Sudden Death Ending Suggestions

[CapnDarwin]

@76mm, it is a single player game, so you can decide if you want to play past the SD point.

[CptHowdy]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: CptHowdy

I would also suggest that you need to keep a unit in a VP to be able to claim its points. just passing through it should revert it back to neutral.

That would depend on where the VL was in my opinion. If it's 10km behind your front lines why would you lose it just because you didn't garrison it?

Good Hunting.

MR

then why have one 10km behind the lines? what purpose does it serve besides free points? is it something meant to be fought over? a goal for the enemy to reach? if we just kill em all then we get the VP anyway(at least that is what some are suggesting) lets make the VL mean something.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
@76mm, it is a single player game, so you can decide if you want to play past the SD point.

I haven't played any PBEM+ game yet, doesn't S/D apply against human opponents?

[CapnDarwin]

Right now SD applies to both players in a multi player game and will end the game when triggered.

[76mm]

sorry, then I don't understand what you mean about it being a single-player game?

[CapnDarwin]

When you play versus the AI, that is single player and the option to override SD will be presented at that time. In multiplayer (PBEM) the option to use SD is set in the pre-game options so both players know.

[76mm]

ah, so in multiplayer you can turn S/D on/off before the game, but cannot override it during the game? sorry if I'm being a bit dense...

[JiminyJickers]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

We had hit this pretty hard in the original topic and a similar result is forming here. The current plan when we get to 2.04 is in 3 parts.

1. Add a Pre-Game option for Multiplayer games to have SD off. Both sides fight to time limit or until one side surrenders.
2. In the Single player games, we will add an option to the SD popup dialog which will give the player the option to continue on until the time limit or they end the mission. Your final score will be based on everything you kill and claim up to the time limit.
3. We will be revising the current SD model to include a better surrender/withdrawal resolution and also look at relative force strength, time and locations when awarding remaining VPs. The better off your force and the more time on the clock at SD the more remaining VPs you will be awarded. This will stop the one jeep hold a VP with a company of tanks 1km away syndrome.

This should solve the SD issues. If you like the mechanic you can use the new and improved model and if you don't you can click a button a play on. About the best of both worlds we can get. [:D]

That sounds perfect, thanks.

[CapnDarwin]

@76mm, I think you got it now. [:)]

[Mad Russian]

I believe that both sides would have to agree on the override as well.

Good Hunting.

MR

[CapnDarwin]

For a PBEM game you would want to choose a game set the way you want or issue a challenge set the way you want with respect to SD.

[Fieval]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

We had hit this pretty hard in the original topic and a similar result is forming here. The current plan when we get to 2.04 is in 3 parts.

1. Add a Pre-Game option for Multiplayer games to have SD off. Both sides fight to time limit or until one side surrenders.
2. In the Single player games, we will add an option to the SD popup dialog which will give the player the option to continue on until the time limit or they end the mission. Your final score will be based on everything you kill and claim up to the time limit.
3. We will be revising the current SD model to include a better surrender/withdrawal resolution and also look at relative force strength, time and locations when awarding remaining VPs. The better off your force and the more time on the clock at SD the more remaining VPs you will be awarded. This will stop the one jeep hold a VP with a company of tanks 1km away syndrome.

This should solve the SD issues. If you like the mechanic you can use the new and improved model and if you don't you can click a button a play on. About the best of both worlds we can get. [:D]

Happy with this Capn!

[Mad Russian]

This is how I see changes to Sudden Death activation.

1) An in-game selection that allows for continuation of game play after Sudden Death triggers.

2) An scoring of the Victory Points that takes into account the amount of time left in the scenario and the ratio of forces at the time SD is triggered. The longer the time left in the scenario the further out from the victorious forces the VP's are awarded to the side that triggered SD. This is also dependent on the relative size of the forces still on the map at the time SD is triggered.

3) Surrender/surrounded model to be figured into the final score. Surrounded units sitting on VP's may lose them depending on the value ratio of the forces that have them surrounded.

Did we miss anything?

Good Hunting.

MR

[wodin]

Capn your sig just made me check for game update about 5 times!!

[CapnDarwin]

Should be on the site Friday Wodin. [:D]

[OldSarge]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

3) Surrender/surrounded model to be figured into the final score. Surrounded units sitting on VP's may lose them depending on the value ratio of the forces that have them surrounded.

Did we miss anything?

Good Hunting.

MR

I haven't had an issue with the SD in the game, but since you asked. [8D]

I wouldn't mind seeing the VP locations that are in dispute at SD being rendered neutral for VP scoring purposes. That is, a VP location that is considered owned by the losing side, only the losing side, and is _unoccupied_ and is in a 'no mans' land (i.e. there are numerous units from the winning side in the area) is not counted for either side.

I've come in far lower pointwise on a few scenarios where OPFOR held vital VP locations that were hotly contested. They got the points only because they last occupied the location.

[Flef]

1) An in-game selection that allows for continuation of game play after Sudden Death triggers.

2) An scoring of the Victory Points that takes into account the amount of time left in the scenario and the ratio of forces at the time SD is triggered. The longer the time left in the scenario the further out from the victorious forces the VP's are awarded to the side that triggered SD. This is also dependent on the relative size of the forces still on the map at the time SD is triggered.

3) Surrender/surrounded model to be figured into the final score. Surrounded units sitting on VP's may lose them depending on the value ratio of the forces that have them surrounded.

I would prefer to play my Abrams/T80s until the end of the scenario.

So (suggestion) why not creating a mobile SD trigger? Something "pragmatic" mixing relatives forces' sizes, time left and objective remaining to take. Instead of saying " at 70% losses you'll get X additionnals VP points". It would be rather similar but still leaving the player in control.

[GloriousRuse]

Asymmetric sudden death.

Use a relative measure for Soviet Sudden Death Victory (meaning NATO is sub 30%), and victory levels for the WP based on relative force status and time taken. So, a well preserved WP force that slaughters the enemy quickly should move the chains to a Decisive Victory no matter what. Just being fast or just being intact should move the chains one or two levels up the victory scale for the WP. If it took a long time and the WP are battered, use the SD rules as is.

NATO, in contrast, should get at most one victory level for force preservation, and none for time. Another WP echelon IS coming, and any land you gave up is pretty quickly going to be occupied. For NATO I would say SD at most gets you OBJs within 2km of force that are worth 3x the enemy's forces.

[DoubleDeuce]

Moved this to its own thread in the Scenario School section.

tm.asp?m=3482411

[andyph]

I think a more realistic approach would be an overall decline in morale and readiness as the larger formation is chewed up works for me (dependent on how good the troops were in the first place). Attacks just run out of steam and stop and maybe fall back. Defenses that have suffered major loses soon start to crumble and fall back.