Unnecessary roughness = reduction of points

[Hukka]

I was thinking, what if the US side would get negative points by destroying buildings without enemy units or by destroying important buildings like schools, hospitals or those Islamic holy buildings (what are they in Enlgish.. moscay, moskay? "Moskeija" in Finnish)? And maybe destruction when the civilian density is high would cost even more points.

As for now, at least the campaign missions feel way too easy with the US firepower.

This could be hard to implement now to CMSF, but maybe to a future release or something.

[bodkin]

I'm pretty sure this is aleady possible, the scenario designer can give penalties for destroying certain buildings.

[Hukka]

That's good to hear. I hope it'll be used a lot.

[Cpl Steiner]

Yes, it is already possible. In the scenario editor, go to "Terrain Objectives (Blue)", select an unused objective ("Obj1" to "Obj8") and paint an area of the map to designate the objective. Next, select the "Destroy" option and the "Known to Player" or "Known to Both" option. Allocate a negative number of points to the objective and name it "Mosque" or whatever. The Blue side will thus receive negative points if the buildings in the objective area are destroyed.

[Edit - heavily modified my post as I only just found out that you can use negative values for objective points.]

[ August 27, 2007, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[Raptor 2101]

is there no ability to give both side the simelar objectiv.

if both sides has the object "dont destroy building" all is fine...

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Raptor 2101:

is there no ability to give both side the simelar objectiv.

if both sides has the object "dont destroy building" all is fine...

Raptor,

I'm not sure if this is possible because I don't think the game considers who actually caused the destruction. If both sides get negative points for the objective, destruction will just result in a draw.

[PrezCartman]

Hukka,

It is very easy to punish for destroying buildings. Generally the US is going to have more firepower, not to mention the Javelin, and be more willing to bring down buildings.

I am actually developing a scenario right now with a limited US attack against a mixed terrain area. The major parts include a small airport, family farm, boarding school, and former Syrian base. Because at some point after the war is over we want the civilians to be able to move back into their old lives without trouble the US commander is penalized for any building damaged except the Syrian military complex. What you can actually do is select a group of buildings, assign them a total point value for preservation for the US side and each building damaged will take away a certain amount of that overall point total. The Syrian don't have enough firepower to really damage any of the buildings so there is no reason to set it up to penalize them for destruction, plus they are largely irregular troops and hence care more about inflicting pain on Americans then losing a few buildings.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Raptor 2101:

is there no ability to give both side the simelar objectiv.

if both sides has the object "dont destroy building" all is fine...

Raptor,

I'm not sure if this is possible because I don't think the game considers who actually caused the destruction. If both sides get negative points for the objective, destruction will just result in a draw. </font>

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by PrezCartman:

Hukka,

It is very easy to punish for destroying buildings. Generally the US is going to have more firepower, not to mention the Javelin, and be more willing to bring down buildings.

I am actually developing a scenario right now with a limited US attack against a mixed terrain area. The major parts include a small airport, family farm, boarding school, and former Syrian base. Because at some point after the war is over we want the civilians to be able to move back into their old lives without trouble the US commander is penalized for any building damaged except the Syrian military complex. What you can actually do is select a group of buildings, assign them a total point value for preservation for the US side and each building damaged will take away a certain amount of that overall point total. The Syrian don't have enough firepower to really damage any of the buildings so there is no reason to set it up to penalize them for destruction, plus they are largely irregular troops and hence care more about inflicting pain on Americans then losing a few buildings.

I think that route works well, unless you're playing a scenario against a human who knows that it's worth his or her while to drop a particular building or buildings. That's why I'd like the enhancement I described above - it's side specific and so can be asymmetrical even if the other side "doesn't play fair".

[PrezCartman]

Cam,

Understandable but right now I'm just developing the scenario for AI play, haven't given much thought to the human element.

[C'Rogers]

So do 10% damage, take away 10% of the objective points for the building.

What I hope for is some kind of destruction threshold. A mosque, that the blue side can not touch for political reasons, that gets even minor damage inflicted results in a major loss of points. On the other hand an office building might be able to take a fair deal of damage, and if still usable (standing with walls in tact), the US player doesn't suffer any penalty.

Something like a three options setting. The "objective" is achieved if A) any damage is done about 50% of the building is damaged C) it is reduced to rubble.

[ARRPEEGEE]

I think it'd be good to hitch the 'destroy' scoring option to the civilian density parameter.

It'd function as a multiplier (i.e.heavy x5, sparse x0.1, etc) on top of the assigned destroy point value.

[MikeyD]

I may be wrong, but playing against the AI wouldn't AI artillery automatically target anything painted 'Destroy' whether it had negative point values assigned or not? It does sound doble in human vs human play, though, as long as the scenario orders were written-up clearly.

[Childress]

Disagree. CMSF (which I've put aside for the time being) depicts an *invasion* of Syria. One has to imagine the gloves would be off. You're confusing this with the current occupation of Iraq where, to a large extent, US troops function as a constabulary force. Certain constraints are in order, though one can argue they should be less inhibiting then they are.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Bradley Dick]

Childress,

That's not true at all. Even in a major invasion, the gloves are never off for US forces. Even at the beginning of the war in 2003, targeting of civillian infrastructure and especially Mosques was prohibited. There really had to be a reason for you to blow up a hospital. Try to get a copy of the ROE from CENTCOM if you can, it will tell you all about it.

[Hukka]

I think this would bring a interesting new tactical aspect to the game as you couldn't level half of a town without any penalty anymore.

[PrezCartman]

Childress,

In addition as the US had learned in its experience in Iraq, the less you can blow up the better. In the scenario I'm designing that I talked about earlier you can lay waste to the Syrian military complex because the air force has already rendered it largely useless. However the school, civilian airfield, and farm nearby are targets that you want to avoid destroying simply because it will be one more project you have to deal with in reconstruction and hence the US troops should be penalized for its damage because it is counter productive. The US commander is still free to level the buildings but if he does so he will need to complete the rest of the mission nearly perfectly to still get a good win.

[Hukka]

Originally posted by PrezCartman:

In the scenario I'm designing that I talked about earlier you can lay waste to the Syrian military complex because the air force has already rendered it largely useless. However the school, civilian airfield, and farm nearby are targets that you want to avoid destroying simply because it will be one more project you have to deal with in reconstruction and hence the US troops should be penalized for its damage because it is counter productive. The US commander is still free to level the buildings but if he does so he will need to complete the rest of the mission nearly perfectly to still get a good win.

That sounds great! I must try that scenario when it's ready.

[PrezCartman]

Hukka, I should have it done by the end of the week, still doing A LOT of tweaking on the points issue, amazing how hard it is to make asymmetric warfare good in terms of points. Also, I want to see what happens with the 1.03 patch, don't wanna release it then have the patch create any weird changes. Bottom line, should have it posted in the scenarios section by Friday afternoon as long as the patch is out sometime Wednesday or Thursday.

[weasel75]

Originally posted by Bradley Dick:

Childress,

That's not true at all. Even in a major invasion, the gloves are never off for US forces...

And for any other force "playing" the blue side

But to be honest -> there are certain limits for all sides. Hospitals, schools and "kindergarten" are off limits, at least if you care about the rest of the world just a tiny bit.

Destroying buildings with a big value to large religious groups (e.g. churches for christians, mosques for moslems, etc.) can cause a chain-reaction - and not just local, but world-wide.... if you (as a side in a war) are a global player, you might consider that.

Salute!

PS: If someone feels like reading: Hague Conventions (and Geneva Conventions).

[Childress]

Originally posted by Bradley Dick:

Childress,

That's not true at all. Even in a major invasion, the gloves are never off for US forces. Even at the beginning of the war in 2003, targeting of civillian infrastructure and especially Mosques was prohibited. There really had to be a reason for you to blow up a hospital. Try to get a copy of the ROE from CENTCOM if you can, it will tell you all about it.

Hmmm, you've got a point. But in Iraq we went in planning to occupy the country. (And I doubt we'll ever again attempt to MacArthurize a Muslim country) Maybe Battlefront is envisaging a get in, get out, 'rubble makes no trouble' scenario.

[Bradley Dick]

I think the old school style warfare of leveling cities, killing all the military aged males, enslaving the women, and salting the croplands will never happen again in a major industrialized country. It just looks too bad on CNN or Al Jazeera.

But if people started fighting warfare like this again, maybe there would be less wars.

[thelmia]

Originally posted by Bradley Dick:

I think the old school style warfare of leveling cities, killing all the military aged males, enslaving the women, and salting the croplands will never happen again in a major industrialized country. It just looks too bad on CNN or Al Jazeera.

But if people started fighting warfare like this again, maybe there would be less wars.

Never is a long time. Al Qeada certainly does their best. I think they're finally paying for it.

It's counterproductive unless you want to rule by terror. That certainly works in the Middle East (Hama in 1982 is a example, as is what happened in Iraq in 1991) but isn't an option for us since we don't really want to be there.

We want to do a job and leave. Terror against civilians is counterproductive toward that end, besides being wrong!

On topic, I've already started modding scenarios. The US is well endowed with firepower, but I can't really see leveling entire towns as realistic.

[Guest]

I've considered using penalties for ammunition expenditures in this context. I'm not sure how it's tracked, but if a platoon blows through 90% of their ammunition in a firefight they've likely been shooting a wee bit much.

I dunno if this is realistic, sane, or non-stupid, it's just something I've thought might work, especially in COIN contexts.