Victory Points option in editor

[governato]

I would like to add a VP event to the AI editor.

EXAMPLE: IF trigger happens THEN response is: sideX gets YY VPoints).



This change seems harmless enough and they would open up a much more dynamic game vs the AI

- The AI could get a VP bonus if the human takes too many losses or orgs get too tired (the AI is not super good at destroying individual units, but a reckless player should be penalized anyway).

- it'd be really easy to build "triggers" to let the human player to dynamically activate reserves for the AI ( that is already possible with the existing tools) but weight them with a VP cost.

[Saint Ruth]

But then how would the player know this? Isn't victory point allocation for the scenario design? Not for the AI?

[governato]

But then how would the player know this? Isn't victory point allocation for the scenario design? Not for the AI?

In the scenario briefing just add "significant losses will trigger a VPs penalty"

a VP penalty for the human player would be the response to a say, STRENGHT40 trigger suffered by one of human player orgs.
Again the AI rarely destroys entire units which skews the VP tally, this would also help avoiding reckless human playing styles if the designer so whishes. Also easily applicable to HvH games.

- with the current AI scripting the human player could easily trigger AI responses (think of having special counters as 'buttons' and special hexes as trigger areas). so a human player could 'help' the AI by releasing some of the AI's reserves..in exchange of a VP bonus.

Still obscure? I will send you and example or we can chat more over PMs...

[kevinkins]

There are many ways to handle victory points and war games have used some pretty interesting ways to accumulate them.

One I would like to see here is a neutral flag option. Another to think about is a "pass-through objective" i.e. points awarded for clearing an area that does not need to be held. Perhaps this game is suited for "Destroy" and "Preserve"
objectives related to bridges. Objectives at the very end of maps might just be "occupied" by game's end to get a set number of points - not points per turn occupied.

Kevin

[governato]

There are many ways to handle victory points and war games have used some pretty interesting ways to accumulate them.

One I would like to see here is a neutral flag option. Another to think about is a "pass-through objective" i.e. points awarded for clearing an area that does not need to be held. Perhaps this game is suited for "Destroy" and "Preserve"
objectives related to bridges. Objectives at the very end of maps might just be "occupied" by game's end to get a set number of points - not points per turn occupied.

Kevin

YES to all these suggestions. I think VPs is an area that 'd be easy to enrich.Maybe as more people tackle the editor

Fractional Losses,
Raids (pass through VPs)
Destroying bridges
Occupying a location AT THE END of the scenario
VPs for allowing extra (otherwise FIXED) resources to your opponent
INegative VPs for negating resources to your opponent.

All these options 'd increase replay value especially vs the AI.

[Saint Ruth]

Yes, but my point is that scenario victory points should be specified in the scenario itself, not in the AI script. I don't like the idea of mixing apples and oranges.

[Saint Ruth]

YES to all these suggestions. I think VPs is an area that 'd be easy to enrich.Maybe as more people tackle the editor

Fractional Losses,
Raids (pass through VPs)
Destroying bridges
Occupying a location AT THE END of the scenario
VPs for allowing extra (otherwise FIXED) resources to your opponent
INegative VPs for negating resources to your opponent.

All these options 'd increase replay value especially vs the AI.

Some of these though are do-able.

By the way also in the game is multiple hex victory locations (don't think any scenario uses them). You only get victory points if you capture ALL of the hexes.

[kevinkins]

Missed multiple hex victory objectives. Do they have to be adjacent? Thanks.

[Saint Ruth]

Hi, no, they don't need to be adjacent, though it might be difficult for a player to see them if not adjacent!