Matrix Games Forums

I've just finished my first scenario - Time to Dance (full FOW, limited staff rule) as Soviet. Basically, I've performed a pincer movement with 1/17th GTR and 2/17th GTR battalions while keeping a 4/17th in center (see picture).



NATO force was pretty shattered and two of M1A1 remaining units expended all ammo. It was a question of minutes before I would take last two objectives. However, sudden death trigger (NATO force dropped below 70% of strength) prevented me to finish my operation and to achieve better score.



Very frustrating and also unrealistic.

About this problem I wrote eight years ago (oh boy, time is flying) in Flashpoint Germany subforum. I will ask developers to provide us with option to disable sudden death trigger or to allow player to continue with game if he wants, after one force drops bellow 30% of initial strength (or even to allow manual setting of sudden death percent level before starting scenario).

Sudden Death and end of game scoring was one of the most revised, revamped, tweaked and argued items in the game development with the design team and the beta testers. The whole system was overhauled from a mostly FPG % of line units to the now % of all units. There is also a radius of that uncontested VPs can go to the winner, but not all on the map. Our stance is once a force is rendered combat ineffective the fight is over and if you won you would in reality either move on to your next object off map or consolidate and recover your force for the next action. In this situation of an encirclement we will need to look at unit surrender (it is on our list of items to add in the future) which could have helped your scoring in this case.

We can also see about adding a turn off for single player only games if it appears more folks want to fight to the last counter.

As Jim said, this is been the most contested component in the game. I think that most beta testers wants the sudden death, but we want it realistic in regards to scoring. We have made adjustments and it is better than what it was, but I will tell you I think we can do more with it to make it even better.
 
With that said, you need to remember that there is such a thing as a Pyrrhic Victory where you basically sweep the enemy from the field, but your loses are so great you end of loosing the war. In other words, you win but you don't win. This game does not award Pyrrhic Victories. If you loose too many units, you may sweep the enemy, but you may still lose on points.
 
Anyway, we will keep seeking ways to refine the scoring in the game and are always open to suggestions on how to improve things.

As has been said, we have worked in sudden death from day one and there is still not a one of us that is 100% satisfied with it.

Good Hunting.

MR

I'd say have it as an optional rule..on by default.

ORIGINAL: wodin

I'd say have it as an optional rule..on by default.

+1 to a switch (or prompt on the final screen) that lets you continue playing after "mission end" if desired.

I think the trick here is to let folks play more a get a better feel for the mechanic in other scenarios as well. After months of debates and changes the solution as Mad Russian has stated is still not a 100% satisfying to use for various reasons and all of you are just getting in on a subject we've been on for over a year. We are as game designers trying to balance simulation realism on the battlefield with enjoyment of playing a game. The fun/game side is let the game play out until every last enemy is snuffed out of existence on the map. Fun but hardly realistic. Realistic is you are a commander of a sector of a bigger war that is active on all other sides of the map. You have orders and a time frame to execute in. No commander is going to send a beaten up company of tanks 2-4 km down a road to take one last "objective" when he has no clue if another regiment is just beyond that point and driving toward your area. Now that being said, the above screen shot shows one area we can improve on in the end game with surrender of broken and trapped units. We have that topic on our list already and this case may push up its need to be in a sooner rather than later update.

Please keep commenting on how this is working or not working for you and we will continue to read and evaluate ad time goes on.

ORIGINAL: kaburke61

ORIGINAL: wodin

I'd say have it as an optional rule..on by default.

+1 to a switch (or prompt on the final screen) that lets you continue playing after "mission end" if desired.

I would definitely prefer if you could continue playing after the victory screen. This would enhance the game greatly.

I don't like finishing a scenario until I have made my plan come to fruition.

Um, yeah, about that plan Jiminy...mine always break right after I hit the start button! [:-]

Good Hunting.

MR

Ahh! Surrender ... I never thought of that, I like it quite a bit. I also have to say that on more than 1 occasion I was saved by the sudden death. Sure the enemy was TKO'd but looking at the remaining units, some dug in tanks, I am sure that taking the last objectives would have been very costly, I actually think they may have bled my tired troops dry.
Still an 'on off' option really can't be argued with at least for stand alone scenario's. The campaign probable should keep some form of 'Sudden Death'. IMHO

Just played the first soviet campaign mission and got told I needed to perform better in the future. Still, sudden death and a beaten enemy with 70 percent casaulties. What gives?

BTW Jack54; I currently play Revolution Under Siege too

What gives is if you outnumbered your opponent by 5 times and he gave you more casualties than he took he beat you up.

That is part of what the game calculates. Just how well did you really do?

This isn't your Grandfathers Panzer Blitz where you took the objective hex with your last remaining counter and won on points. If you lose a tremendous part of your forces getting the objectives you can lose overall.

You have to play like your forces mean something to you. The more forces you lose in campaign scenarios the longer it takes to recoup them to get them in shape to fight again. Or you get to go without all your forces being brought back to combat effective status.

The game doesn't have a simple calculation that you took 3 Victory Point objectives out of 4 so you won. It goes much deeper than that.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

What gives is if you outnumbered your opponent by 5 times and he gave you more casualties than he took he beat you up.

That is part of what the game calculates. Just how well did you really do?

This isn't your Grandfathers Panzer Blitz where you took the objective hex with your last remaining counter and won on points. If you lose a tremendous part of your forces getting the objectives you can lose overall.

You have to play like your forces mean something to you. The more forces you lose in campaign scenarios the longer it takes to recoup them to get them in shape to fight again. Or you get to go without all your forces being brought back to combat effective status.

The game doesn't have a simple calculation that you took 3 Victory Point objectives out of 4 so you won. It goes much deeper than that.

Good Hunting.

MR

That is exactly what I did. I took minimal casaulties and kicked the enemys ass. Still some objectives in the rear were untouched. That wasnt good enough for the ingame officer

(The enemy took 70 percent casaulties, not me)

Am I missing something?

ORIGINAL: schmolywar

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

What gives is if you outnumbered your opponent by 5 times and he gave you more casualties than he took he beat you up.

That is part of what the game calculates. Just how well did you really do?

This isn't your Grandfathers Panzer Blitz where you took the objective hex with your last remaining counter and won on points. If you lose a tremendous part of your forces getting the objectives you can lose overall.

You have to play like your forces mean something to you. The more forces you lose in campaign scenarios the longer it takes to recoup them to get them in shape to fight again. Or you get to go without all your forces being brought back to combat effective status.

The game doesn't have a simple calculation that you took 3 Victory Point objectives out of 4 so you won. It goes much deeper than that.

Good Hunting.

MR

That is exactly what I did. I took minimal casaulties and kicked the enemys ass. Still some objectives in the rear were untouched. That wasnt good enough for the ingame officer

(The enemy took 70 percent casaulties, not me)

Am I missing something?

In Russia, even winning isn't enough to save you from the Kremlin's wrath!

That is true, how silly of me!

Sometimes the game ends before you can get to some of the other objectives and get a better score.

We're working on that. All I can tell you is, this is not a stand alone game. There are expansions and modules planned!! Stick around for more fun!

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

We are as game designers trying to balance simulation realism on the battlefield with enjoyment of playing a game. The fun/game side is let the game play out until every last enemy is snuffed out of existence on the map. Fun but hardly realistic.

I agree.

Realistic is you are a commander of a sector of a bigger war that is active on all other sides of the map. You have orders and a time frame to execute in. No commander is going to send a beaten up company of tanks 2-4 km down a road to take one last "objective" when he has no clue if another regiment is just beyond that point and driving toward your area.

I couldn’t agree with you more.

Now that being said, the above screen shot shows one area we can improve on in the end game with surrender of broken and trapped units. We have that topic on our list already and this case may push up its need to be in a sooner rather than later update.

All good comments. I would just like to add that we (players) don't have issue with SD trigger when OUR force drops below threshold of 30%. Yes, in that case, we did lousy job and it is probably better to stop in order to fight another day or before 30% become 3%. Take away as much of points as you wish. We deserved punishment for heavy losses.

However, it's not realistic (not to mention how unfair it is) to be forced to stop because ENEMY suffered heavily and lost 70% of initial strength, while there are still victory locations around map. That's the issue here. In such circumstances, players feel like got robbed for points by this rule and left with a bitter taste in mouth.

IMO, there are three solutions:

a) Leave SD trigger but punish losing side (which suffered more than 70%) with transfer of some or all victory locations to opponent.

b) Provide option for disabling SD rule completely.

c) Keep SD as it is but provide player option to continue with game until scenario time runs out.

The difference between losing 70% of your forces and being told you are stopping the attack by a higher HQ and beating up on the enemy force to where you are destroying him is something to consider.

Thanks for everyone's input. We will be taking all your comments into consideration.

Good Hunting.

MR

Emir Agic,

Solution a) is in the game now. All uncontested VPs within 2km of you forces are awarded to you if the enemy triggers SD. What needs to be addressed is situations like the one at the top of the thread where you encircled forces. We need to have a surrender/retreat assessment and look at awarding those locations and surrendered units to the wining side as well. That may go a long way into fixing the current SD system.

As a designer I like idea c) over b) even though they both do the same thing. c) provides a better way for a player on the SD side of the finish an out if they want it.

We will undoubtedly have this as a hot topic for some time to come.

I agree that sudden death should be optional...
+1 for a switch in game options.