Problems with Sudden Death trigger

[budd]

works for me....thx

[cbelva]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

You know what else is a good thing? This game, (small) warts and all. Hell, I think half the reason people are so vehement about certain things is that the game is good enough to make them really feel invested in making it even better!

That is exactly why I got so involved with this game. When I started play testing the game in July 2012 I saw the potential in this game. It had the mechanics and the scale I had been wanting in a game. Trust me, it was no where near as complete and polished as it is now. The first scenario I played was on a map that was basically a screen shot from Google Earth. It was still fun. It has its warts and its imperfections--all games do. But I really felt at the time that Rob and Capn Darwin had a great game in the makings.

I have been playing the game now for 15 months and I have not tired of it yet. It still gets to me.

[kaburke61]

Capability to keep playing (whether scored at SD time and/or later) is perfect.

[CptHowdy]

echoing what Mad Russian has said. a scenario is a battle in the overall war. you can chase(continue the game) the enemy and try to destroy every last unit but you don't know if reinforcements are just around the bend or coming over that hill. give the people the option to continue the battle but let there be a percentage chance that more enemy units arrive. the player now has a dilemma no? take the "win" or chase the routing enemy and possibly be met by reinforcements and have those routing units find renewed courage and turn to fight once again. if they chase over that hill and run into a battalion of tanks I bet a lot of people will take that "win" when its offered the first time around [;)]

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

You know what else is a good thing? This game, (small) warts and all. Hell, I think half the reason people are so vehement about certain things is that the game is good enough to make them really feel invested in making it even better!

Someone did something right it seems .

When that happens it catches you by surprise. It also makes it a bit tough to slow down the process and not hurt anyone's feelings. We really do read every post on the game. We really do take into consideration every opinion.

We really do feel your pain.

Good Hunting.

MR

[hondo1375]

Capn Darwin's comments have resolved this issue as far as I am concerned, as the solution he suggests seems good to me, so I've not much else to add.

ORIGINAL: CptHowdy

echoing what Mad Russian has said. a scenario is a battle in the overall war. you can chase(continue the game) the enemy and try to destroy every last unit but you don't know if reinforcements are just around the bend or coming over that hill. give the people the option to continue the battle but let there be a percentage chance that more enemy units arrive. the player now has a dilemma no? take the "win" or chase the routing enemy and possibly be met by reinforcements and have those routing units find renewed courage and turn to fight once again. if they chase over that hill and run into a battalion of tanks I bet a lot of people will take that "win" when its offered the first time around [;)]

There were several different reasons given in this thread for why some gamers were not entirely happy with the current system for ending the game. Mine was that the sudden death end game is being triggered in some cases by the enemy falling below a certain threshold of initial forces but still getting to hold on to its objectives while the scenario has time remaining. Of course the battle is part of a wider conflict, and my issue is not about destroying every unit, it is simply that the moment the enemy feels it is no longer able to fight, but isn't going to surrender or flee the field, while you are still able to fight, seems like a curious time to end the battle.

Arguments about the scenario occurring in a wider context don't really address this in my opinion. Of course there are reserves waiting to reinforce positions, and invasions are on a timetable and circumstances change where an objective's relevance changes over time, but I would have thought the scenario timer is meant to model that. And even if there is a hypothetical enemy tank regiment sitting in reserve a hex line off-board, that got called in because things went south, that should (1) be at least mentioned in the game end text, rather than the current text that looks like the enemy called a timeout, and (2) its not clear why that allows the enemy to hold their current position in the face of immediate and effective opposition with their reinforcements still being some distance away. Also, (3)presumably, my force has reserves too that could be called in to press home the advantage and bolster me against their reserves.

Any way, I'm happy with the solution Capn Darwin suggested, and thank him for his lightening and excellent response. [:)]

[Emx77]

I also think Capn Darwin's suggested solution will address SD issue and make game much more enjoyable.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: hondo1375

Arguments about the scenario occurring in a wider context don't really address this in my opinion. Of course there are reserves waiting to reinforce positions, and invasions are on a timetable and circumstances change where an objective's relevance changes over time, but I would have thought the scenario timer is meant to model that.

Sudden Death was meant to model that. I didn't set the end of game timer on any scenario to end when 'I' thought it would/should. I let game play do that for you. If I had set it and you were just about to FINALLY begin to kill his units, this discussion would all be about how I had made the scenarios too short.

When it comes to ending a scenario to everyone's benefit it's much tougher than it looks. Whether it is a set time ending or a variable one. I don't think anyone has a problem with the variable ending. What the issue seems to be is the scoring of the scenario at Sudden Death.

And even if there is a hypothetical enemy tank regiment sitting in reserve a hex line off-board, that got called in because things went south, that should (1) be at least mentioned in the game end text, rather than the current text that looks like the enemy called a timeout, and (2) its not clear why that allows the enemy to hold their current position in the face of immediate and effective opposition with their reinforcements still being some distance away. Also, (3)presumably, my force has reserves too that could be called in to press home the advantage and bolster me against their reserves.

That is exactly the issue I've been trying to clarify. If, either they have a reserve, or you have a reserve, or both of you have reserves, that are about to be deployed, you have no idea how the next 10 minutes worth of fighting is going to go at any moment. So, to say, I was winning and I was going to go on winning is an assumption on your part that may, or may not, be true. At the time the fighting is stopped you literally have no idea what is about to happen next.

Any way, I'm happy with the solution Capn Darwin suggested, and thank him for his lightening and excellent response. [:)]

We'll see how it works. Like almost anything, concerning the game, it will take some gameplay to determine if it works as advertised.

I would like to bring one more issue to this discussion. When we have an issue, like Sudden Death, things can get intense at times. People only get intense about things that are important to them. This game is very important to those that took the time to create it and it's just as important to those that spent their hard earned money to buy it and their spare time to play it.

It's often hard not to hurt people's feelings on either side of the fence. We absolutely understand the passion for the game. We've had that passion longer than the rest of you. We also want any and all comments from you. It's important for us to continue to improve the game.

If any comment I've made, here or on another site, has stepped on anyone's toes, then I apologize. This is a hard medium to get your points across at times without having them taken the wrong way. When I discuss with any of you in the forums across our hobby it is with the same attitude that we are sitting at your kitchen table talking. I don't yell. I rarely get upset. I can get frustrated with a lack of ability on my part to get a point across at times. When that happens, and it will, then we all need to recognize that the other person may well be as frustrated as we are in putting their point across. The key is to not get personal and don't stop trying until we do understand you. It's important to the game that we understand your points of view, opinions and suggestions.

Thanks for buying the game and helping us to make it better.

We appreciate you.


Good Hunting.

MR

[wodin]

Sorry to bring this thread back..but after playing a few scenarios which finish with Sudden death after checking what the losing side had left it all seems to make sense to me. Personally I am happy with it..maybe it should be dropped to 20% but thats about it.

Still if others don't like it then obviously would be great if it became a scenario option.

[Radagy]

I'm not totally satisfied by Capn Darwin'solution to the SD trigger issue.
The assuption of my thoughts is that wiping 70% of an enemy force means victory and victory should be somewhat rewarded.
I see SD as a general withdrawal order given by the sucumbent side's HQ.
As such al objectives (neutral or enemy controlled) within a few hexes from the winner's units should revert to the winner's side.
The distance should strictly depend on how fast the scenario ends.
A quick win means the winner takes victory hexes within, may be, ten or fifteen hexes from his units.
A longer struggle, almost to the end, means the winner only takes control of objectives very close to his units.

[GloriousRuse]

I have to say, that the sudden death trigger has been most irritating to me as the Soviets. They really get punished by it whereas NATO it usually makes sense.

You see for NATO, sudden death usually occurs in one of two situations:

1) You've massacred the attack. Excellent, you still probably hold the ground, or at least enough of it that your victory is well at hand.

2) The enemy has ground his way forward through most of the objectives, but is a tattered wreck. If this has happened, you're likely bloody and bruised as well, and yes, another soviet echelon would be coming...and in that scenario sudden death makes sense, your consolidating for the next wave. In addition, by soviet doctrine, the SD'd soviet force has performed acceptably in trading forces for land and would be expected to refit which is the whole point of battering NATO with sequential waves.

But as the soviets, it is plain galling to have an intact force rolling forward with order to drive for the Rhine and then get punished because NATO died too quickly. Your telling me my 200 remaining tanks and 150 APCs are going to stop right now because the first enemy has been brushed aside in the first two hours? If there's a reserve out there, letem come.

[budd]

haven't played WP yet but thats a good point and would probably bother me as well, especially if nato is still owning VP's

[Radagy]

+1 GloriousRuse. I absolutely agree with you.
Addressing this shortcoming should be a priority in the next patch.

[loki100]

deleted - original post was talking mince (as we say around here) [:o]

[cbelva]

We have heard your concerns over the sudden death rule and it will be addressed. It will not go away, but we are working on a solution so that the player will feel that the outcome was realistic. I do know we are planning on placing an option to keep playing if the player so wants to. There are a few bugs that are keeping a few people from playing the game and those are the number one priority at the moment. After that, things like sudden death will get looked at. There are several components to the sudden death rule that we need to consider and it will probably be an evolving solution. As stated else where in the forum, this was the most debated item in the development of the game. We all were in agreement that it needed to be a part of the game, but exactly how to implement was the heartburn. We appreciate your patience as we continue to improve what we think is a pretty good game right now.

[deadsunwheel]

Just to put in my two cents. I think a relatively basic way to mitigate the Sudden Death issue would be to provide a flat VP bonus for wiping out the opposition. If the value of the bonus was somewhere in the range of 10-20% of VP it would likely in most cases balance out the loss of momentum due to the game ending. The main down side with this method is that it would make the destruction of enemy forces an objective in and of it self. Considering how breakthrough oriented the Soviets philosophy was this might not be all that realistic of a victory point source.

The other potential fix in my mind would be to count all victory points within 5 km of a friendly unit are claimed regardless of enemy units near it. This would in most cases shift enough VP to give the win to the force that wiped out the opposition.

Irrespective of the Sudden Death issue this is a fantastic game. Thanks again to the developers for their time and hard work [&o]

[CapnDarwin]

As I stated above, along with the options selections, we do want to revamp the Sudden Death game mechanics more. We did have the uncontested 2km rule and that is not good enough in some instances. We do want to do a surrender and withdrawal mechanic and also revisit the contested/uncontested range of VP grabs based on time remaining and force level remaining.

Right now the next patch or two is heavily bug fix focused so we can get a number of folks playing enough to have an opinion of this topic. It is high on the radar just after that. It is not a quick fix in some areas too. Adding the buttons and optional to play on is not that difficult but digging into the engine to add these refined end game cases will take time to code and test.

All things in good time.

[Radagy]

Anyway, after changing the SD mechanics, there should be just one rule do determine who's the winner and not two different clickable options.
That rule is the core of the game (We play to win, isn't it?); making people choose before a game would lead to two completely different ways to play and I don't think it would be a good thing for the community.
Chrome rules and small details can be tradable, core rules shouldn't.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Radagy

Anyway, after changing the SD mechanics, there should be just one rule do determine who's the winner and not two different clickable options.
That rule is the core of the game (We play to win, isn't it?); making people choose before a game would lead to two completely different ways to play and I don't think it would be a good thing for the community.
Chrome rules and small details can be tradable, core rules shouldn't.

Yes, we play to win. There are however, different ways to play. One those is tournaments. Would you want to match your Sudden Death score to a gamer that played past it? We are trying to view all the options here and get this issue worked out.

Good Hunting.

MR

[moet]

May be an easy way to solve the sudden death problem is to offer the player the following choice :

"Your enemy has lost 70% of his men, but you don't have enough VPs to claim decisive victory.
Do you want to continue playing until the end of the scenario in order to occupy as much objectives as you can?"