Victory point calculations

[beatmasta]

Does anyone else find it annoying that very often in multiplayer games, especially meeting engagements, the other side occupies the victory location maybe even 90% of the time and in the last turn opponents rushes 1 or more units that barely make it there. And obviously wouldn't last longer than turn or two there. But the game ends and the game is draw.

Not very realistic end to the game but not much to do about it or is there? "House" rules that all the unit that occupy the victory area has to be there in the last 5 turns or something like that? Better would be a new point calculation that is based on time and amount of the troops in the victory area during the game. Would this be usable? Too hard to add into the game?

[GreenAsJade]

I agree that the "secure" victory objective should be smarter.

Of course, that would raise the question of "where do you draw the line", but I think the answer is "anywhere in the direction of don't let one unit neutralise the objective" would be an improvement.

GaJ

[YankeeDog]

Ya; VL rushing and VL camping (really different sides of the same coin) This have been an issue since CMBO first came out.

Eventually some sort of more sophisticated VL possession calculus would be nice, but I also think it's a tricky thing to design and get right, so it may be a while before we see any changes in this area.

For now, variable end time helps a little bit. It also helps if substantial points are awarded for unit destruction/preservation -- this makes the VLs less important.

Another thing that helps is if maps are designed with multiple smaller VLs, rather than one large one. For example, in your typical "Take the Town" map, if the town is broken up into 4 25pt. VLs, rather than 1 100pt. VL, it's a lot harder to camp out on all the VLs, and a lot easier for an attack to get at least some of the VL points.

[RockinHarry]

Although it´s a rigid method, it´s also a realistic method. Either you have thrown out the enemy completely, or you didn´t. Mission failed. IMHO it more depends upon scenario maker realistic placement of occupy victory locations. I´ve seen way too many senseless Flag or occupy zones, from a military point of view. One example is the direct placement on bridges. Realistically you owe a bridge if you deny it to the enemy for movement or excerting LOS/LOF to it. So flag/occupy zones need to go there, where you can "command" the bridge site. Same goes for hills and the like.

If there´s problems with single large victory zones, then replace them with multiple smaller ones.

[beatmasta]

but the problem mainly exists on quick battles where you can't (or can you) set up points for destructed unit? And is it possible to made a QB with variable end time?

I don't consider it realistic in any way. Can't see this kind of thing happening in real life: "Damn, it's two minutes until tea time and we have to occupy that village so we have accomplished our objective. Lets make a mad rush one minute before and the cease fire starts immediately after that even there's still 100 enemy in the village".

You mean clearing up the objective that the enemy occupies and that I agree. But the point was that when the other side has occupied the location most of the time and opponent is able to rush one unit to the location in the nick of time and then the game decides that both sides occupy the area and the game is a draw.

[YankeeDog]

There's only so far you can go in discussing "realism" in regards to Quick Battles because they're a pretty artificial construct as it is.

With a designed scenario, a good Scenario Designer can tweak the artificial abstractions of map size, time limit, and victory conditions to create reasonably realistic combat conditions. But it's expecting a lot to see realistic combat conditions consistently come out of any given map, force selection, and QB type selection.

That's not to say there aren't ways that the verisimilitude of QBs could be improved, just don't expect too much.

I do think making it standard procedure to avoid single large VLs on QB maps, and instead use multiple smaller VLs, would go a long way to preventing the endgame flag rush problem -- it's a lot harder and riskier to rush enough units in to contest four small VL worth 25 pts. each, than it is to rush 1 unit in to contest 1 large VL worth 100pts. Even more so if there's a variable end time, so you don't know exactly when the game is going to end.

[slysniper]

Although it´s a rigid method, it´s also a realistic method. Either you have thrown out the enemy completely, or you didn´t. Mission failed. IMHO it more depends upon scenario maker realistic placement of occupy victory locations. I´ve seen way too many senseless Flag or occupy zones, from a military point of view. One example is the direct placement on bridges. Realistically you owe a bridge if you deny it to the enemy for movement or excerting LOS/LOF to it. So flag/occupy zones need to go there, where you can "command" the bridge site. Same goes for hills and the like.

If there´s problems with single large victory zones, then replace them with multiple smaller ones.

Dont blame it on the designers. If the bridge has the flag, then the player should understand that he needs to control more than the bridge and zone of control. He should have a buffer area.

Anytime someone complains about last minute zone of control rushes that neutralize points. I wonder, if the enemy is able to rush units into it, even if they are to die, then really you do not control it. you should have pushed your defensive lines out and be able to prevent such a thing from happening to begin with, that is control. Plus learn to sweep a area to make sure no one is hiding, that is not the designer fault - it is the players

[Erwin]

Hold on... In CM1 (after CMBO) we had variable endings which could extend the game by a variable number of turns to prevent flag rushes. I was sure that CMBN has that feature and this problem was long ago solved/eliminated.

[beatmasta]

Hold on... In CM1 (after CMBO) we had variable endings which could extend the game by a variable number of turns to prevent flag rushes. I was sure that CMBN has that feature and this problem was long ago solved/eliminated.

I can't find that kind of setting anywhere in the QB settings... That would help a lot if there was one!

[Erwin]

I have to admit I haven't played QB's (only premade scenarios etc.) in many years so, maybe...

[Chek]

Dont blame it on the designers. If the bridge has the flag, then the player should understand that he needs to control more than the bridge and zone of control. He should have a buffer area.

Anytime someone complains about last minute zone of control rushes that neutralize points. I wonder, if the enemy is able to rush units into it, even if they are to die, then really you do not control it. you should have pushed your defensive lines out and be able to prevent such a thing from happening to begin with, that is control. Plus learn to sweep a area to make sure no one is hiding, that is not the designer fault - it is the players

Gotta agree with this in order to use a bridge or any objectives advantages in "RL" surely it must remain reasonably secure.

[Sgt Schultz]

QB players have a hard row to hoe, no doubt about it. As stated above though, you know the dangers and the engine and the objective. Protect it properly and this won't happen. The one big VL in QBs can be tough, but if you can protect those, you can slam people in scenario play.

Scenarios are usually designed with enough VL/VC point variables so that a single last minute ammo-bearer rush won't radically change things.

The VL within a VL concept is fun too... for the defenders in an attack. Keep the small one to get points and at the same time deny points to attacker by contesting the larger one.

One has to take a break from QBs to experience the full wealth of variables.

OR ... Place your favorite/most annoying QB map IN THE EDITOR... and 'fix' it to your tastes. It's the bottom option at the startup screen. Don't be scared...

-

[womble]

but the problem mainly exists on quick battles where you can't (or can you) set up points for destructed unit? And is it possible to made a QB with variable end time?

All QBs include a portion of their VPs for units destroyed. The proportion split between 'VL' and 'enemy units' changes from ME through to Assault, though I can't remember which way the graph slopes.

[LibyanRebel]

definitely annoying to lose out and it can happen with 2 areas in ME. I lost out on a large map to a kubelwagen driver, who "tabbed" 1 km through woods to deny me the victory map in "my half" of the set up. This in a fiercely compettive 2 player realtime game.

the solution, I don't make the same mistake again, clear and defend your victory areas, the variable element in "turns" sounds great, but can this be inlcluded in a real time game, with a set time limit. Dont allow yourself to become victim to "gamey" tactics, as this will ruin your experience of what is, ultimately a game, no matter how much expectation and reading / knoweldge we want it to represent.