Objective Flag Values

[Cross]

I manually adjust the v-hex values in every battle I set up. It only takes a couple of seconds if you change all to the same value.

The maximum value is 250 (IIRC) which x21 = 5250



.

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Cross

I manually adjust the v-hex values in every battle I set up. It only takes a couple of seconds if you change all to the same value.

The maximum value is 250 (IIRC) which x21 = 5250
.

That is certainly an option. I just figured some sort of programming approach would be more dynamic and user friendly. While I don't know how the code is set up, it might be possible to set it up so the are based on some percentage of the projected total force present. Since we don't know exactly how many points will be used, the best that can be done is basing it on the projected total. This projected total will be available before unit selection for main force in stand alone battles or support points campaign battles are used. I say projected points because you can never be sure someone will use all the points they have available for purchasing units. It is the only solid value available before the map complete with flags is available for view in the purchase screen.

The appropriate percentage would be subject to debate, but the general standard set by WinSPWW2 could be used. For grouped flags in a WW2 "meeting engagement", flags are 65 points each, giving each flag a value of .8% of the total force points based on 4,000 points for each side (8,000 total force points). If the total force points increase to 30,000 as very possible in an MBT battle, those flags would be dynamically set to 240 points each. This doesn't put the player into the position of having to determine the appropriate flag values to maintain the balance and significance intended in "meeting engagements".

It gets a bit more complicated if the objectives are scattered since they seem to run four different values: 95, 120, 220, 230. Percentages can still be used here as well. It's just a matter of calculating it out.

The value cap is somewhat constraining, but there isn't anything magic about the constraint. It is likely the constraint is based on the programming data type selected for the variable, but that data type could be changed as well. That's all up to the people with the source code to determine. From a programming perspective, it can be done. Pretty much anything can be done. It boils down to practicality, which is a question I can't answer without the source code.

[Imp]

The reason it would be nicer if the programe did it is if you want to keep the locations selected by the computer you have to adjust each flag value individually as far as I know.
Pressing C & entering values clears the flags for you to position, this is fine if thats what you want & do it a lot placing them on sensible locations.

I just set up a few games & as the force size grows the flags become insignifigant.
If however you go for a small engagement they are worth 1.5x the cost of your force.
900 points gave me flags with a value of 70 (1470 total) twice.

If its burried deep in the code & to much hassle to muck about with fair enough after all just trying to take hassle out of set up

[Imp]

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

Sorry just read I only found out recently you can.
Press C (clear) & it asks you for a value that applies to all.
Then asks which side or neutral.
Now you place them on the map.

[RERomine]

Mass adjustments are easy. The only instance where all the flag values are set the same is when they are grouped during "meeting engagements". In all other situations, "meeting engagement" scatted objects, "advance/delay", scattered or grouped and "assault/defend", scattered or grouped, there are at least two different values used.

Another bonus to having the flags set by the system is to avoid disagreements during PBEM games. Increasing the value of flags favors the side that owns them (or can capture them easily) and decreasing the side that doesn't. By having a hands off option, it will limit those disagreements.

[Cross]

Originally Posted by RERomine

Another bonus to having the flags set by the system is to avoid disagreements during PBEM games. Increasing the value of flags favors the side that owns them (or can capture them easily) and decreasing the side that doesn't. By having a hands off option, it will limit those disagreements.

Hi Ray,

I don't disagree with your proposal, but just thought I'd add some comment.

Very occasionally, in PBEM, I've disagreed with the way v-hexes have been set up; I merely send them back for adjustment...no disagreement

I'm probably more likely to disagree with where/values that the AI has set.

The process that I now use in PBEM meeting engagements:

• Manually set up 10 V-hexes on each side of the map (discard the the 21st v-hex on the map edge).
  
• Put the V-hexes on strategic locations like, bridges, hills, villages and crossroads.
  
• Have the distance to the centre line be about the same for both sets of 10.
  
• Do not set any V-hexes in the centre of the map (a 10 hex wide 'no mans land'). This assures both players will capture 10 each in the early part of the battle.
  
• Set the flags to the side that each player controls (so you won't know when they've overrun their own flags).
  
• Set all V-hexes to same value (because it's easy).
  
• I usually set them on the high end of the 5-250 range (sometimes higher for the rear v-hexes, when time allows or the the situation benefits).

I've found the above approach works really well for PBEM meeting engagements.

[RERomine]

I've actually done both in PBEM games, but more often than not I let fate play its game. The system placement of flags is also a problem, but I'm sure that would be a much more complicated fix.

The biggest problem I have with flag placement is when they are grouped for "meeting engagements". I had one recent campaign battle where all 21 flags were within 2 hexes of the AI deployment line. Of those, five were actually in the AI deployment area. If I had gone after the flags, it would have been more along the lines of an understrength "advance" than a "meeting engagement" The AI came out to fight, however, so I won by decimating their force. Didn't capture one flag.

[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.)