Objectives - To Be or Not to Be...Question for SP Folks

[RebBugler]

Since every stock scenario up to now has included at least one objective, I figured I better throw this out for discussion before I break the trend.

We're presently designing the Pipe Creek Line scenarios, and I'm considering no initial objectives for the Union side, which is characterized by a strong defensive position...victory determined by engagement points. The goal here would be to defeat the attacking enemy, not necessarily hold a line, or key points.

Another option I'm considering is that once the player's grade reaches Victory level, activate objectives that makes the player pursue the enemy in order to achieve a Major Victory. Then they would have to leave their strong defensive position and take objectives the enemy has fallen back to, supported by arty.

One easy aspect of designing these PCL scenarios is that we're making 'What If' history...no historical boundaries to stay within. So, expect lots of random elements with more of an 'Open Play' feel.

Any thoughts or discussion concerning my babble? :huh:

[SouthernSteel]

I will say that in the instance of MP, objectives have proven to be completely necessary, or else no one will attack (or even move). Honestly, as the Confederates, I can't see any incentive to attack such a ridiculously strong line, and so objectives might be required. Given the fact that the Confederates will be at such a disadvantage attacking, they are likely to lose the battle points outright nearly every time (thinking just broadly within the perimeters laid out thus far).

Having ovjectives pop up after a certain time or due to certain points is a neat feature and can add new life to a battle that is winding down. As far as objectives determine AI behavior, however, that is a different story. The AI, from what I have seen, loves to lock on objectives, and so without them, they might not move or attack in such a focused fashion (just throwing that out there, could be way off, just a thought).

[Little Powell]

Well in scenarios, the opposing force can be scripted to attack anywhere regardless if there is an objective there or not. In scenarios, OBJ's are mostly used to show a player where a historic strategic objective was located and of course to get points. For Pipe Creek, there were no historic strategic points obviously, so really the OBJ would only be there to get points. However, I personally think it's more challenging and enjoyable to have to worry about holding an OBJ when on the defense.. It's always a bad feeling when you're getting pounded by the enemy, and that OBJ your holding turns the wrong color.. Historically, commanders would assign areas of the field to "hold at all costs" etc... These areas are simulated in our game, and they are called Objectives. My 2 cents anyway.

[RDBoles]

To me RebBugler, that would be excellent. I usually play Sanbox, Corps level, with me being a division leader, Hunt them down with no objectives. With an objective poping up later during the battle, that would be very challenging. For Mp playing, objectives are a must and necessary like SouthernSteel says.

[Mazikainen]

I'm still to play my first MP game since the demo came out, but there's definitely something broken about how objectives work in the stock SP scenarios. Nearly every scenario is won by making a mad rush to the objective as quick as you can and then sitting stubbornly on the point regardless of what's happening around you. At least this is my experience. It didn't feel that way in TC2M.

I think it might work better if a player would win a victory based on engagement point plus point control which has happened during the match. Something like for a minor victory a player must have a certain score plus he has held an objective for x minutes or something. Anything to stop the silly rushing for objectives in my mind..

I think a minor victory could be won by playing it safe and a major victory should be a "crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women" type of win.

[RebBugler]

I'm still to play my first MP game since the demo came out, but there's definitely something broken about how objectives work in the stock SP scenarios. Nearly every scenario is won by making a mad rush to the objective as quick as you can and then sitting stubbornly on the point regardless of what's happening around you. At least this is my experience. It didn't feel that way in TC2M.

I think it might work better if a player would win a victory based on engagement point plus point control which has happened during the match. Something like for a minor victory a player must have a certain score plus he has held an objective for x minutes or something. Anything to stop the silly rushing for objectives in my mind..

I think a minor victory could be won by playing it safe and a major victory should be a "crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women" type of win.

Excellent feedback from all but this was really what I was fishin' for, because objectives can usually be so easily gamied. So, what's a designer to do, score the scenario on the top end to offset gamey approaches? TC'd brigade in columns rushing the objective is a prime example, all us General's use it, because it gets points the "fastest with the most-est".

As far as holding an uncontested objective, other than for historical significance, or guarding a supply/communications route, this should be avoided in my book. The 'historical - supply' thing helps the storyline, but can easily become burdensome gameplay-wise if it is not useful, strategically or tactically.

Anyway, good discussion guys...keep-um coming.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

RebBugler wrote:

So, what's a designer to do, score the scenario on the top end to offset gamey approaches? TC'd brigade in columns rushing the objective is a prime example, all us General's use it, because it gets points the "fastest with the most-est".

The shortcoming of the scoring system in SOW is that it is not very realistic. The 'objective' method is easy to game, and does not necessarily lead to realistic assessments of who really wins the battle. For instance, capturing The Angle and holding it for a half hour might win the scenario. But does it matter if after 31 minutes the Rebs are overwhelmed and destroyed? As you pointed out, everyone knows how to game the system. How else could I have gotten those stars? :laugh:

HistWar takes a very different approach to scoring a battle, one that is commonly used by miniature players. That game uses a combination of territory held by each side, casualties, and the fighting strength/morale of the remaining forces. It also has a strategic component called 'line of operation'. Cut your opponent off from it and it's time to draw up the surrender documents.

This approach IMHO, is a better determinant of winning and by what margin. It's also pretty tough to game the system. But it would also entail a significant rewrite of the scoring part of the game. Norb may not have much enthusiasm for doing that.

[SouthernSteel]

Norb may not have much enthusiasm for doing that.

Get enthused, Norb! The peasants demand it!

[RebBugler]

Whoa gentlemen, don't want to send the objectives packing, just want to get ideas, and express ideas, on how they can be used more effectively, and present them in a way that in the event that they're gamied, the results will be negative or nil.

For sure, their activation and time held should reflect success on the battlefield, and not be just mundane point-getters.

[SouthernSteel]

Are you wavering in the midst of our glorious revolution, RB?