Objectives

[Garnier]

If anyone has any ideas for objectives, I'm interested to hear them. Particularly clever things that haven't been tried yet, or variations on what we've tried that might improve it.

The thing I don't like about the hold-for-25-min objectives is that it usually means the best move is to wait until a certain moment and rush the objective with a ton of men just to neutralize it, and then back off and win from the timer.

The thing I don't like about hold-for-1-min-at-the-end is in cases where the battle isn't decided early on, the side holding less objectives will wait to attack in the last ten minutes.


Here are some technicalities about what is possible:

We can have objectives that you can hold and get points for more than once. We can have objectives that appear and/or disappear at any location on the map at any times. Objectives can give varying amounts of points when held. The objective radius can be adjusted, but here's how that works. Each side has a number of men inside the radius, and to turn the objective neutral requires you have a number of men proportional to the enemy there. So a bigger radius is not necessarily harder to hold, it means regiments farther out can also help keep the objective. With a tiny radius, you just need to weave one regiment in to the objective for an instant to turn it.

[SouthernSteel]

Honestly, the answer is simple, although soldier claimed I "made it up" in the midst of a game where they did the "all in assault then run away for the rest of the game" bit. Points. We've talked about it for ages, and it has the added benefit of actually making casualties count. It's the reason we knocked down the point values for the objectives, but we never actually switched to a purely point-based victory system.

Here, victories can be defined and refined as needed until we find a happy medium where the objectives are still important but not the end-all and be-all. Sure, you can throw your division headlong at an objective to turn it, but when they get slaughtered, know that you destroyed your division and gave the enemy hundreds of points. Even if you deprive the enemy of their 2000 points for an objective, you can no longer pull that tactic and have it be an absolute win-win. It will at least force a sliver of accountability.

The biggest gap I have ever seen was around 1000-1500 men in casualties, depending on the size and intensity of the battle. That's a lot of points to throw into the mix to determine the winner. I don't know that they would often swing the balance, but in numerous cases, with the objective reward in points adjusted properly, I think they could fairly determine the winner.

[KG_Soldier]

I think perhaps we should go with the Hancock rule: 25 minute timers, but holding the objective when the game ends also gives you the objective.

And I prefer the 250 yard radius.

[KG_Soldier]

". . . although soldier claimed I "made it up". . . ."

No. . . what I said was you can't make up the rules after the battle. You know, like the Democrats tried to do in Florida after Bush was elected in 2000.

[X Navy Seal]

For the 10th or 11th time, if you make the obj radius 50-100 yds - it makes them much more difficult to trip. Perhaps someday you'll understand this relatively simple concept.

[X Navy Seal]

One other thing. If we started playing with 5 obj instead of 7, it would make them easier to defend. The defender would then be able to mass troops on them and set up a proper defense instead of being spread out all over the map. The timed obj have seen a lot of intense games over the last few months and there is usually frantic action from the very start of the battle (as opposed to only the last 10 - 20 mins). I only noticed a real problem with "tripping" the obj in the past week or so - which miraculously coincided with when garnier started to play again.

[Garnier]

Points

There are flaws with using points. One is, the balancer takes experience into account, so every battle one side has slightly more troops with slightly less average experience. They will take more casualties even if the percent is the same. This is usually just a minor problem.

I'd like casualty points to play a minor role.

I think perhaps we should go with the Hancock rule: 25 minute timers, but holding the objective when the game ends also gives you the objective.

We could try it, but I imagine that just makes it like the games we have now, except instead of ending 20 minutes early when the game is decided, we'd wait and do an extra last minute rush at the end.

if you make the obj radius 50-100 yds - it makes them much more difficult to trip.

I don't think so. It means you only need one or two regiments to trip it, you just have to be luck and get right on the objective.



Here's a variation on the old "get points over time" idea. Have the points you get per minute from an objective go up over time. Like, at the start of the battle they give almost nothing, but as the timer progresses they give more and more. That way, you can't be guaranteed a win at the start, although holding them early is worthwhile. It's still most important to hold them toward the end. Casualty points can factor in as well, the objective points would have to adjust depending on how big the battle is to balance that.

I do think there could still be reason to avoid fighting until the end approaches so you can save the most points at the end. The curve would have to be tweaked over time to get it right.

And the details: do objectives appear over time like they do now? Also, how to scale the curve with varying battle lengths.

If anyone thinks this idea might be better than the current systems, we can try to work out details.

[30th PVI]

Quick comment or idea on the points. Is it possible to have major and minor objectives? The idea would be to have two major objectives randomly placed behind both lines, that could only be tripped by the other side. IE...One for union and one for reb. You would then have minor objectives randomly between both starting lines. The idea would be that to win, you would have to fight for the points of the minor objectives, but to win completely, you would have to hold the major obj. That may preclude the use of suicide tactics because you would still have to attack and defend equally without putting your entire team at risk. I think the minor obj points would have to acumulatively equal the major obj so that it would force teams to capture one or two and the major obj to completely win.

Just throwing my 2 cents worth in.

~Matt

[SouthernSteel]

Just out of curiousity, how does the 50-100 yard radius not make it more difficult to trip an objective? Is it just that the defender cannot have but a handful of regiments on the objective and so the attacker only needs a like number? Because I've seen a ton of instances where one or two regiments tripped a 250 from a hell of a long way away. Hell, some players like to toy with it by seeing if they can advance a unit or two of skirmishers right at the edge of the radius just to trip the timer, which is honestly silly.

Relying on holding timers at the very end is pretty silly, we've seen that. Basically, if it's up to the players to decide who held objectives by looking at what color they are at the last second, there is going to be a lot of last-minute charging (and likely a lot of downtime beforehand). While we do usually play 90 minute games, I do think it is of some benefit to have games fairly regularly end early as concerns people and having stuff to do (basically it provides a chance that another game might be played).

The notion of increasing points is interesting but I think would be more trouble to implement than it is really worth. It doesn't offer much more than, say, a repetitive-trip timer.

[X Navy Seal]

Garnier has not tried a game with the obj radius set at 50yds or even 100yds so he does know not what he's talking about. Last night's battle was a perfect example of what's wrong with large obj radius. Soldier and Garnier rushed in with about a half min left and turned the obj because the radius was so large.