Problems with victory conditions

[jstanb]

The game has a serious problem in calculating victory conditions.

I was playing Red Hammer (second British scenario) as the WP. 17 turns left.

From the beginning NATO attacked me with everything they had, a minor game flaw I supposed, because they didn't have the numbers or the equipment to do so (I bet a wiser human player would be on the defensive). Nevertheless, after 3 or 4 turns of fierce battle, I managed to inflict them heavy losses.

I was waiting for the end of the turn, planning how to assault the town from every direction, when the game ended with NATO winning a MARGINAL VICTORY.... THAT WAS RIDICULOUS!!

The final results were:
WP
Runners 88
% starting 67%
Cleared sectors 320
Occupied sectors 152
Enemy losses 38

NATO
Runners 29
% starting 19%
Cleared sectors 300
Occupied sectors 255
Enemy losses 27

As I stated earlier, they were 17 turns left, enough time to occupy NATO's sectors.

Is there a way to manually modify the victor conditions? I think the winning player should decide if he wants to continue after his opposite has less than 20% strength...

Or maybe reduce the 20% to 5% or 1%

[Marc von Martial]

Which game version? Did you allready install latest patch v1.2?

[jstanb]

Yes; version 1.02

[IronManBeta]

There are a few factors at play here.

1. Yes, the underdog will try to seize the initiative every now and then. The premise of the backstory of the game is that this is an *extremely* short war and confusion at the corps and army level is rampant. Most regimental and brigade commanders know that every hour counts and want to be engaged. In this case it looked odd, yes, and we are working on adding more subtly to it and toning down the range of times it happens, but in a probabilistic system like we use here there will be a certain chance of the weaker side breaking out like you saw.

2. Then came 'sudden death' when the NATO forces fell below 20% of their starting line strength. This is right from the original SimCan MBT design and is deliberate! In this case it resulted in what we call a "flame-out" defense. NATO was crushed but stopped the WP from obtaining a complete victory in the result. Realistic? Notice that you did get a lot of VPs for the area that you had not yet cleared or occupied. That is a deliberate counterbalance to discourage voluntary flame-outs.

Try playing a few more games and see how it goes. We are willing to modify the victory conditions as we work further on the scenarios. Normally losing 80% of your strength should guarantee you a loss but that is not the case in every possible scenario. Maybe we should throw in a sudden death penalty too just to really twist the knife....

Tell me what your thoughts are.

Cheers, Rob.l

[jstanb]

Thanks for answering my question

1) You are right. After playing more scenarios, I realize that the PC player randomly chooses to be active or passive. But it would be more realistic if he sent only part of his forces in a "flame-out" defense. I mean, he managed to inflict me heavy losses mostly with his recon and advancing units in the 2 "surprise attack" turns, but after that he received severe punishment. Maybe instead of sending everything after me (including company's HQs), it would be better if he attack with 1/3 of his forces and defend with the rest.

2) "NATO was crushed but stopped the WP from obtaining a complete victory in the result"... The problem is that NATO won a marginal victory... I wouldn't have problems of accepting a minor WP victory, after all, he surprised me. I sent almost all my units on route march assuming he would be digged in the city. That mistake cost me many BTR/ BMPs. However, I managed to turn the tide by attacking with the remanents and my precious tanks. (NATO's APC were no match to my awesome T-80s). I am still convinced I deserved victory.

3) I would try more scenarios. Some days ago I played "Thin blue line". I easily captured the town (I only encountered light oposition, APCs, AT guns, etc). After that, I realized that the main british force (lots of tank platoons) were hidden in the north woods (they were all stacked in 3 hexes... I mean, 6 or 8 units per square). I am almost sure that it was not a strategy, it looked like he forgot to move his reinforcements.
Needless to say, killing them was painful (lots of artillery, airstrikes, sending 2 or 3 tank companies in suicide assaults to weaken them, etc). It was really tough, but was it realistic?

Cheers
Jorge Stanbury

[Poliorcetes]

I just "won" a game by losing enough forces to drop me below 20% as WP. I was the defender, and since my remaining forces were in the only victory square, I won.

I also can't peruse the Nato forces, as clicking on them makes their counter disappear from the map.

Poliorcetes

[Burthold]

I tend to agree that the victory conditions are a little "kooky" but what really BOTHERS me is that the game stops and denies the impending doom of your enemy. Give me a draw but don't stop the game till the end of the time span.

You can call it a draw all you want - even when my guard units are drinking wine in Paris. I'll even agree with Nato! We we we... its a draw, now taste this bagette(sp).