Score Mod Ver - Update 1.02 posted!

[FeurerKrieg]

The Mod has been complete and the latest version is attached to this post. Enjoy!
---------------------------------------------
How does the scoring work in TLD?

Can each VL/flag be assigned a score or is are they all equal? If not each VL, can each map be given a different score or is that also all the same? I believe back in CC5 there were three 'levels' of VL score - 1, 2 and 3 points and that was what we used when playing ladder games to determine who won or lost. Don't know if that is still the case in TLD .

Finally, if each VL can be assigned a different score, is there any limit to the scale of values that can be used? For example, can one flag be worth 100 points and another 20 etc.

What I would like to be able to do is up the scale on the point so that it can be made much more dynamic and create a greater sense of strategic goals. Currently it is pretty fuzzy - just take as many areas as you can, when really, some of the depots and choke points should be scored higher I think. I'm used to playing WITP and in that game, for example, Wake Island is worth a whole lot less than Tokyo.

If the VLs can be scored individually I might take a crack at going through each map and assigning more varied values.

[Andrew Williams]

Values can be

50 exit Vls

100 and 200

look at the *.btd files in your maps folder (excel)

You can also deduce this by looking at the size of the labels on the battle map.  ie Big letters = more points.

[FeurerKrieg]

Yes, the bigger font size was how it was back in CC5, wasn't sure if that had carried over.

I'll take a look at this when I get home - thanks!!

[FeurerKrieg]

Here's a question -

If I wanted to add some extra flags to a map, is there any minimum distance you have to maintain between VLs to prevent any issues?

I'm thinking for maps I really want to push up, if I had to I could add some high value flags.

[Andrew Williams]

I'll need to double check this but

I don't think there is any minimum distance for 100 and 200 pt VL's  (feel free to experiment)

but the 50pt exit/Entry VL's need to be seperated enough so that deployment doesn't overlap  if BG's enter adjacent VL's



Maximum of 16VL's on a map

will get back to you

[Senior Drill]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

I'll need to double check this but

I don't think there is any minimum distance for 100 and 200 pt VL's  (feel free to experiment) ..........

One VL per mega-tile. See Mafi's BDT Editor.

[FeurerKrieg]

Cool, thanks Andrew & Drill! That should be plenty. I don't need to add any exit VLs, just the other ones. I'll be sure to post here with further thoughts as I go in case anyone has input.

[FeurerKrieg]

Any idea where I can find Mafi's BDT editor?

[Andrew Williams]

http://www.dieppe.claranet.de/BED9.zip

[FeurerKrieg]

Thanks, Andrew!

This editor is perfect for what I want to do. Kudos to Mafi!!

[panzerlehr62]

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

Here's a question -

If I wanted to add some extra flags to a map, is there any minimum distance you have to maintain between VLs to prevent any issues?

I'm thinking for maps I really want to push up, if I had to I could add some high value flags.

Hello Feurer Krieg,

I think you are on to somethg here. Only question I would present is that adding flags might change the length of time needed to take a map, which may or may not be a problem if its determinded that certain maps need to be made tuffer to take (a secondary effect to go along with making the map worth more points). Maybe it should be the choke point maps you mentioned as the ones getting the extra flags?

Clearly I think lowering the flag values (maybe to lowest value possible) on some maps (not changing the number) that are just basically there as filler and raising the value for maps of importance is the ticket.

After all your years with WITP I can't think of anyone else who could pull that off better then you can.

Gz...

[FeurerKrieg]

So far I've put together a spreadsheet of the maps and total values currently assigned, # of exits (to determine minimum pts of 50 * Exits).

Using that, I will build a % of total map point and tinker with the numbers until it gets to where I think it should be. I'll send it off to you when I get that far, and maybe you can provide some input on what area you think should be higher.

I agree that depending on flag placement some maps may take longer, but many of those flags will be close together, a mega-tile isn't very big. If they are placed close to each other it could help generate more 'close combat' but also, for those critical maps, it will make it less likely that a morale break will cost you the map. I think that is actually a good thing on those critical maps.

Overall though, I suspect with the close VLs, if you are able to take one, you will be pretty close to taking them all.

Anyway - feel free to post thoughts on those areas that should be required to trigger Allied major victory. I plan to do some research on Allied objectives by June 9th for some guidance there, but anyone who has opinions is free to chime in.

[panzerlehr62]

To Matrix Staff:

Mafi's editor is greatness by the way!

Question I have is this: If one were to make point changes to the maps now, would that cause any issues say with an ongoing GC game file? Not talking about adding flags, just changing the values of the ones already there, or is it like everythg else once the game file is created it uses the map points at that time only.


Gz...

[Andrew Williams]

You are Very likely to have problems.

But

Back up your campaign

Back up your btd's


Edit a couple of BTD's with massive changes.


test and report back compared to your saved campaign.

[Andrew Williams]

I plan to do some research on Allied objectives by June 9th for some guidance there, but anyone who has opinions is free to chime in.

The stock strat man in tLD is the Allied objectives for Day 1 of the campaign... they failed almost on all counts to reach their Day 1 objectives.


I nearly got there V the AI

tm.asp?m=2101214

[FeurerKrieg]

I understand that the map represents all the objectives. However, I think several objectives are more important than others.

It just doesn't seem right that you can get an Allied Major victory even if you didn't take any of the major objectives like Carentan, Bayuex, Caen, and some of the other German depots on the map.

I'm going to scale down a lot of the areas that have 'in game' value - such at the beaches and major choke points - because the 'points' should (IMO) represent obtaining the end result. Clearing your beaches will help you a lot because you have supply, clearing major intersections will give you mobility, those are in game benefits so you shouldn't get as many points for those areas. If you want the points - use those areas to help you take the big objectives.

If you are able to take Caen or Carentan by June 9th - which is ahead of when the Allies historically took them - you should get a big reward.

I just want to make it so it is harder for the Allies to get a Major Victory so that getting it actually means you did better than the Allies really did. As it is, getting Major Victory doesn't seem like a big deal considering that you can take most of the same places the Allies did historically to get to that victory level. In my mind, if you did exactly as well as historical Allies you should score a draw.

By doing this, it should also change how the German player defends because certain areas will critical, but at the same time, they will have the ability to abandon certain areas to try some envelopments because the areas they abandon will not be worth so many points.

[FeurerKrieg]

Not sure if anyone is interested, but here are the stock scores of the maps in TLD. I think this will make a good mod. panzerlehr62 and I will work on this (because we want to make the game the way we like it!) but I'm happy get input from anyone.

You'll notice the most valuable area on the map is Pont du Hoc. That's right - you are better off capturing Pont du Hoc than Caen or Carentan or any other area on the map. Well, that is an exaggeration, but it does illustrate why I want to adjust the scores.

Also, in the mod, I am going to list the total pt value as well as the % of the total in the briefing for both German and Allied sides so that you will be able to gauge the relative value of a map from within the game.

I think the current scoring scheme is fine when playing these maps as singles or small ops, but I don't know if a lot of analysis has been put into how the scores shake out in the full campaign. There isn't a ton a variability here, which means once you take about half the maps, regardless of which ones they are, you will be 'winning' the game on points. Even if you took all of the lowest value maps, you would only need 38 of 65 maps (58%) to be winning the game.

We aim to fix that.

Cheers!
[center]
[/center]

[Tejszd]

Sounds good Feurer Krieg!

[Andrew Williams]

The points system also works at the AI strat LEVEL.


hIGH POINTS MAPS SUCH AS pT DU hOC WOULD SERVE TO PULL gERMAN REINFORCEMENTS FORWARD RATHER THAN JUST CAMP AT THE BACK OF THE STRAT MAP.


BUGGA...  caps lock on... I'm not going to fix it.


Your suggestion though seems to have merit for a H2H mod.

[FeurerKrieg]

Yes, this is definitely going to be a H2H only mod.