Cameroon Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Blogfront entry on Objectives That is just excellent, excellent information! I'm drooling over the scenarios possible with these 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Cameroon, After reading it myself, I can see why. I'm not sure, but I think BFC's just broken vital new ground in the history of computer wargames. Wow! The things this new approach make possible are now legion. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeo Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Simply Awesome! When can I pre-order? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 I might be in the minority, but the details on the flexibility of the objectives and the ability to set them up asymmetrically is more exciting than the screenshots Though the screenshots of the objectives actually is pretty helpful in visualizing it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 True that. I would have paid and additional $50, just for a version of CMx1 with these features! One VERY MINOR thing I see missing: Timed terrain objectives. You know, the kind of setup where a player gets x points/minute they hold onto a specific objective. Very handy for creating "delay" type secenarios, where the defender's success is in slowing, not necessarily stopping, the attacking force. But a minor omission, at best. . . I can definitely live with what's offered! Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 All very exciting. Is there any difference with how objectives will work in quick battles? As a second question can there be multiple settings for the force objective? For example if the US loses 5% of their forces Syria gets 50 points, 15% 200, 30% 500. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeo Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I don't know for sure, but I was under the (disappointed) impression that there would be no quick battles in CMSF? If otherwise, someone please tell me I'm wrong!? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted March 21, 2007 Author Share Posted March 21, 2007 As far as I know, quick battles are in - it is just map generation that isn't. So, as I understand it, the QBs have to take place on existing maps. That's ok by me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Yeah I am pretty much positive quick battles are in, just as Cameroon says no more random maps. So I am wondering if each quick battle map can have the same set variable objectives that scenarios can. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Warrior Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Wow! This is really cool! This adds a whole new dimension to the fog of war in that now ultimate success is not simply defined by meeting explicitly stated objectives but one has to also consider possible implicit (hidden) objectives such as those any good commander might be expected to know without being told in his orders. Thus the player now has to second guess both what he must do must to achieve his mission and also has to worry about what he must not do. I am also wondering/hoping if perhaps some of the stock gamey behaviors (e.g. map edge hugging, suicide recon, etc) can be dealt a death blow by a clever employmemnt of hidden objectives. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I like this system a lot. As points are awarded for achieving objectives, and the objectives can be different on each side, you get asymetry but still an overall winner or loser (based on who got the most points). Gaining points for occupying hidden objectives, to reward good tactics, will have to be used sparingly though. I wouldn't like to lose a battle because the higher-ups thought I should do it this way or that way even though the end result was the same. Good use of terrain has its own reward - fewer friendly casualties and more enemy casualties - and that should be the primary concern of the player. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Gaining points for occupying hidden objectives, to reward good tactics, will have to be used sparingly though.Yeah I thought the same when I saw that idea posted. The idea of hiding objectives from one side is incredibly useful (for example the US may have to protect a building being used as a temporary field hospital but the Syrians don't need to know this) but the double hidden objective, at first, struck me as a tad useless. However I think there is possibilities for use of double hidden objectives outside just sound tactics. Here is an example that may illustrate its potential useful in a different way. "Syrian General BFC is trying to defect. He was trying to flee to a Mosque on the west side of town for safety however he has run into some difficulties and Syrian forces are also out looking for him. If he hasn't made it to any of the Mosques yet he probably hiding in a nearby building. We need to go in and secure as much of the area as possible so we can safely extract him." The mission briefing gives an idea of where he should be located (west side of town around a Mosque of which there may be multiple) and the scenario designer would designate the building where he was in fact located. Neither side has any more information on where exactly he may be, so it is somewhat of a crap shoot on who will turn out to be right. But it does make the overall strategy the player would take interesting. Overall I probably would not want to use this option that much but it does offer some intriguing possibilities. I highly doubt it would be used in any kind of tournament like serious players but for a friendly game it could be enjoyable. [ March 21, 2007, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: C'Rogers ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Really like those features, can't wait to find out how they work in the game, but wow that's a heck of a good bone in that blog post! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 The double blind feature was an easy addition so we saw no reason to NOT put it into the game. More options for people the better with this sort of stuff. Let you guys come up with creative ways to weave things together. One idea I have for the double blind thing is for something like a search and destroy mission for US forces. Perhaps they are supposed to find a weapons lab, some sort of documents stash, etc. but don't know where it within a complex of buildings. You can set one or more buildings to have a hidden objective and the US has to hope it has secured the right spot, which is something they might not know until a special team arrives post battle. Yet the Syrians operating in the area haven't a clue what is even in the buildings, not to mention that the US might be looking for it. So why should the Syrians know more about the US objectives than the US forces do? They shouldn't, obviously. Hence why double blind would be the right way to go for something like this. Anyway, we're glad you like the new stuff Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1SG Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Hello all. While I have followed CMSF development for a while, this is the first time I feel compelled to post. I am currently a 1SG of a rifle company in a soon to deploy SBCT and noted the new info on "objectives" in the blog. In my opinion, this system comes closest to reality as any I have seen in any other sim/game of ground combat. The very fluid nature of "intel driven" missions can push units into situations where the intent/endstate for the executing will probably not be cut and dry. Time sensitive targets, cordon and search, positive id of persons or actions prior to execution all are possible within this new approach to objective/victory conditions. Look forward to it (if they ship to an APO). Thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 1SG - we do ship to APO's! Our fulfilment house has a lot of experience with that Martin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Anyway, we're glad you like the new stuff I'm glad it's as good as you long-ago claimed it would be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Wenman Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 These objectives sound great, and will raise the game to a whole new level. I love the idea of a "spot" objective. - Find the blue HQ unit and you win. My only concern for Steve - is the AI good enough to work with this type of sophisticated objective ? [ March 21, 2007, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Pete Wenman ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeo Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Originally posted by Cameroon: As far as I know, quick battles are in - it is just map generation that isn't. So, as I understand it, the QBs have to take place on existing maps. That's ok by me Loverly to hear! Thanks for the clarification. I squat corrected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 The new Objectives system is one reason why we had to create a new way of working with the AI Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Wow. This sounds great. Send me a copy of the beta and I'll let you know if it works... Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Perhaps they are supposed to find a weapons lab, some sort of documents stash, etc. but don't know where it within a complex of buildings. You can set one or more buildings to have a hidden objective and the US has to hope it has secured the right spot, which is something they might not know until a special team arrives post battle. I like that, but wonder could you have an Intel Officer, represented in game by maybe an LT or a "special" squad or something like it that would reveal the victory condition was met? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Warrior Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I thought of a scenario that might be able to be simulated with hidden objectives. In battle one can do what was is ordered to do and what is right. Often these are one in the same but not always. With hidden objectives this later case can be simulated where the expicit objectives become OBE by unexpected occurances. For example the explicit objctives could be to spot a unit. Meanwhile the searching unit runs into an hether to unknown attack force and the new (implicit) objectives are to hold the line. However, it might take a while for the commander to shift gears and having hidden objectives this shift in objectives would be that much more harder to spot in that there are no explicit hold a line of flags objectives the line type objectives to tip off the player that he is being set up by the scenario designer. I am sure that there are many other cool scenarios that thes ecan be employed so I think thiese hiiden objectives are a great step forward in he state of the art in wargamming.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I have a question regarding "preserve" objectives. Say the US player must preserve some religious buildings on the map. This might encourage the enemy to set up in these buildings for protection, which is how most scenario designers would want it to work, but what is to stop them just blowing up the religious buildings themselves to cause the US player to lose points? Could this not lead to some very gamey tactics? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: I have a question regarding "preserve" objectives. Say the US player must preserve some religious buildings on the map. This might encourage the enemy to set up in these buildings for protection, which is how most scenario designers would want it to work, but what is to stop them just blowing up the religious buildings themselves to cause the US player to lose points? Could this not lead to some very gamey tactics? A preserve objective on both sides. Hidden objective. There are many possibilities. I'm sure scenario designers will find more creative ways. [ March 24, 2007, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: stikkypixie ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.