FGM_Enven Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Can someone @ battlefront give me a little more understanding on the point system...I have been somewhat confused as to how I could fail an objective, complete Total Victory, and still have an insurmountable amount of troops/armor on the objective...(With remaining enemy inside of the same zone, badly beaten..) Is there some sort of chart or something I can reference? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 i believe total victory = all enemies in the zone completely killed off or surrendered... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 IIRC the level of victory depends on the ratio of the scores on both sides. Check this thread http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1279224&highlight=total+minor+major+victory#post1279224 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FGM_Enven Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share Posted June 18, 2011 I really hope it isn't the same Ratio/Algorithm... It'd make sense to shed a little light about the scoring method, just to have a keener understanding in regard to how the games play out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Savage Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Second that! It would make scenario making easier, if you know points and ratios better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 I really hope it isn't the same Ratio/Algorithm... Why not? Looks pretty sane to me. What is it about that progression which bothers you? It'd make sense to shed a little light about the scoring method, just to have a keener understanding in regard to how the games play out. Are you asking for more than 'how are the levels of victory calculated from the points scores at the end'? If so, could you elucidate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invader_Canuck Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Just make objectives smaller if possible and make a few more of them. That way it becomes easier to secure an objective completely even if the enemy while largely broken is still in the vicinity. Some of the objectives in QB's are like 25% of the map which makes an objective victory pretty much impossible even if 90% of your force is in the area and 10% of his is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FGM_Enven Posted June 19, 2011 Author Share Posted June 19, 2011 Gents, The gaming group I am in has a heavy dedication to CM and has been micro-analyzing the game quite, since this topic, I had some questions of my own on the topic... http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?8502-Scoring-game-endings-surrenders-ceasefires ---- It isn't as simple as you think, there are many factors to the victory conditions, and I want to know more to ensure I know how the game actually works...If the scoring ratio/conditions are that simple, it really doesn't do justice to what is left on the board - such as armor, infantry, guns, etc. In the mean time, I am going to play some more CMBN because I love the game, almost as much as I love CMx1. -Regards, Enven 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 It isn't as simple as you think, there are many factors to the victory conditions, and I want to know more to ensure I know how the game actually works...If the scoring ratio/conditions are that simple, it really doesn't do justice to what is left on the board - such as armor, infantry, guns, etc. You've got the wrong end of the stick. There is no algorithm. For scenarios, the scenario designer decrees what the victory conditions will be. They can assign lots of different functions variable amounts of points (see page 47 in the manual). The one with the most points at the end wins, to a degree arbitrarily assigned a name according to the table in the post in the maps and mods thread. These conditions can be hidden or visible, and can be as arbitrary as you like. For QBs, there's a lesser range of conditions, since the other parameters of what is essentially a semi-auto-generated scenario are so variable as to make the more esoteric victory conditions difficult to apply. See page 56 of the manual. Note that the capture objectives have a number of stars associated with them, which represents their relative importance. There are two sorts of territory objective: 'Touch' and 'Occupy'. For 'Touch' objectives, you just have to have been there. 'Occupy' objectives require you to have cleaned out all the enemy from the zone and still have a unit on the zone at the point the game ends. That's just the way it is, and it's clearly defined in the manual, as are a number of other issues you guys seem to be having issues with in that thread at fewgoodmen. If you want the result to reflect 'what is left on the board', you'll have to either play a scenario where there are destroy objectives or exit objectives or preserve/casualty/condition objectives or some such as a major part of the victory conditions or write one yourself. If you're playing games to win them, it behooves you to understand what the VCs are before you start playing. Like in chess, you won't win by capturing more of the opponent's pieces if it means you leave your King unprotected from an easy 'mate. Though in an imperfect information game like CM, you won't necessarily know all the conditions which apply: your opponent may have different conditions. It takes some skill and a lot of playtesting to get asymmetric conditions to work well. Surrender and Cease Fire as ways to end the game when it's played out and the timer hasn't run down aren't so well covered in the manual, from a brief skim through the pdf with ctrl-F for "Surrender", though if you'd played through the tutorial you'd have gotten used to using the "cease fire" button. Neither, I think, is it well-described as to what will induce an automatic surrender (or even if there is some threshold for that for a player-controlled side). AIUI, there's a 'global morale' score, which is eroded by casualties and the general condition of the units that aren't dead, and when that drops below a certain level, the AI (at least) will surrender. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 IIRC the level of victory depends on the ratio of the scores on both sides. Check this thread http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1279224&highlight=total+minor+major+victory#post1279224 I don't think the way it's written up in that thread is quite right, in particular this bit: A = points for the side who had more points B = points for the side who had fewer points I'll have to run some tests, but my sense is that it is a percentage of the points available, rather than the raw score. For example, assume Player A has two OCCUPY terrain objectives, each worth 50 points. Player B also has two OCCUPY terrain objectives, but his are each worth 5,000 points. If both players secure one of their objectives a raw-score comparison would give Player B a Total Victory (5,000 + 10 / 50 + 10 = 83.5), but they've both achieved 50% of their objectives. In fact, on a raw-score comparison Player A could achieve both objectives and score 100 points and still go down in Total Defeat to Player B who only acheives one of his objectives and 5,000 points (5,000 + 10 / 100 + 10 = 45.5). But in this case Player A has acheived 100% while Player B has still only managed 50%. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FGM_Enven Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 Thanks for the analysis Womble, is this a solid fact or are you making a hypothesis as to how the game's scoring method is structured... Did you take part in the configuration of the scoring structure or just through observation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 womble has it right, most of this in in the manual but there is also plenty of experience with the way the engine works from CMSF. Surrender is deemed to be all your units literally throwing up their hands and surrendering the playing field to your opponent. By default this means that all your units are captured and all the terrain objectives would be free for your opponent to occupy after the battle. This also helps in campaign play where if your AI opponent auto-surrenders you don't lose the battle just because your haven't gotten to the objective. I think but am not 100% sure that all your units that can exit are deemed to have done so if your opponent surrenders. Cease fire is tallying up the score where the game stands. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Thanks for the analysis Womble, is this a solid fact or are you making a hypothesis as to how the game's scoring method is structured... I'm reading the manual, and seeing that it matches what happens in the games I play. Did you take part in the configuration of the scoring structure or just through observation? I'm believing that the manual doesn't differ very much, if at all, from the game-as-published. I think you'd get a better feel for how VCs are set up by fiddling with the scenario editor. Dingchavez in the other thread asserts that the progression from draw to total victory was sent to him by Charles, who counts as an Authority. I'm sure it's easy for a scenario designer to make daft imbalanced (as opposed to asymmetric) victory conditions, but what would be the point? It just makes it harder to balance. All the scenarios I've seen have had, as far as I can recall, the same number of VPs available, even if they're from different non-reciprocal sources, to both sides. Which makes the question of whether it's a percentage or an absolute figure moot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FGM_Enven Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 Sounds good, I hope to get back more info as time passes on / and my experience/fiddling around grows a bit deeper. Thanks for the clarification. 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.