Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

Unknown Objectives

M

macjim

Guest
I've been thinking of a mission for a long time but never really thought it could happen. Then I was reading and watched some videos about playing with advanced rules, and have begun to wonder if it might be possible.

Here goes...

I suspect that many commanders went forward with objectives that were unknown to their opponent. And simultaneously the opponent had goals known only to himself.

So the Axis opponent might be tasked with reaching one objective, and occupying another. And simultaneously, the Allied commander might be tasked with exitting troops off a map edge and destroying all Axis units encountered enroute.

It would be interesting and less gamey to focus on one's personal goals with no idea of what your opponent was about to do. The mission would be less about competition and more about realism and immersion. Not knowing the objective areas, or desired end states, for an opponent would open up vast possibilities.

But the trouble is that the gameplay is based on trust that both players do not seek to reveal the other's tasks by opening the mission in the editor. A rich experience would rely of the sense of fairplay and honor of each combatant.

The mission would also rely very heavily on a great mission maker, creating an interesting scenario with a believable story and plausible objectives. I've often thought that 20% causualities should be considered excessive, and leaders might often withdraw rather than take heavy losses. I'd like a mission to reflect serious plausible goals.

I'm not concerned much about the balance or fairness. I'm not focused on competitive equality as much as immersion. I would be pleased to lose a battle if the experience was exciting and seemed realistic, rather than a balanced sporting event.

Anyone interested?
 
It depends a lot on how the scenario is designed. The problem is that both players can end up in their own part of the map, not fighting but each thinking he is winning until the clock runs out. I had a game like that.
 
The game would depend on reasonable mission design. It would not be too difficult to ensure the objectives were placed in a manner that resulted in conflict.
 
I have played scenarios with the Axis and Allies having different (and double blind) objectives.

It is great because it is very realistic and both sides can claim victory.

It also sucks when you do it multiplayer/ladder and you outplay your opponent. Then you lose only to find that he was holding some objectives in places that you never even thought to look.

Clear thinking has to go into this sort of thing.
 
Unfortunately, the players can never know if the mission has been designed sensibly. The only way to find out is to look at the objective zones in the editor, and that defeats the purpose of hidden objectives.

I prefer having all objectives known to both players. Actually I feel this is also more realistic. After all, combat groups are sent out to achieve the mission given by their own commanders, not to guess at what the enemy is trying to achieve. That's a game for the higher ups.

Eg. if my company is sent to take the bridge, then I'm told what ground I'm actually expected to capture. Maybe when I come back, my superior will say good job, but the enemy now has Hill 112, so they gained the upper hand and we need to pull back. That changes the strategic situation, but it doesn't change that I was succesful in the mission I was given, which was to take the bridge and not the hill. And that's the level we're playing in CM.

If we're playing with hidden objectives, then it should be possible for both players to win the battle at the same time, if they both fulfill their mission. That's unfortunately not possible currently.
 
I do hope that these ideas are not coming across as critical of gameplay here. I enjoy playing CM the way it is presented in this community and others. There is absolutely nothing bad about the gameplay here. I think that my initial explanation was poorly worded. Sometimes it is satisfying to play a mission with the goal of winning against your opponent and placing in better position on a ladder. Some players may never want to play a game than doesn't involve open balanced objectives and an e-sport style match.

I've gamed with some people who are frustrated by 6:1 odds in an Attack-Defend. They prefer more even set-ups, with high losses and a guarantee that huge quantities of ammo will be expended. I'm not trying to discourage the balanced style of play, or arguing against it. I'm proposing that in addition to 50 or 100 of those types of missions there might be a couple catering to more immersion. And any player who prefers the standard style is encouraged to pass on the immersive style.

The mission with hidden objectives doesn't have to be logged on a ladder, it could be completed for sheer enjoyment of playing. Or a mission designer could review the battle results and judge the outcome. It could be designed with hidden objectives that necessarily result in conflict.
​
Axis Objectives:​
  • Primary - Hold Hill A.
  • Secondary - Occupy Hill B.
Allied Objectives:​
  • Primary
    • Patrol Hills A, B, C and D
    • Keep friendly causalities below 10% and
  • Secondary
    • Destroy enemy.
On many missions it seems that at least part of the mission is played like a game. For example: When I know where the objective areas are and the set-up area for my opponent it is very tempting to rush forward over the safer ground from my own set-up area because I can reasonably expect that my opponent will be doing the same. There is little chance we will make contact till we near the objective areas. Knowing every time; the exact enemy objectives, how much each are worth, and when they must be occupied, creates a bit of a contest that I am tempted to play like a sporting event rather than a mission. And I'm not debating that there is anything wrong with sport like missions but suggesting quietly that I would like to play one (or two) that allows for some wonder at what the enemy is trying to achieve.

Respectfully submitted in hopes of favorable consideration.
 
Nemesis said:
I have played scenarios with the Axis and Allies having different (and double blind) objectives.
Clear thinking has to go into this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Where do I find this sort of mission?
 
macjim said:
I do hope that these ideas are not coming across as critical of gameplay here. I enjoy playing CM the way it is presented in this community and others.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. This is a forum with plenty of space for discussion and constructive criticism :)

I think your ideas are good, and CM is a game that can be played in many different ways.

macjim said:
Knowing every time; the exact enemy objectives, how much each are worth, and when they must be occupied, creates a bit of a contest that I am tempted to play like a sporting event rather than a mission.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with this. Not playing meeting engagements and setting a variable time limit helps a lot though.

macjim said:
Nemesis said:
I have played scenarios with the Axis and Allies having different (and double blind) objectives.
Clear thinking has to go into this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Where do I find this sort of mission?
Click to expand...

The one I played was "18 Platoon" from the CMBN Commonwealth module.
 
macjim said:
I've been thinking of a mission for a long time but never really thought it could happen. Then I was reading and watched some videos about playing with advanced rules, and have begun to wonder if it might be possible.

Here goes...

I suspect that many commanders went forward with objectives that were unknown to their opponent. And simultaneously the opponent had goals known only to himself.

So the Axis opponent might be tasked with reaching one objective, and occupying another. And simultaneously, the Allied commander might be tasked with exitting troops off a map edge and destroying all Axis units encountered enroute.

It would be interesting and less gamey to focus on one's personal goals with no idea of what your opponent was about to do. The mission would be less about competition and more about realism and immersion. Not knowing the objective areas, or desired end states, for an opponent would open up vast possibilities.

But the trouble is that the gameplay is based on trust that both players do not seek to reveal the other's tasks by opening the mission in the editor. A rich experience would rely of the sense of fairplay and honor of each combatant.

The mission would also rely very heavily on a great mission maker, creating an interesting scenario with a believable story and plausible objectives. I've often thought that 20% causualities should be considered excessive, and leaders might often withdraw rather than take heavy losses. I'd like a mission to reflect serious plausible goals.

I'm not concerned much about the balance or fairness. I'm not focused on competitive equality as much as immersion. I would be pleased to lose a battle if the experience was exciting and seemed realistic, rather than a balanced sporting event.

Anyone interested?
Click to expand...
This sounds very interesting to me, I would be willing to go into battle with limited info. if you have something in mind I'm interested.
 
A Canadian Cat said:
I played against @SlySniper - he won that one handily. Your objectives are in the briefing but you don't know tiles are actually painted for the objectives in the game. A very good scenario.
Click to expand...

:D I remember I had to decide for myself what your objectives likely were and then also decide by your troop movement as to what they might be.

But I focused on killing the enemy, taking key terrain and then denying the enemy his objectives.
So it worked well, since priority one and two lead to 3. But we did play on a very small map where that concept worked well. Size of battle could make for design challenges.

As for it being a realistic way of playing, I think It is very realistic. Just because you have orders to take a objective, just doing your mission does not mean success.

In real life, evaluating the battlefield and taking and controlling key terrain is vital. Being given a mission does not mean you blindly focus on that and ignore other critical aspect involved. So just being reworded for known objectives is not better. Having hidden objectives for yourself or the enemy brings in the requirement to think more realistically.

As long as players know this is what expected of them, they have no excuse to say its unfair. Part of the game and scoring will be how well they evaluate where the scoring objective are. (So as the designer, make sure the hidden objective are logical points of importance)
 
Thanks for the suggestions and help, everyone.

A Rifle Behind Every Tree. I've located and downloaded the file PBEM TP1 A Rifle Behind Every Tree.btt, moved it to my GameFiles/Scenarios but it doesn't show up in Battles. I'm using CMBN v4.00 with CW.
Funny because Bil's other missions (CMTP - ARM001 - Tank Section Attack.btt and CMTP - INF001 - Infantry Squad Attack.btt) work great.

I've searched but can't find
In the Shadow of the Hill 5 AM (I can find "In the Shadow of the Hill 7am")
18 Platoon

Buckykatt said:
This sounds very interesting to me, I would be willing to go into battle with limited info. if you have something in mind I'm interested.
Click to expand...
I'm committed to a fight currently. I'll contact you after we are finished if you don't mind waiting,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top