Asymmetric point tabulation and victory conditions vs symmetric

[[hirr]Leto]

I know that one of the main beefs about CMSF is the fuzzy logic around scoring and that one of the main arguments for this is that, hey, it is modern asymmetric warfare for the most part, and that it is much more complex than just destroying the enemy and holding ground (flags).

So if this is the case, will there be a movement back to more solid logical ground and easier to gauge, dynamic victory probabilites, if we wish to use the above argument to frame WW 2 warfare as 'symmetric'? In other words, will grogs get to use probabilities and statistics to predict, generate, and define good outcomes?

Cheers!

Leto

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I thought the various ways of scoring are in the hands of the scenario designer to do with as they will. I may not have paid the closest of attention to the scoring at the best of times so what is fuzzy logic scoring?

[JonS]

Leto;1149593']So if this is the case' date=' will there be a movement back to more solid logical ground and easier to gauge, dynamic victory probabilites, if we wish to use the above argument to frame WW 2 warfare as 'symmetric'?[/quote']

I hope not.

Let us say, for example, that in a CM:N scenario the Allies have, as an objective, the securing of a village. The Germans, on the other hand, have as an objective the retention of a ridge to the west of the village (perhaps it overlooks and dominates routes into or out of the village). Both sides may have as additional objectives the infliction of enemy cas and minimisation of friendly cas. Or not. The victory conditions in this scen would not be symmetric - they are asymmetric.

I think this is a good thing.

[Pandur]

if one wants to, he can do CMx1 style flags right here and now in CMx2. called occupy objective, you can do a 8x8 meters area as minimum, it just shows no flag

the set of options you have to resolve the points both sides earned are quiet a lot, and to really get a idea of how you valued each objective and how all this numbers you entered work out in the mission, you would need to play it a lot and compare the end screens and points while at the same time looking it up in the editor or on a sheet where you noted all this. its no simple little and big flags anymore.

anyways, i like it and as in JonS´s example, we verry well may see asymmetric objectives in WWII missions wich is a good thing.

[Destraex1]

no flags is fine with me. as long as the briefing shows them.

[Paper Tiger]

Why are you talking about the game's 'fuzzy logic' when a mission's victory conditions are solely in the hands of the scenario designer. It's an absolute doddle to create a scenario where control of a flag is the sole determiner of victory in CMx2 so this is not a valid criticism of CMx2. It is 100% the scenario designer's responsibility to create the victory conditions for his own missions.

When you talk about one of the 'main beefs with CMx2', then this is a viewpoint that is being expressed by a small group of narrow-minded individuals who do not want to see anything good in the new system. CMx2's system is far more sophisticated that CMx1's system and you're more than intelligent enough to appreciate that fact so don't knock it. Knock the scenario designers who are responsible for creating the missions that piss you off.

I for one do not wish BFC to 'dumb down' the existing system to keep the CMx1 Fundamentalists happy. In fact, I'd very much like them to expand upon it.

[Cpl Steiner]

Yep, CMx1 style symetric "Flag" objectives are a doddle to do in CMx2. Just give both sides the same "Terrain Objective" and the same point value for control. Job done!

[flamingknives]

Yes, there's nothing "fuzzy" about the victory conditions, they're just more complex than an arbitrary flag in the ground. Hey, that's life.

As an additional point, there is every opportunity for anyone go collect and analyse statistics in game at the moment. Unlike more simplistic games, you've got to look at the emergent behaviour rather than the underlying tables. I think that some die-hard wargamers have a real problem with that.

[birdstrike]

Is this the right thread to kindly request the return of an 'exit' victory condition?

[SlowMotion]

Yes, there's nothing "fuzzy" about the victory conditions, they're just more complex than an arbitrary flag in the ground.

I think victory conditions are unclear in some scenarios partly because there can be very many kinds of goals AND some scenario briefings don't tell the player what those goals are. Also if there are multiple goals, player doesn't necessarily know how valuable different goals are.

In CMx1 you could *see* the flags even if they weren't mentioned in briefings. You also knew the worth of small and big flags, so it was easier for players.

[Kat Johnston]

I like the idea of not knowing the enemy victory conditions when starting a scenario, although - like unit positions, enemy strength and everything else - it's a bit of a one-shot thing, only really good the first time you play the scenario. But I really like not knowing what objectives the enemy have, or, for that matter, even being wildly misinformed as to the enemy's force, position and objectives in the scenario briefing.

[[hirr]Leto]

I think victory conditions are unclear in some scenarios partly because there can be very many kinds of goals AND some scenario briefings don't tell the player what those goals are. Also if there are multiple goals, player doesn't necessarily know how valuable different goals are.

In CMx1 you could *see* the flags even if they weren't mentioned in briefings. You also knew the worth of small and big flags, so it was easier for players.

Actually, that sums up my previous inarticulate views quite nicely. I'm fine with any system as long as it is clear, transparent and not contradictory. My concern is that the system must work for a QB game, yet have all the underlying principles it has now for scenario designers. It may be possible if terrain or exit are the only victory conditions (outside of pure casualty points).

No one is saying that CMSF sucks, or the scoring system is a complete failure... its true that perhaps scenario designers need to be more clear on objectives, but not knowing how well you've done against securing these objectives is an immersion in realism that gamers like myself do not want.

Cheers!

Leto

[flamingknives]

I think victory conditions are unclear in some scenarios partly because there can be very many kinds of goals AND some scenario briefings don't tell the player what those goals are. Also if there are multiple goals, player doesn't necessarily know how valuable different goals are.

In CMx1 you could *see* the flags even if they weren't mentioned in briefings. You also knew the worth of small and big flags, so it was easier for players.

Ah, but that's down to the scenario designer to inform you as to how much the various objectives are worth. The points available are always the same so they are not fuzzy.