Objective Flag Values

[Suhiir]

While I agree the values of the objectives makes them somwhat less then useful, given the max value of objective hexes vs the unit costs in WinSPMBT, for determining victory they are VERY useful for scenarios vs the AI.

I've never sat down and worked out the exact corrilation but the AI looks at "distence to closest objective" and "point value of objective" to determine where to send its troops. So it may decide to temporarily bypass a nearby low point objective for a higher value one. This makes the AI a little less predictable for the player.

In player made scenarios you can use objective hexes to encourage the AI to take a certain path.

You can also use a cluster of objectives to encourage the AI to go to a certain area first.

[Jack_Dionne]

Having been an avid ASL player for 25 years now may I make some suggestion for alternate victory conditions?

First thing I should say is that ASL stands for Advanced Squad Leader and is a board game with the same top down view as SP and same unit scale but is entirely WWII.

There is literally hundreds of different Victory Conditions (VC) that different scenario designers will use. Here are a few examples:

The attacker wins by having more good order units within road boundary (as determined by map, the grid would be written out). If the attacker doesn’t have more good order units then the defender, the defender wins buy default. You can change the wording to Player 1 and Player 2 rather than attacker and defender.

The rule book for ASL also has an index with definitions of specific terms: Good order means any armed, unbroken unit not held in melee and any mobile armed AFV with functioning main armament.
Notice the word “mobile” in the sentence, this implies a vehicle which is not immobilized in any way.

Some people have been known to read between the lines when it comes to winning in ASL so scenario designers would have to modify the wording of VC as follows:
The attacker wins by having more good order infantry units within road boundary (as determined by map, the grid would be written out). In the special rules section of the scenario it would be clearly stated that crews may not voluntarily abandon their vehicles.

There is VC that can be two fold as well, another example: Player 1 must have more good order unit on any hill hex of Hill??? Without losing twice as many casualty victory points as player two.

I think this type of VC would work, what do you guys think?

[Lt. Ketch]

Originally Posted by Jack_Dionne

There is literally hundreds of different Victory Conditions (VC) that different scenario designers will use. Here are a few examples:

The attacker wins by having more good order units within road boundary (as determined by map, the grid would be written out). If the attacker doesn’t have more good order units then the defender, the defender wins buy default. You can change the wording to Player 1 and Player 2 rather than attacker and defender.

I think this type of VC would work, what do you guys think?

Those conditions could certainly make the game a lot more tactical and objective. The way I see it, such score could be possle in two different ways. Automatic and manual. If automatic (built into the code) I would hate to see the coding job needed to get the computer to understand them, so it may not be a viable option.

As Imp as shown, however, there are manual scoring options available which stress the importance of objectives (which explains why he's not trying to advance any furture in our game. Crap, I'm got to go in after him! Sorry. Tangent.) So it could be incorperated into a spreadsheet and manually counted, as I guess it is done in ASL. That has a potential of being time intensive however.

If such scoring could be done, I personally would care to have the option of switching it off. Some games should be simple, but other games are a lot more fun with some context/specific goals. Again, it might require miles and miles of code that Don and Andy will never agree to doing (and I wouldn't blame them.)

[Lt. Ketch]

What if they just set the flags for a default value that could then be raised or lowered. As far as I understand it, battles are more often about achiving objectives than destroying units. I realize most front line troops probably don't feel that way (particulalry tankers from what I hear), but that is a reality. If you don't achive your objectives in a battle, you haven't succeeded.

As an expreme example, if you made every v-hex worth, say, 500 points, it would certainly encourage people to capture them. It would throw off the Decicieve/marginal scale, as someone with all of the objectives, but few units left on the field could still get a decicieve victory, particulaly in 1946. Just a thought.

I'm an avocate of inclreasing the increment of the increase/decrease buttons. Also if all of the objectives could be selected and changed at once, that would be good. Now I'm dreaming a little, if you could just type in the value you want, that would be great.

My 2 cents. I know it may not be worth much, but there it is.

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch

What if they just set the flags for a default value that could then be raised or lowered. As far as I understand it, battles are more often about achiving objectives than destroying units. I realize most front line troops probably don't feel that way (particulalry tankers from what I hear), but that is a reality. If you don't achive your objectives in a battle, you haven't succeeded.

There are a lot of people who like to take a hands off approach to this, i.e. not change flag values. Some of those people want to take the flags because they are defined as objectives. Others, myself included, don't see the point of taking flags that aren't worth the force expense to capture. The nice thing about the idea of having flag values dynamically set before the battle is it doesn't stop anyone from changing them if they choose to. It is just to keep the values used more in line with the intent as force values increase in MBT. I honestly never saw any problems in the balance in WW2 since even the most expensive units are much less on average than in MBT.

Is far a the general purpose behind "meeting engagements", I agree the real objectives should be the opposing forces. It is a "movement to contact" and not really as objective oriented as other battles. That's one reason the flags are valued so low in "meeting engagements". They just seem to be a touch too low as there is no real need to take them. This puts the AI at a significant disadvantage. The AI advances, no matter what, even if the grouped objectives are in or near their deployment zone before the battle starts. But grouped flag placement is a different quibble and not relevant if they flags aren't needed to begin with.

[c_of_red]

Flags Can be stacked. You can put several (the most I have ever done was 4, for 1,000 point, so I don't know if there is a limit on how many flags can be stacked in a single hex). I di several of the maps that come with the game and I noticed that the flags and their values did not 'stick' to the map. Don't know if that was because they didn't stick or someone unstuck them.
In the 'swamp thing' (Basara) map I put doubled flags worth 500 points at the entrance to the maze I so labourously created in the swamp. It looks completely impassable but there is a maze of hidden paths thru the swamp and I was leaving a clue. Not sure if that worked or not. Nobody in their right mind fights a battle in a swamp, which might have been why the Mullahs and Saddam fought there.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by c_of_red

Flags Can be stacked. You can put several (the most I have ever done was 4, for 1,000 point, so I don't know if there is a limit on how many flags can be stacked in a single hex). I di several of the maps that come with the game and I noticed that the flags and their values did not 'stick' to the map. Don't know if that was because they didn't stick or someone unstuck them.
In the 'swamp thing' (Basara) map I put doubled flags worth 500 points at the entrance to the maze I so labourously created in the swamp. It looks completely impassable but there is a maze of hidden paths thru the swamp and I was leaving a clue. Not sure if that worked or not. Nobody in their right mind fights a battle in a swamp, which might have been why the Mullahs and Saddam fought there.

Actually I'd say a situation like that is a very good use of objective flags. Since it was a very limited pathing area this helps the AI and indicates the importance of controlling that path.

[c_of_red]

I vaguly remember this subject being chewed over several years ago on the Blitz. I don't remember if it was WW2 or W@W. IIRC, there were code issues with increasing the point values past 250. I would guess that the values of the flags are used elsewhere in the program, which means the Law of Unintended Consequences (AKA Murphy) is laying in wait for that sort of change.
Matrix did allow the flags to be hidden, restricted to one change (First past the post in legal terms) and not showing up until a certain turn. I almost forgot, Exit flags, which I really enjoyed. Exit a unit off the map at that flag and you got points for it.
Ultimately SP is Clausewitzian (Is that a word?) in that once you destroy the enemy forces, there is nothing to permit you from carrying out your mission, no matter what that mission is, which make the flags unimportant. Different types of flags are useful when using an indirect approach. Since the indirect approach can also be used to destroy the enemy, one argument was that the flags are just for the Program and scenario designers. The man at the top of the ladder confessed to turning the flags OFF when he played. That shocked everyone and started a trend.