Problems with Sudden Death trigger

[Mad Russian]

Sudden Death is hard coded.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Apparently nobody has figured out that I used Sudden Death to end the scenarios. I saw a comment that "the AI always takes 30% casualties". Not always. I could always make the game short enough that the scenario ends on an exact time.

The next thing we would be hearing from you guys is how my scenarios are too short and how I needed to give you more time. [:@]

I personally prefer the Sudden Death end to a set time frame.

Good Hunting.

MR

[MikeAP]

I haven't tried it yet, but with the sudden death rule one could capture and hold VPs then purposely lose 70% of his forces and still win because he retains VPs.

Obviously this would be foolish in the campaign, but it could work in single scenarios, or even worse - in multiplayer.

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian


I personally prefer the Sudden Death end to a set time frame.

Good Hunting.

MR

I disagree. I think that using the time standard would allow players to at least have a fair chance at capturing objectives.

Also, doctrine dictates TERRAIN for offensive operations and DESTRUCTION for defensive.

[Mad Russian]

That's not a good plan. More times than not the value of the forces outweighs the values of the VP's so taking the VP's then giving up your force should result in you getting soundly beaten.

The reason for that is simple. I am of the school that believes that you destroy the enemies forces to beat him. Only rarely can you defeat his forces by taking and holding a geographic location with his army let intact.

Good Hunting.

MR

[nukkxx5058]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Apparently nobody has figured out that I used Sudden Death to end the scenarios. I saw a comment that "the AI always takes 30% casualties". Not always. I could always make the game short enough that the scenario ends on an exact time.

The next thing we would be hearing from you guys is how my scenarios are too short and how I needed to give you more time. [:@]

I personally prefer the Sudden Death end to a set time frame.

Good Hunting.

MR

The problem with the 30% sudden death rule is that there is no comparison with the opponent.

29% vs. 68% : player 2 wins and this is OK
29% vs 31% : player 2 wins but this is NOT OK.

There should be at least a minimum difference between the 2 scores.

For example: < 30% AND difference between 2 scores > 25% (or so, to be calibrate)

But for solo unrated games at least I really think that one should be able to continue the game after the SD trigger been reach if he wished so.

I understand that for multiplayer games it's more difficult.

[MikeAP]

Either way, I hope it becomes a toggle. Very much dislike this rule, as stated above.

Also, I am surprised on the Dev decision to make the rules un-moddable.

Edit - Close Combat has an 'end on low force morale' rule also but will award the winning team the map/victory points.

[fvianello]

IMHO, the result is quite realistic.

You have lost 1/3 of your tanks, 2/3 of your APC, almost all your infantry and HQ, and NATO still holds the bridges and a city on your main axis of advance.

I don't see how this could be considered a victory.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

Also, I am surprised on the Dev decision to make the rules un-moddable.

You're surprised that the rules can't be modded? I don't understand.

Edit - Close Combat has an 'end on low force morale' rule also but will award the winning team the map/victory points.

That's also an option.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: nukkxx

The problem with the 30% sudden death rule is that there is no comparison with the opponent.

29% vs. 68% : player 2 wins and this is OK
29% vs 31% : player 2 wins but this is NOT OK.

There should be at least a minimum difference between the 2 scores.

Every scenario is not the same. Size of opposing forces and value of Victory Location objectives are the key.


Good Hunting.

MR

[hondo1375]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
This isn't your Grandfathers Panzer Blitz

LOL.

[hondo1375]

Arguments about Pyrrhic victories and realism don't hold in the situation where the game stops because the enemy falls below 30% (IIRC)while you still have 87% of your original force and 3 hours left on the clock. It's not realistic to allow the enemy in such a situation to score points for holding onto victory hexes when (1) they are on the verge of routing or surrendering, and (2) you have time and forces to take those objectives. This happened in my first game of Time to Dance, and it was very frustrating as I was just beginning to mount a counter attack as NATO. Either the enemy is still able to continue the fight, and therefore the game should continue, or they are not and they should either rout or surrender. The enemy calling "time out" to reorganize, and being awarded victory points for objective while there is still time on the clock, doesn't seem realistic at all.

[Mad Russian]

And what if there is an enemy tank column on the hex row just off map? How does that figure into this? Because the entire war is not being fought in the limit of your binoculars.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Emx77]

ORIGINAL: hondo1375

Arguments about Pyrrhic victories and realism don't hold in the situation where the game stops because the enemy falls below 30% (IIRC)while you still have 87% of your original force and 3 hours left on the clock. It's not realistic to allow the enemy in such a situation to score points for holding onto victory hexes when (1) they are on the verge of routing or surrendering, and (2) you have time and forces to take those objectives. This happened in my first game of Time to Dance, and it was very frustrating as I was just beginning to mount a counter attack as NATO. Either the enemy is still able to continue the fight, and therefore the game should continue, or they are not and they should either rout or surrender. The enemy calling "time out" to reorganize, and being awarded victory points for objective while there is still time on the clock, doesn't seem realistic at all.

Exactly. The current rule is unrealistic, frustrating and provides some kind of divine rescue belt for losing side. It needs to be changed or disabled. Period.

[hondo1375]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
And what if there is an enemy tank column on the hex row just off map? How does that figure into this? Because the entire war is not being fought in the limit of your binoculars.

MR, I don't really understand how that counters my points, can you explain what you mean more?

[Mad Russian]

What I mean is that everybody is all excited because you didn't get 'x' number more points BECAUSE I was winning and I was going to go on winning. [&o]

The point is, maybe you were, and maybe you weren't, going to keep on winning. You have no idea what is about to happen. Whether that is to continue to rout the forces you are engaged with or whether they start to rout your forces with the reinforcements that have come on the run since you started to pound the stuffing out of them.

Wargames have always been very much endowed with tunnel vision. The entire war is not what you see here in front of you. [X(]

Okay, we got it. You guys don't like the way Sudden Death is scored. We've worked on it for about 2 years and are still working on it.

In the long run, just because you can't hammer every living enemy pixel, or take every single Victory Location, it doesn't mean the ending of the game, or the scoring system is bad. It just means you don't like it, and believe me, we got that part in spades.

Before that comes off sounding too harsh, consider this, we have blended a lot of game vs sim in this game. The Sudden Death is one of those places. All the other places we blended reality with game play went over very well. Sudden Death didn't. We are working to fix that now. That doesn't mean that it didn't work as intended it simply means you gamers, not anyone specifically, don't like it the way it is currently in the game. So, we are still working on it.

You do need to give us a chance to make changes to it after you bring it to our attention when you don't care for a feature. I get it. You like the game EXCEPT for Sudden Death, so if we will hurry up and fix that then the world comes back into focus for you. We are fixing it but we'd like to make sure it's what we want and what you want. So far that's been a moving target.

Good Hunting.

MR

[CapnDarwin]

Gent's,

Before this goes to far afield, let me tell you all where we currently stand and what ideas we have on the table to encompass the majority of the inputs both players and development team.

What we have talked about to remedy the SD issue is the following. This in no way is a set in stone decision since we have only talked a couple of time on this. Our focus right now is bugs preventing people from playing and small improvements/enhancements requested by you guys. The SD issue is in no way less important, but it isn't breaking the game either right now and there is no 30 second quick code fix either. Here we go:

1. For multiplayer games, an external (before the game starts) option to have SD on or off just like FOW or limited orders. A player will still be able to resign after 2/3s of the game is played.

2. For single player, when SD is triggered, an option on the popup dialog to run the game to time limit. End game scoring with be done at the time limit or when the player decides to call it. The "Extended" game score will then be displayed.

3. The existing SD end game routine to be enhanced with a surrender/withdraw mechanic and enhanced evaluation of remaining objects.

We feel this will cover the bases the best and hopefully give everyone the game experience they are looking for.

To answer the next question of "When?", as soon as the other high priority items are dealt with. We will continue to discuss and refine this plan and keep you all in the loop.

Thanks.

[jack54]

+1 Capn Darwin that looks perfect, IMHO[:)]

[JiminyJickers]

Thanks Capn Darwin, for single player that is all I want. I want to be able to continue playing if I feel like it.

Looking forward to this being implemented in the future.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

I really do appreciate the attempt to counter the tunnel vision of most wargames; that's a good thing indeed. I'm also pleased that there are some tweaks being considered, which seem reasonable. That's also a good thing.

You know what else is a good thing? This game, (small) warts and all. Hell, I think half the reason people are so vehement about certain things is that the game is good enough to make them really feel invested in making it even better!

Someone did something right it seems .