Problems with Sudden Death trigger

[british exil]

One question.

Who said war was fair?

Mat

[freightweezul]

Sudden Death triggered by enemy losses is totally borked right now. I decided to replay a particular scenario I LOST because I annihilated the enemy force too quickly before calling foul. Just to make sure it wasn't a freak occurrence. I got the same, silly/gamey result a couple more times. Enemy is below 30%, I am over 80% (in all 3 battles) but I lose because of objectives I cannot retake even though there are a couple of hours of time left and my force is in good shape. This is as silly as losing a game of France '40 on the final turn when Fallschirmjagers land in Paris.

Sudden death when YOUR force is combat ineffective is perfectly fine. Having the game end instantly on a losing position because you WON is intolerable. Not only in edge cases like the encirclement described above. A single 12% efficiency BRDM sitting on a 3000 point objective surrounded by 16 M1A1(HA) gets saved by the bell because the rest of his regiment is smoking hulks? If you MUST halt all play instantly due to enemy attrition you have got to do something else to avoid punishing the commander who destroyed the enemy force while maintaining his own. If this were an option, I would NEVER use it under any circumstances. Ever.

War == not fair. Games must be. Punishing victory sucks out the enjoyment for me in a big way. [:@]

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: freightweezul

A single 12% efficiency BRDM sitting on a 3000 point objective surrounded by 16 M1A1(HA) gets saved by the bell because the rest of his regiment is smoking hulks?

The code is set at the moment to give the points for that objective to the one with 16 M1A1(HA). If it's not doing that we need to look at it.

If you MUST halt all play instantly due to enemy attrition you have got to do something else to avoid punishing the commander who destroyed the enemy force while maintaining his own. If this were an option, I would NEVER use it under any circumstances. Ever.

We all have our favorite way to play our games. That's why they come with options in the first place. If you read up this thread a bit you will see that more time went into developing the Sudden Death function than any other.

We have already stated that it will continue to be tweaked.

Your comments have been noted for the continuing discussion.

Good Hunting.

MR

[freightweezul]

I have read the whole thread. I have considered carefully what was said about testing, tweaking, and the time that went into it. If the game weren't so good, I wouldn't be the slightest bit bothered by it. I would simply move on to something else.

My reading of the rules is that only objectives within 2km or your forces and NOT within 2km of enemy are awarded to you when the SD is triggered. Am I mistaken? The BRDM got the objective and it did not change hands to my ACR sqd since both sides had runners within 2km.

Also, a question regarding recce units. I have read somewhere (memory fails) that they are more likely to revert to screen orders as this fits their role. Does this apply to ACR heavy armor as well? My Abrams seemed to be a bit more ready to scoot than I expected and I am wondering if the status as recce units in ACR squadrons makes them soft?


"Ask me for anything but time" -Napoleon
"Sir, can I have a back rub by Alice Eve and Doutzen Kroes?" -me

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: freightweezul

I have read the whole thread. I have considered carefully what was said about testing, tweaking, and the time that went into it. If the game weren't so good, I wouldn't be the slightest bit bothered by it. I would simply move on to something else.

We know the game isn't perfect. Obviously we are aware of Sudden Death and how it affects game play. Over the years I've found that there are two camps where Sudden Death is concerned.

One camp wants nothing to do with it no matter how you implement it. They want a set turn limit and be done with it. The other camp really likes the variability it brings to a game. We are trying to get it in the game where it can accommodate both. It's another issue where time is of the essence if you guys were going to get the game.

As you say, the game is really good. A single issue can be worked through. With feed back from you gamers we will come up with a good answer for everybody yet.

My reading of the rules is that only objectives within 2km or your forces and NOT within 2km of enemy are awarded to you when the SD is triggered. Am I mistaken? The BRDM got the objective and it did not change hands to my ACR sqd since both sides had runners within 2km.

It was my understanding with the last iteration of Sudden Death that the value of units closest to the VL also was considered. That may not be correct at the moment. As we said, there have been multiple changes to Sudden Death so far and we are not done adjusting it yet.

Also, a question regarding recce units. I have read somewhere (memory fails) that they are more likely to revert to screen orders as this fits their role. Does this apply to ACR heavy armor as well? My Abrams seemed to be a bit more ready to scoot than I expected and I am wondering if the status as recce units in ACR squadrons makes them soft?

Yes, all recon units will try to screen. It doesn't matter what equipment the unit is armed with. What matters is it's mission type. Anything marked Cav will try to screen.

Good Hunting.

MR

[sppeterson]

So far I've played two games and in both of them the end was triggered early by sudden death because enemy forces had suffered too many casualties. However, since they had suffered those casualties by overrunning objectives, they got the points for them.

This creates really perverse/gamey incentives. A) I should've killed fewer of them so that I could retake the objectives before the computer decided the war was over. And B) It's a good idea to charge the objectives and die in droves right after you get on top of them so your death triggers the game end.

Otherwise though this is a GREAT game! Really loving it and I'm sure the sudden death thing can be resolved.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: sppeterson
And B) It's a good idea to charge the objectives and die in droves right after you get on top of them so your death triggers the game end.

The VL's are never worth dying for. You can lose more points in 10 minutes trying to take a VL than it would ever be worth to you.

Otherwise though this is a GREAT game! Really loving it and I'm sure the sudden death thing can be resolved.

Thanks for the kind words. We will continue to work on Sudden Death until we get that right too.

Good Hunting.

MR

[cbelva]

ORIGINAL: sppeterson

So far I've played two games and in both of them the end was triggered early by sudden death because enemy forces had suffered too many casualties. However, since they had suffered those casualties by overrunning objectives, they got the points for them.

This creates really perverse/gamey incentives. A) I should've killed fewer of them so that I could retake the objectives before the computer decided the war was over. And B) It's a good idea to charge the objectives and die in droves right after you get on top of them so your death triggers the game end.

Otherwise though this is a GREAT game! Really loving it and I'm sure the sudden death thing can be resolved.

The problem with "B" is that you give up points to the enemy by dying. In fact, you can give up more points to the enemy by "dying in droves" than you obtained by taking the objective. The thoughts behind scoring and sudden death were two fold. First the designer wanted a player rewarded for keeping his force in tact and not taking too much damage. This was going to be a war of attrition big time with the lethality of the weapon systems. Also, the Soviets could take lots of real estate not then be so depleted that he couldn't hold it because of loses. The designers wanted the player to understand that losses can really hurt you and lead you to losing even tho you took the objective. I agree myself with that philosophy. We have worked and tweaked the scoring and the sudden death multiple times based on feedback by the play testers. And this thread is evidence that there is more to be done. We are listening to all your comments. Please keep the comments and ideas coming and be patient we are looking at this.

[nukkxx5058]

I would have loved to continue my game. I was playing Soviets.

The game stopped because NATO fall below 30% while I was barely above 30%.

And NATO was giving me hard time near Bad Neustadt.

I really think that the player should be entitled to continue the game after the SD condition being fulfilled. Just to see ...

[nukkxx5058]

results screen

[CapnDarwin]

We are discussing this again in our Dev meeting tonight and we will address the issue in a way that suits everyone's taste in this matter. We will keep you all posted.

[nukkxx5058]

That's great news ! Thanks !

[cbelva]

Please be patient, this is an evolving component in the game. We want to get it right, fair and what will satisfy people. We have made many changes to it during development based on feedback from others and we knew we would be making changes once a larger audience had a chance to look at it. Scoring and ending a game is not as easy as it looks. Especially when you want to reflect reality and make everyone happy in the process.  

As a player there have been times I felt the final outcome/score reflected the game fairly realistically and then there have been times I have felt robbed.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Yeah, I have to say, while I agree that variability can be fun, and that battles shouldn't be fought always to the last man, as that's unrealistic, I feel that a player who successfully forces the enemy to withdraw with huge losses should never be penalized for doing so. Categorically, never. It makes no sense in either game terms or real life terms. If you want to have a sudden death rule, make it so that it is one way; that is, if you lose 70% of your force, you simply lose the game, and the other guy wins. To have it so that there is ever, ever, a chance that you will do everything right and "lose" the battle because you were too good--that's silly. Unless you really want to simulate bureaucratic idiocy, which we get enough of in our daily lives.

I mean, what does sudden death really mean? It means one side has become combat ineffective and is withdrawing. Well, the OTHER side is hardly likely to sit back and let them! Instead, they'd probably pour it on and wreak as much havoc as the could on the retreating (soon to be routing) enemy. Instead, a force here that gets whacked severely gets a free pass to recuperate. Not kosher, really.

I love the game, but this is one of the least successful aspects as implemented. The idea of variable conditions for victory perhaps, or variability in the scenario, is fine, but not the way it's done now. It's not working.

[Mad Russian]

You need percentage results for tournament play.

I would say that there is very little chance that the game would go to a simply win or lose format.

Good Hunting.

MR

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

You need percentage results for tournament play.

I would say that there is very little chance that the game would go to a simply win or lose format.

Good Hunting.

MR

So, what you're saying then is that the "win/loss" result isn't really the win/loss result. That we should be looking, instead, at the percentage of victory points we're getting? Or the percentage of the enemy we destroyed? Or the percentage of our own forces remaining? It's all clear as mud.

To me, it's a very simple issue. The player should never be penalized for success. Never. So, if I rout the enemy and he runs away before I have a chance to kill him, I should still get all of the points, because dollars to donuts if he DID rout, I'd take those places anyhow--either as he left them, or over his smoking corpses (shot in the back as they ran, no doubt). Either way, I win. What we have now is a chance--not a guarantee, and most games it works out "ok"--that you can hit the enemy so hard, so skillfully, that they'll break before you can occupy enough hexes to win. That is simply not good game design. I'd go as far as to say it's frankly bad game design--at least, the way it's working.

If you really think the benefit that you get from having this sort of variability outweighs in effect screwing over players who are actually playing the game well, then we have a real difference of philosophy I guess. Because I have yet to hear a single, coherent argument for the system as it stands now. I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I really, really respect the work that went into this game, and the people who made it, but this discussion right now has become utterly non-nonsensical. You guys don't have a leg to stand on logically--at least, as it's been explained here. Maybe I'm missing something totally, it's possible, but really, the whole sudden death implementation is as misbegotten as they come, conceptually.

[Mad Russian]

What I'm saying is that you will always see a result that has a percentage result. They also tell you the level of victory or loss.

That won't probably change.

The percentage is a requirement for tournament results. In days of old there were A LOT of tournaments. I may have even made scenarios for some tournaments in the past. I would like to see this game series regenerate some of those.

We'll see.

As to the Sudden Death, again, we are still working on it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

What I'm saying is that you will always see a result that has a percentage result. They also tell you the level of victory or loss.

That won't probably change.

The percentage is a requirement for tournament results. In days of old there were A LOT of tournaments. I may have even made scenarios for some tournaments in the past. I would like to see this game series regenerate some of those.

We'll see.

As to the Sudden Death, again, we are still working on it.

Good Hunting.

MR

Gotcha. Again, sorry if I seem mean, not trying to be . It's your baby, you guys do what you want with it, and I'm pretty sure it'll still be good.

[Mad Russian]

We take all comments. We never consider you guys to be mean.

EVERY SINGLE COMMENT IS READ AND CONSIDERED!!!

That's how we make the game better.

I would rather you continue to contribute to the dialogue about the game than have us tell you guys we know you it all. Because we are gamers, just like you, we want to have the best wargame to play as we can get. We appreciate your trying to help improve it. [&o]

Good Hunting.

MR

[MikeAP]

Is there any way to mod this for the meantime?