OMG: casulaty points are basically binary!

[GreenAsJade]

I only just realised something.

Casualty-based victory points in scenarios are binary. You either exceed the percentage or you don't. You either get the points or you don't.

No wonder CMBN games are showing to be so "extreme" in their results.

My initial reaction to this is "Oh dear, that's bad". So many of us for so long have been fighting battles to inflict as much damage as possible, on the grounds that "each bit counts".

But in casualty-based victory conditions, this is not the case!

Of course, designers can use "Destroy" victory conditions, which would get around this. But are they? I haven't been paying close enough attention to recall. Certainly the most recent two scenarios I've opened have been "Enemy > 35%" type victory conditions.

Thoughts? My thoughts are "please please designers don't use binary casualty conditions!"

GaJ

(Note: this is explicitly not the case for QBs, where points-per-casualty are awarded).

[RockinHarry]

Agree. Already went away from the "binary method" for some time and found "destroy unit" objective (combined with terrain objectives) more useful in most circumstances. Yet have to find good use for the Mission Parameters, but I could imagine they could be good for enforcing branching in campaigns.

[JonS]

Of course, designers can use "Destroy" victory conditions, which would get around this. But are they?

I do, for this reason.

When making a scen I try to consider in detail exactly how points are allocated to different 'buckets', and how those buckets are likely to interact in plausible ways. For instance, if there are four terrain objectives each worth 150 points, and a DESTROY objective worth 400, I assume for a reasonable player the DESTROY will garner up to 200 points (since much more than that is likely to trigger a surrender) and that maybe half the terrain objectives will be secured, giving that player 500 points (150 terrain + 150 terrain + 200 DESTROY). The other terrain objs are in play, but will probably either be contested - no points - or secured in which case the game is probably on its way to a runaway victory. Then the same process is applied to the other sides points.

It's all a bit rough and ready, but it can show up glaring problems, and others can show up by considering some 'what-ifs'. What if all the terrain objs are contested? What if casualties are especially low? etc.

Edit: I will occasionally use the casualty parameter, but only for a particular reason that makes sense in the context of the scen, always in conjunction with DESTROY, and generally for quite modest points.

Edit2: note that DESTROY ALL is effectively the same as the casualty parameter (that is; it's binary), except that it only applies to an identified portion of the force, rather than the whole thing ... er, unless the designer identifies the whole force as the target for the DESTROY ALL.

[GreenAsJade]

Yay for you guys, I might post this request over in Scenario Design, since you're agreeing.

The rest of us: watch out ... that's a trap you should be aware of!

GaJ

[Wodin]

Most scenarios I play the obj is to destroy the enemy. Only your loses may be percentage based.

So a good scenario designer will do it the right way. The best thing to do if you don't like the ones that have a percentage obj is not to play them and download ones that don't.

Some out there may like it that way so I wouldn't want to turn around and tell scenario designers not to make them as others may like it that way for some reason.

I find copious amounts amounts of surpression and a slow methodical play style makes most scenarios managable. If at some point I start to rush in during the scenario I usually pay for it straight away. I only move in for the assualt once as much damage as possible has been inflicted on the surrounding area through supression and area fire, I also make sure it's co ordinated and comes in from as many sides as possible, and again with copious amounts of covering fire. There is no other games out there that requires this sort of real life play style which is why I think so many struggle with it. Everyone is used to a much faster style of game where your assualting straight away. I can spend 2/3rds of the scenario, moving up to my assault posistions whilst blasting any signs of the enemy and if I have tanks hitting as many suspect houses as possible. The last 1/3 is the actual assault.

This way even the hardest scenario can more or less be dealt with.

Also I do think people shouldn't concentrate on winning so much. Finally a great way to learn is to plat a scenario in Wego and save at the end of each turn, see how it plays out, see how you could do it better then go back to save and try that out. That way you slowley work out what works and what doesn't and most of it will aplly to any scenario.

[mjkerner]

I find copious amounts amounts of surpression and a slow methodical play style makes most scenarios managable. If at some point I start to rush in during the scenario I usually pay for it straight away. I only move in for the assualt once as much damage as possible has been inflicted on the surrounding area through supression and area fire, I also make sure it's co ordinated and comes in from as many sides as possible, and again with copious amounts of covering fire. There is no other games out there that requires this sort of real life play style which is why I think so many struggle with it. Everyone is used to a much faster style of game where your assualting straight away. I can spend 2/3rds of the scenario, moving up to my assault posistions whilst blasting any signs of the enemy and if I have tanks hitting as many suspect houses as possible. The last 1/3 is the actual assault.

This way even the hardest scenario can more or less be dealt with.

Also I do think people shouldn't concentrate on winning so much.

Amen to that, Brother. That's how I play against the AI and it makes the game experince, overall, feel right, taking into account the hundreds and hundreds of personal accounts of WWII combat I've either read about or heard direct from veterans.

[A Canadian Cat]

Interesting discussion. I have not tried this but is it possible to create several parameter objectives at different levels? For example create a scenario where you get points for damaging your enemy thusly:

Enemy > 20% --> 50 points

Enemy > 35% --> 100 points

Enemy > 50% --> 50 points

Enemy > 60% --> 50 points

There are 250 points available for enemy casualties and the more damage you do the more of those points you get. It would be interesting to see if would work.

I am only just beginning to design a scenario but the one thing I want to incorporate into my first scenario is force preservation where each side gets points for keeping their own casualties low. The thing I have noticed when playing QBs is the tendency for players to push and push and push to the last man trying to get a toe on the objective. I cannot help but feel that in real life the assault would have been abandoned much earlier to regroup and try again another day. I am hoping to to have a scenario where if you don't capture all the territory objectives you are better off stopping after securing one or two than pressing on to try and get them all at the cost of heavy casualties.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Interesting discussion. I have not tried this but is it possible to create several parameter objectives at different levels? For example create a scenario where you get points for damaging your enemy thusly:

Enemy > 20% --> 50 points

Enemy > 35% --> 100 points

Enemy > 50% --> 50 points

Enemy > 60% --> 50 points

There are 250 points available for enemy casualties and the more damage you do the more of those points you get. It would be interesting to see if would work.

.

You can't do this, as there's only one slot for "Enemy Casualties."

[JonS]

You can't do this, as there's only one slot for "Enemy Casualties."

True, but you can sort-of do it with a combination of Cas Parameter (for the lower bound), and DESTROY for the upper bound.

Enemy Cas Parameter > 20% --> 45 points

Enemy DESTROY Obj > 300 points

that way at 20% cas they'll get 45 points from the parameter and 60 points (300 * 0.20) from the DESTROY, giving a total of 105.

At 35% they'll get 45 for the parameter + 105 (300 * .35) from the DESTROY, for a total of 150.

At 50% they'll get 45 + 150 = 195

At 60% they'll get 45 + 180 = 225

Which is not quite the steps ian.leslie was after, but with some fiddling about with the two pools (and/or changing the %age where the Cas Parameter kicks in to one of the higher steps) you could probably get closer, or at least close enough.

[Broadsword56]

Personally, I find binary casualty victory conditions to be useful in my transitions between an operational board wargame (Saint-Lo) and the CMBN battle scenarios that it generates.

The boardgame uses "step losses" (battalions are eliminated after two steps, companies after one). So I use the binary casualty VPs in CMBN to represent a "breakpoint" or cohesion theshold, beyond which the attacking or defending unit loses a step after the results are translated back from CMBN to the boardgame.

In case anyone's curious about the details, here's an excerpt from my conversion rules:

7.3.1 Battalion breakpoints: At the end of CMBN battles, players check who occupies the objective, and whether any participating units should take a step loss. Based on the overall losses (KIA + WIA + POW) at the end of the battle, any battalion or company that lost over a certain percentage of strength should go back into the boardgame with a step loss, as follows:

7.3.1.1 Attacking battalions: Each 20% casualties per attacking battalion (average for the entire battalion at the end of a CMBN battle) triggers 1 step loss.

7.3.1.1 Defending battalions: Each 60% casualties per defending battalion (average for the entire battalion at the end of a CMBN battle) triggers 1 step loss.

7.3.2 Company and asset unit breakpoints:

7.3.2.1 Attacking companies and assets: If total size of a player’s starting force was less than battalion, each 60% casualties per company or asset triggers one step loss (elimination) of that company.

7.3.2.2 Defending companies and assets: If total size of a player’s starting force was less than battalion, each 80% casualties per company or asset triggers one step loss (elimination) of that company or asset.

(Note: The actual percentages are a work in progress, and may be adjusted up or down as we get more CMBN battle results and see how well the rules work.)

[Sgt Schultz]

My first design attempt had casualty points. I did away with it for my second scenario, for reasons stated above and my desire for folks to press hard. Worrying about losing that one man/vehicle that will cost you hundreds of points is not a wonderful gaming experience imho.

Occupy, Touch and Destroy are my prime point movers now.

[GreenAsJade]

Yay yay...