of the designer should go towards the scoring of an honest attempt at playing the scenario/campaign. If someone thinks it's an exploit to abuse the resulting scoring system by ceasefiring early, then all he needs to do is not abuse it.

[ChrisND]

While I don't think this is a real problem, some campaign designer(s) may wish to know about this. As far as I can tell, the exact same "preserve your force" objective can be accomplished by giving the Red player major points for scoring US casualties. I am all for limiting US casualties, in fact in the last scenario I made, the Red player can practically win the scenario by causing over 10% casualties or killing some officers, even if all objectives were occupied by the US.

Which brings me to: why Surrenders cause an auto Total Victory? If I am wrong about that, someone please correct me. That just seems to be what I have observed, even when the point totals did not indicate a total victory

[Martin Krejcirik]

Victory conditions are almost useless, because almost every scenario ends with auto surrender = total victory.

Solution: replace auto surrender with auto ceasfire.

[Paper Tiger]

Of course it's a real problem in a CAMPAIGN. It's very bad if the player can successfully advance through the campaign without fully completing the missions. Here's an example of something that happened when I was playtesting one mission in my campaign.

I was taking a hell of a beating from the AI and I decided to quit and move on to the next mission and lo and behold, I got a victory. Why? Because I'd already reduced the enemy force by 50% and prevented him from occupying his objectives while I had managed to preserve enough of my force to earn the bonus. Fair enough you say, but there was still 20+ minutes left on the clock, the AI is programmed to take it's time approaching it's objectives and I was about to get slaughtered. Why should I get a win merely for hitting the cease fire button long before the mission is over? I'd lost that mission big time and I knew it. Needless to say, this is practically impossible to do in my campaign now.

[Scipio]

Surely a stupid idea, but anyway: how about a penalty system if the player prematurly ceases fire?

[Paper Tiger]

A large victory point award for the AI still having X% of his force intact when,

a) the scenario ends, or

the player hits cease fire

is the best way I've found to keep the player honest, especially when the AI is the attacker. In this case, if you press cease fire before the AI has finished it's attack, you've effectively 'run away'. And, it's still possible to take great care to keep the scoring system of the mission fair and honest using this method.

[ChrisND]

An excellent idea Tiger!

[Webwing]

Interesting topic.

It all depends on the Campaign and how it is structured IMO.

If ALL your units are core units then there is no need to punish the player for high casualties in the score.

If he takes too many casualties the next mission will be more difficult for him, and the next one, and so on.

He will pay the price by not having the men at his disposal in the next mission.

However, there is still the problem of the player asking for a cease fire early. But in all the missions in my campaign the most he will get is a Draw, which is not enough to carry on.

A bit OT but the use of core units is something to be taken into account. Since this can be a way o cheating as well.

The official manual (is there an unofficial one? ) says that you should not let the player know which units are core units. This is to avoid having the player use the ones that are not core as cannon fodder.

I prefer to have all units for the player to be core, even if they appear only in one mission and never again. The player doesn't know if they will appear again or not so will try to preserve them.

-

[ April 12, 2008, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Surely a stupid idea, but anyway: how about a penalty system if the player prematurly ceases fire?

Not a stupid idea. But let me hitchhike on it: How about a cease fire lock in the editor for Campaigns...Simple and does not impact Vic margins. If the Campaign player wants to quit he can choose to save the game and continue later (after cursing the designer, swearing off war games completely, or drinking himself into a stupor ) OR Surrender which should, of course, Always be a player loss.

[Webwing]

I was initially worried about players cheating and just asking a cease fire and go to the next mission.

So at first I had the threshold to Tactical Victory.

In the end I decided that if the player wanted just to go and play mission 3 for instance, why not let him do so? So I changed that. He can start and call for a cease fire right away and go to the next mission.

Is that cheating? I don't think so. People have fun in different ways. If the player wants to go through it as it was intended, great. If he just want to play it casually, skipping some missions it's fine by me too.

Restraining the player too much is not desirable. Like Mark joked, it will only annoy some players!

The good thing is that all this is up to the designer to decide.

-

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Webwing:

Is that cheating? I don't think so. People have fun in different ways. If the player wants to go through it as it was intended, great. If he just want to play it casually, skipping some missions it's fine by me too.

Restraining the player too much is not desirable. Like Mark joked, it will only annoy some players!

The good thing is that all this is up to the designer to decide.

-

I couldn't agree more. Designers generally have some idea for their scen or Campaign. Once it's published it really becomes the players. If players want to use "gamey" tactics, cease fire advances or edit the thing to suit their gaming desires or interest than I say knock yourself out.

This after all is a GAME. I build 'em the way I like...You play 'em the way you like....Seems like a a good balance to me.

[Paper Tiger]

From Webwing's post...

"It all depends on the Campaign and how it is structured IMO."

Perfect, I couldn't agree more. In my case, I am trying to create something different from the Thunder campaign. My campaign is basically one extended scenario lasting from 6-10 missions with branches. Since branching tests for only two possible outcomes, victory level, sculpting the victory conditions in each mission is very important.

Since we're talking about campaigns here, if you want to create a semi-dynamic campaign with branches, you really need to ensure that the player must earn the right to proceed down the optimal path. Sure, you will be able to hit cease fire and progress to mission 3 in the campaign but it won't be the same mission that you'd get if you worked for your victories.

The designer has the ability to create pretty much whatever he wants in the scenario editor because BFC have provided us with wonderfully flexible tools. I'm definitely trying to make 'em the way I want to play 'em. And when I finish, I'm going to share it with people and they can choose if they want to play it or not. (And since it's Red on Red with no US, that probably means most won't )

It's certainly not my intention here to debate what kind of campaign design is better for players. Rather, I'm responding to a potential problem highlighted by the OP that campaign creators might face and present a solution to that problem.

[Webwing]

Paper Tiger,

I'm really looking forward to your campaign.

Yours is going to be the first to use branching, am I right?

I wanted to use it initially in the Ghost but gave up. But I think a dynamic campaign is the way to go and would make for a great campaign. It gives a natural flow to the experience

The reason I gave up the idea though is because I figured most players will save the game and go back so that they are sure they will win. They usually don't carry on until they have a victory. So having a branch would be used only by a minority of players.

Of course this is just a guess, since how the hell do we know how most players go about their games. We only know about a few that post in the forum anyway!

It would be nice to have random branches instead of based only on a victory threshold. But I digress.

Anyway, I intend to play yours without any saves and see where it takes me!

-

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

It's certainly not my intention here to debate what kind of campaign design is better for players. Rather, I'm responding to a potential problem highlighted by the OP that campaign creators might face and present a solution to that problem.

This was my intention. I do not believe it to be a large problem, I just wanted to let campaign designers know that it is there.

The issue I AM concerned with is the surrender auto total victory.

[Webwing]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

It's certainly not my intention here to debate what kind of campaign design is better for players. Rather, I'm responding to a potential problem highlighted by the OP that campaign creators might face and present a solution to that problem.

This was my intention. I do not believe it to be a large problem, I just wanted to let campaign designers know that it is there.

The issue I AM concerned with is the surrender auto total victory. </font>

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Webwing:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Normal Dude:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

It's certainly not my intention here to debate what kind of campaign design is better for players. Rather, I'm responding to a potential problem highlighted by the OP that campaign creators might face and present a solution to that problem.

This was my intention. I do not believe it to be a large problem, I just wanted to let campaign designers know that it is there.

The issue I AM concerned with is the surrender auto total victory. </font>Normal Dude,

I got it and it is something I'm reading with interest.

Still, I have no idea what the ideal solution would be. So I'm using the thread to throw some related ideas in.

No intention of diluting the main topic. Although I seem to do that quite often!

</font>Dilute away! I intended for the OP to more of a jump-off for a discussion on balance and victory conditions, although I could have articulated that better.

Originally posted by Webwing:

Any ETA for your campaign? Ops, there I go again!

- [/QB]

It is coming along. I have a dearth of beta testers though, especially since I am concerned about performance on varying machines, something which is impossible for me to verify. My expectation is that it will be ready in June.

[Webwing]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

It is coming along. I have a dearth of beta testers though, especially since I am concerned about performance on varying machines, something which is impossible for me to verify. My expectation is that it will be ready in June.

Great!

It's a very absorbing process, and I find it very enjoyable.

As for testers, that can be a big problem. It is very time consuming to test and it's like playing with a broken toy.

As a designer you lose perspective completely specially after you played it so many times. I find it essential to have others play it and give you feedback.

Good luck with that!

-

[Scipio]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

Not a stupid idea. But let me hitchhike on it: How about a cease fire lock in the editor for Campaigns...Simple and does not impact Vic margins. If the Campaign player wants to quit he can choose to save the game and continue later (after cursing the designer, swearing off war games completely, or drinking himself into a stupor ) OR Surrender which should, of course, Always be a player loss.

Why not such a cease fire lock for human vs computer at all? IMO a cease fire requires a kind of decission that's beyond the abilities a computer.

[MarkEzra]

[/qb]

Why not such a cease fire lock for human vs computer at all? IMO a cease fire requires a kind of decission that's beyond the abilities a computer. [/QB]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

I can see the need in a Campaign but I really don't get why a scen would need a cease fire lock. Could you amplify your reason a bit for me because I'm missing the point.

I didn't meant that there is a real need for it. My thinking was more something like 'A cease fire switch makes only sense when playing H2H'. Has a computer player ever offered you to cease fire? I guess not, because fire is usually ceased when both players have the feeling that nothing important will happen anymore.

Anyway, not an important thing.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I actually once did have a use for a cease-fire just as you describe against the AI. I had been driving into a city, taken all of my objectives, but there was still some enemy resistance left. However, they weren't bothering my troops holding the objectives, so I just ceased fire. It was actually, I felt, a pretty realistic thing to happen--the attacking side seized its immediate objectives, but got worn down in the process, so they just held their positions and waited for reinforcements while the bloodied defenders held out in their last positions.

-FMB