ss11955 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 single player-campaign Chapter 3-mission 11- Orchard Hill---------------does it make sense that I lost the mission- because ONE enemy unit of ONE soldier was HIDING in a house in the Objective Town when the Time ran out ???????????? For a REALISTIC STRATEGY WAR GAME it makes no sense ?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Yeah, this issue was recently discussed, and expressions of dissatisfaction emerged. One hopes that future iterations of the game will handle this better, but for the moment, in order to get the points for objective, it has to be totally cleared of any good order enemy troops. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss11955 Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 Thanks Michael--love the word "iterations"--offsets your usage of the word "yeah"--Jim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 This is half a scenario designer issue and the player's responsibility. The designer should make it clear in the briefing that it is an OCCUPY objective by clearly stating that your mission is to CAPTURE, CLEAR, AND HOLD the objective. Also, the designer should be very careful with the size of such objectives, especially where the terrain and buildings are complex. A big OCCUPY objective can easily hold a soldier somewhere on the fringe of the objective and cause the points not to be awarded even though you handily won the scenario. So long as the briefing clearly states the objective, it then becomes the responsibility of the player to make sure all the criteria are met. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 ...the designer should be very careful with the size of such objectives, especially where the terrain and buildings are complex. A big OCCUPY objective can easily hold a soldier somewhere on the fringe of the objective and cause the points not to be awarded even though you handily won the scenario. The designer should also ensure that the objectives are clearly separated, and, if at all possible, visible; at least there should be something about turning off objectives that should visibly change on-screen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Max Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Check the name of the Soldier, as "Duke Nukem" has been known to pop in and out of games and may certainly be the cause of you losing this one. I am a little surprised he was hiding. Most likely he was just napping. :>) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Hail to the King baby! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 This problem is even embeded in the AI logic. I have witnessed the AI moving anything it can to an objective just to get a win. It will even shamelessly move tank crews or truck drivers to an object just to get the VP. I suppose this is could be considered appropriate as the AI knows no shame 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 This problem is even embeded in the AI logic. I have witnessed the AI moving anything it can to an objective just to get a win. It will even shamelessly move tank crews or truck drivers to an object just to get the VP. I suppose this is could be considered appropriate as the AI knows no shame And us players are different? I don't think so 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Deleted. Wrong thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 single player-campaign Chapter 3-mission 11- Orchard Hill---------------does it make sense that I lost the mission- because ONE enemy unit of ONE soldier was HIDING in a house in the Objective Town when the Time ran out ???????????? For a REALISTIC STRATEGY WAR GAME it makes no sense ?! How about a SPOILER ALERT? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 This is half a scenario designer issue and the player's responsibility. The designer should make it clear in the briefing that it is an OCCUPY objective by clearly stating that your mission is to CAPTURE, CLEAR, AND HOLD the objective. Also, the designer should be very careful with the size of such objectives, especially where the terrain and buildings are complex. A big OCCUPY objective can easily hold a soldier somewhere on the fringe of the objective and cause the points not to be awarded even though you handily won the scenario. So long as the briefing clearly states the objective, it then becomes the responsibility of the player to make sure all the criteria are met. In this case, the scenario designer made it very clear in the briefing that the player was to clear and occupy the objective. This fact was mentioned again in the Tac map which also displayed the objective buildings in great detail. Further, the handful of farm buildings in question occupy an objective box 14x17 action spots. Not much more I can do... Having said that, it is very frustrating when it happens. The CMx1 games victory flags had some kind of logic built into them that evaluated the relative strengths of each force to decide who owned the flag. It's a shame there isn't a similar sort of logic to the OCCUPY objective. ***********SPOILER-SPOILER************************** To the OP: Actually, if you read the briefing, you will find that you must also prevent the enemy from exiting the west board edge. You were unlucky to find one guy left on the map as they should all exit in good time. He must have got broken and refused to follow orders to run. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 What gets me, thinking of a couple of the CM:BN and/or CMSF battles, is when the designer paints a BIG objective then assigns a short timeframe for the scenario battle. Some objectives you could take 10-15 minutes to methodically clear every building... except you used up all of your time on the front-end doing recce before attacking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Who wants to play "methodically clear the buildings" for 15 turns? I'd start avoiding scenario designers who set these tasks... GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I can't say I disagree, really. My last two scenarios, one I only placed a small 'touch' objective, and the other was just a 'kill' scenario, no terrain objectives at all for the attacker. There's a couple CMSF big city battles where I groaned when I read I had to conquer & clear a whole city block. CM:BN hasn't really made it to the 'big city' yet, but the thought of clearing a Paris high rise room-by-room when your opponent is carring MP40... Paris isn't supposed to be a replay of Stalingrad! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 What gets me, thinking of a couple of the CM:BN and/or CMSF battles, is when the designer paints a BIG objective then assigns a short timeframe for the scenario battle. Some objectives you could take 10-15 minutes to methodically clear every building... except you used up all of your time on the front-end doing recce before attacking. Care to be a bit more specific there, Mikey? Educated folks want to know... I'd start avoiding scenario designers who set these tasks... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I can't say I disagree, really. My last two scenarios, one I only placed a small 'touch' objective, and the other was just a 'kill' scenario, no terrain objectives at all for the attacker. There's a couple CMSF big city battles where I groaned when I read I had to conquer & clear a whole city block. CM:BN hasn't really made it to the 'big city' yet, but the thought of clearing a Paris high rise room-by-room when your opponent is carring MP40... Paris isn't supposed to be a replay of Stalingrad! So I assume an Aachen scenario wouldn't be at the top of your list? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Care to be a bit more specific there, Mikey? Educated folks want to know... La Haye Du Puits in the Courage and Fortitude campaign has several large urban objectives which touch (and so make it right difficult to tell even how much effort you'll have to expend in each one). It's not a short scenario, but the objectives are at the back of the map. >>> ---- Spoiler --- <<< Not that it matters, because all the defenders are in the objectives, so if you've made serious inroads onto them, you'll have killed or broken enough that you'll achieve a Surrender victory, and garner the points from all the objectives anyway. 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.