Alternate victory conditions?

[Mr. Personality]

I've wondered whether Dave and the Panther staff had ever considered an alternative method of determining the level of victory for the Nijmegen and Eindhoven scenarios. I understand that, at least for the Eindhoven historical campaign, those units that simply "passed through" are not represented whatsover. The units that are included are those that fought in the area - the airborne plus those elements of 30 Corps that were spared to keep the highway open.

However, I wonder whether Dave etc. had considered representing all units whether they stayed or passed through, but awarding victory points to the Allies only for the units that 'exited' the map (sort of like exiting in Close Combat - but exiting the far side of the map)? In such a system, presumeably the earlier the units are 'passed on' to the next map, the more points would be awarded. Likewise, units that are more fully intact (maximum organization, plus few losses of equipment and personnel) would receive more points.

I know from many of Dave's posts that ideas like this one are more easily conceived than programmed, but one potential advantage of this type of system is that the times and status of units that are passed on the next map would have to tracked. That would have facilitated a campaign mode where you fight the battles from south to north, with your results on one map affecting when and in what state your reinforcements arrive on the next.

Coming versions of HTTR will have less of an element of units passing through to the next battle than this one, so in many ways my interest in this topic is probably academic. However, I am curious as to whether such a system was considered and, if so, what were some of the arguments for and against.

[Arjuna]

Well we will be adding a new feature for the Crete game which will provide an additional "Exit" task/order. This can be used by the scenario designer to specify that a certain amount of units must exit at the specified location to receive victory points. This will allow us to better simulate scenarios like Eindhoven where a force must make its way through and exit the map area. However, this is only part of the solution required for a campaign system. As always there is quite a few more aspects to consider for a full system. But we're making progress. [:)]

[dinsdale]

Will force strength be taken into consideration?

It could be quite an exploit to fight all XXX Corps into the ground in Eindhoven or Nijmegen, yet still get those units off the map by game end.

Transitting elements of XXX Corps fresh, without combat losses and fully supplied was the historic "victory condition" will it be possible to impose the same?

[Golf33]

Yes, force strength will be taken into account. You won't be able to exit off a shattered remnant of XXX Corps and expect to gain full value for an exit task [:)]

The exact implementation is still under development so more details will be forthcoming closer to the date of release.

Regards
33

[Mr. Personality]

It looks like this forum may have experienced another hiccup, and a pair of messages that I wrote yesterday are gone. Anyway, here is a recap on my first message...

Based upon what I've read above, it sounds like some enterprising HTTR fan could modify the Eindhoven scenario, for example, so that all units who fought in or who passed through that sector would be visible. Actually, this may even be possible today, if I understand the capabilities of the scenario editor correctly.

However, the question that interests me most is whether the changes that are coming with the Crete expansion will allow the victory conditions to be changed completely so that one's score depended solely on passing off units to the Nijmegen sector quickly and intact? I.e., a player would score highest for passing off the most units in the best state most quickly?

[Arjuna]

Yes this could be done once the Exit Task code is added. You will need to edit the scenarios in the ScenMaker, adding the Exit tasks and adjusting the victory conditions. But it would be do-able.