The "hold" for one minute objectives are not to my liking.
To be honest, I am not a big fan of random/dissappearing VP sites to compell the action.
The end game has become predictable when battles are clearly decided yet one side regroups for a VP rush.
I would like there to be much more method to madness in the game with some realistic VP objectives.
My preference would be for maps with 5 VP locations - 1 as an entry point for the Union, 1 as an entry point for the Rebs and 3 to contest somewhere else on the map.
The entry points would need to be held from a "strategic" standpoint as a supply/retreat route.
The 3 VP sites would be contested as the tactical battle location.
For non-campaign games, lets just alternate attacking/defending forces.
Objectives
Re: Objectives
We could go back to where who holds an objective only matters for the second before the end of the game. This is what we had before the patch.
The "hold" idea was supposed to achieve the same result as those, but make a last minute zero-cost dash into the objective not work, because they can then destroy your regiment and still get the objective.
It does achieve this. Now, instead, we have last minute all out attacks on the VPs, because it now takes a large force, rather than just one regiment, to neutralize it at the end. It's more costly, and if the defender has enough men it can be stopped.
The only problem I have with it is that it's not as simple to understand, and I haven't seen a way yet to fix the last second neutralize rush with less complexity than this.
The "hold" idea was supposed to achieve the same result as those, but make a last minute zero-cost dash into the objective not work, because they can then destroy your regiment and still get the objective.
It does achieve this. Now, instead, we have last minute all out attacks on the VPs, because it now takes a large force, rather than just one regiment, to neutralize it at the end. It's more costly, and if the defender has enough men it can be stopped.
The only problem I have with it is that it's not as simple to understand, and I haven't seen a way yet to fix the last second neutralize rush with less complexity than this.
Last edited by Garnier on Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Objectives
Is it possible to have the VPs give points based upon minutes held?
If so, perhaps making VPs worth 10 pts per minute held so they are worth 900 pts for a 90 minute game.
That will make VPs important but not overwhelming and will still factor in casualties as well.
If so, perhaps making VPs worth 10 pts per minute held so they are worth 900 pts for a 90 minute game.
That will make VPs important but not overwhelming and will still factor in casualties as well.
Re: Objectives
Yeah we tried that. It just makes it less possible for the unlucky side which is farther from the objectives to win, because eventually the side that's had them long enough has lots of points already, and the time is counting down.
-
KG_Soldier
- Reactions:
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:43 am
Re: Objectives
I like the way it is now. Hold for 1 minute out of the last 10.
-
SouthernSteel
- Reactions:
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:07 am
Re: Objectives
Yes, definitely don't want to go back to the "whoever holds the points at the end" setup, encourages rushing. I also like the layout of the points now, more in a line than in a random formation, so there is a better chance for opposing lines to push back and forth. This had made for some good battles. However, it still seems like this is an imperfect system, where one side or the other happens to get nearly all of the points by the time they all appear - no fighting even has to take place, necessarily. It's mighty nice for the defender, but if that's going to be the case, the sides ought to be offset as you'd done before, Garnier.
Just off the top of my head: since we already have the ability to section off the playable portion of the map, what about deploying objectives in a grid formation? Say, 9? That way you would technically have to press your enemy off the majority of the field to win, moreso having to win the field as a whole.
Just off the top of my head: since we already have the ability to section off the playable portion of the map, what about deploying objectives in a grid formation? Say, 9? That way you would technically have to press your enemy off the majority of the field to win, moreso having to win the field as a whole.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Re: Objectives
More VPs is an option already, and I prefer more to less. As for having them in a grid, if it was just a grid in the middle, one side could have a big advantage starting closer to the middle. Currently they're balanced to some extent based on the distance from the nearest division on each side.
Last edited by Garnier on Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Objectives
Can we have one major VP site and two minor VP sites that are worth X number of points per minute as you control them? Perhaps 5 VP per minute for the major, with 3 and 1 VP points respectively for the minor VP sites?
I think the point bonus should just be high enough to force the action, but not high enough to cause the VP rush at the end. Victory should be determined by the total number of points (casualties inflicted + VP points for locations controlled). That way sides that like to rush VP points at the end won't have the incentive to do it because it will be worth a minimal number of points. Plus teams will be conservative in their tactics as their casualties will impact victory.
As for the issue of sides geting lucky in proximity to VP locations, well that happens in battle where one side gets to the better ground before the other. Not EVERYTHING has to be perfectly balanced for every MP game. It isn't like Lee didn't fight at Gettysburg because he was crying about the unfair advantage that Meade had in numbers.
As for the randomly appearing VP sites, I am not a big fan. There have been games where all I do is march back and forth. I would much rather have the VPs appear at the beginning so all commanders know the objectives and can plan accordingly - even if it means 50% of the time you may start at a disadvantage.
I think the point bonus should just be high enough to force the action, but not high enough to cause the VP rush at the end. Victory should be determined by the total number of points (casualties inflicted + VP points for locations controlled). That way sides that like to rush VP points at the end won't have the incentive to do it because it will be worth a minimal number of points. Plus teams will be conservative in their tactics as their casualties will impact victory.
As for the issue of sides geting lucky in proximity to VP locations, well that happens in battle where one side gets to the better ground before the other. Not EVERYTHING has to be perfectly balanced for every MP game. It isn't like Lee didn't fight at Gettysburg because he was crying about the unfair advantage that Meade had in numbers.
As for the randomly appearing VP sites, I am not a big fan. There have been games where all I do is march back and forth. I would much rather have the VPs appear at the beginning so all commanders know the objectives and can plan accordingly - even if it means 50% of the time you may start at a disadvantage.
Re: Objectives
Your first part about the points, yes it's possible, it might even work if we did it just right, but it's more complicated than what we have now, and still favors the lucky side more. Luck is always going to be a factor but we can minimize it.
As for VPs appearing mid-game, that probably should go when we use balanced VPs, because they can be predicted.
As for VPs appearing mid-game, that probably should go when we use balanced VPs, because they can be predicted.
Re: Objectives
But Historically that was.Or you can put 2 or 3 Obj. at a reasonable distance not beside each other.With one main OBJ. and 2 minor:gained points with main has to be equal to amount of 2 minor.