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

Round Two

I have also seen the 'box' type of objectives. I think all designs have their pro's and con's.

For this battle: there are multiple smaller objectives inside the town, consisting of mostly clustered buildings. So they felt like 'natural' objectives to take for me as an attacker. I agree that there is merit in saying that if you can't disallow the enemy moving into it, you aren't controlling it and or the enemy is actively contesting it. Of course in real life battles don't end at a fixed moment in time, so I just imagine it as which objectives are controlled by who at the cut off. If there is still fighting going on the outcome will be arbitrary and open to last minute rush - it's a game.
 
Well, it does help to discuss these things. Maybe it can help in cmx3 design as to how scoring is done for it.

As pointed out, there might be better methods as to what is meant by who controls a objective area.

I think it should be a thing where both sides have a percentage assigned to them for how many unit points they have in it and then a percentage could be designated as to how much more you need to be in control to own the objective.


Like 75% to get zone, which would be 3 to 1 in a sence. if you have three to 1 odds in the zone. you own it. as to scoring.

and the percetntage could be adjusted by the designer.
 
SlySniper said:
Well, it does help to discuss these things. Maybe it can help in cmx3 design as to how scoring is done for it.

As pointed out, there might be better methods as to what is meant by who controls a objective area.

I think it should be a thing where both sides have a percentage assigned to them for how many unit points they have in it and then a percentage could be designated as to how much more you need to be in control to own the objective.


Like 75% to get zone, which would be 3 to 1 in a sence. if you have three to 1 odds in the zone. you own it. as to scoring.

and the percetntage could be adjusted by the designer.
Click to expand...
Well, that may have turned my draw with @Bleskaceq into an American victory as he had just one fanatical pixeltruppen still holding out despite overwhelming odds on Obj 1, and just a couple left on Obj 2 who were about to be blasted away point blank by a Sherman. But then that would have taken away from a really well organised and heroic defence, so I can’t really complain about scoring. The game could have gone either way at the end and the dice fell in favour of the Germans.

By the way, well done again @Bleskaceq. It was a really good game. And another great scenario, @SlySniper. This is my third FW tournament and is ramping up to be my favourite so far. Two really well thought out battles. When do we get match-ups and details for Round 3?
 
what got me miffed, was it was a mixture of HMG crews & bazooka teams trying to make the rush. I had a HQ unit in the building next to the alley they ran down who was gunning them down as they came and a squad directly opposite the building they were running into, that was also gunning them down! It was a suicide run against the clock basically and any survivors in the next minute would have shared their fate. That town centre objective was worth what 200vp? which i assume was difference between me getting a draw and a victory ? and the ami hadnt got near it until this suicidal last minute run into a hail of fire. I was surprised there were any survivors! This is not meant as a slur v my opponent, he just did what he's allowed to do by the games faults, but boy is it annoying :D
 
Guardsman said:
pfft, my battle just finished as a draw thanks to a last minute gamey land grab. WTF does Battlefront allow one man on the VP to count as it gained when that unit is surrounded by enemy units.? Should need to be a percentage of a force total. He would have been toast the very next minute along with his other 6 men who got gunned down trying to rush it for the VP points but the battle finished bang on time. :cautious:
Was a great tough fight the whole battle, against overwhelming firepower, but endings like that really p*ss on my chips after putting up a tough defence. Maybe we should make it an un-offical rule of the tourney.
Click to expand...
Well as the guy doing the "gamey rush" I do so with no shame :) and I expect the same in return.

On a more serious note. I look at it this way: occupy objectives in CM need to be held and controlled. If some guy can rush out of a building and into another one and live for a minute or two then you don't have control of the objective and you don't deserve the points for it. When I'm playing CM and trying to control an objective I always think about how much other terrain features I need to control as well to make sure that I have control of the objective.

Having said all that that was a good tough battle and I had a hard time getting guns on your defenders and making progress. You kept the pressure up and hitting me from unexpected angles constantly. You had that Shrek team in a place I could not hit without getting in range. Every time I thought it was taken care of it was not. I chose not to do the "right thing" and take the buildings out side the main village just because of the time constraint and I figured, correctly, they were pretty well supported from the village. I thought I could deal with them from stand off range and just blast the area. That mostly worked but I had a really hard time digging out that Shrek team.
 
Guardsman said:
That town centre objective was worth what 200vp? which i assume was difference between me getting a draw and a victory ?
Click to expand...
I am not so sure about that. I'm going from memory but I think the Draw was 800 points to 650 so and additional 200 would have been 800 to 850 which I am pretty sure is still a draw. Correct my numbers.
 
Stafford said:
I do wish BF would take a year off from developing new titles and concentrate soley on bug fixes and minor improvements to the current games.
Click to expand...
A valid opinion but to be clear the way Occupy objectives work is a design decision not a bug. They work exactly the way they are meant to. Scenario designers need take that into account and design their objectives in a way that reflects that. If you want the village to the objective then the player needs to know to hold more than than the village so not one can sneak in. If the object is one building then the player needs to know to hold the surrounding buildings as well.
 
SlySniper said:
I think it should be a thing where both sides have a percentage assigned to them for how many unit points they have in it and then a percentage could be designated as to how much more you need to be in control to own the objective.
Click to expand...
A valid design. However BFC have not designed occupy objectives that way so scenario designers need to take that into account. If you want that kind of effect then you can create several smaller objectives in the village and divide up the points. That's your choice as the designer. If BFC changed the way the game works then scenario designers would have to react to that to get the outcomes they want.

My personal opinion is that the current design criteria are clear and straight forward. This way it is lets scenario designers control how the scoring works. Right now I can create a single large objective over a large area and I am decarling to the players they better have full control of that area and more or they an't getting points. Or I can split things up into multiple smaller areas and allow for controlling 3/4 of the village to result in a win. It's the designer's choice.

Under that sliding scale based on how many units are on a large objective I can no longer say as the scenario designer this village is super important and must be fully controlled. If its a sliding scale I can still win even if I only have more men on the objective.

The current rules let scenario designers express more than the proposed changes that get discussed.

The key is scenario designers get to decide. And that's a "good thing" (tm).
 
A Canadian Cat said:
A valid opinion but to be clear the way Occupy objectives work is a design decision not a bug. They work exactly the way they are meant to. Scenario designers need take that into account and design their objectives in a way that reflects that. If you want the village to the objective then the player needs to know to hold more than than the village so not one can sneak in. If the object is one building then the player needs to know to hold the surrounding buildings as well.
Click to expand...

No no, I'm well aware that isn't a bug, but there is a pretty lengthy list of things that should be fixed across the titles.
 
Well, first.
I am content in my approach for this battle, there is 4 objectives in the town, they are small and some impact scoring for only one side and some for both.
No matter what size they are, the rush tactic can always work to a certain degree.

I always place points on troop losses, and normally they are a good size portion of the score for each battle.

So every trooper he killed was adding to his score, likely not enough to make up for the zone you gained but for sure you lost points even in the attempt to make it not as valuable as if it was taken correctly.

So last minute rushes need to think about how many points did one drop to gain how many points, I saw some players rushing armor, every tank loss in points is likely making the gain in points not as valueable
 
Lots of great commentary here and I love hearing everyone's thoughts. Don't know that I have anything earth shattering to add but I will share my 2 cents.

VP rushes are gamey as heck...but that is just the one true gamey part of CM I accept. Sadly I've done it and I've been done in by it. I hate doing it because it is rarely, if ever, is tactically sound but in this situation you are trying to win a game so....you sometimes do what you feel you need to do even if it's cheesy and unrealistic as hell. That said, I am definitely of the philosophy that controlling an objective or VP does not merely consist having units on the action squares. That is great for points but if you don't control surrounding critical terrain you are seriously at risk of falling victim to the last minute rushes I think we all hate. I'm a firm believer in securing the flanks, clearing houses, etc.... especially in this scenario...lol

This scenario was brutal (well done sly!) and the Krauts were bloody ninjas that kept popping with me being completely unawares. My opponent did a fantastic job defending in depth, slowing my progress significantly, and making me pay for every inch and every careless move. I especially paid dearly in armor losses, not from rushing the VPs for occupation sake but from a need to find positions of support that were danger close as well a lack of appreciation for just how robust the defense was.

I would gladly welcome a change that would better negate the power of the cheesy rushes but am content to accept it and/or adjust my gameplay to counter it.

Anyway, this is a heck of a fun and challenging tourney!!!
 
Yeah I think one way or the other, if you're gonna play a game for score / some form of competition (which this certainly is as a tournament) people are going to find ways to compete; as dirty as they can find m :). This isn't unique to CM but happens in all games. From sports like football to video games. Even with referee's in football you're going to take all advantages that you can take, unless your dumb or like losing. That's true for the 7th class reserve pay-contribution-to-play competition as it is for the first division get-paid-to-play professional football (it's probably obvious in which I play lol).

For casual CM games I don't like cheesy/gamey stuff, like leading a charge with vehicle crews. If a game is played, it's played. The score screen isn't necessarily 'fair' to that (just like in football again lol).
But any organized event with score kept isn't a casual game, so if needed my vehicle crews are leading my depleted mortar teams in a last minute charge for the objectives :D, with every available barrel suppressing where it feels best to spend ammo on. The goal is to be out of ammo at the end of the match ;-) So sharpen your knives and put that extra round in the chamber.
IMO there's also fun in 'gloves off' play between experienced players. I had quite some intense 'behind the house' fighting with Stafford, sometimes I couldn't help walking into the trap but other times I was prepared and threatened the front of a house but start blasting / mopping up behind it.
 
Forgot to add that this is also why I think Slysnipers tournaments are the best: non-mirror blind pre-set scenario's with relative scoring per side. So most of the gamey stuff is already eliminated and even if a battle isn't balanced, your score is compared to others in the same situation.

There were some battles among these tournaments which weren't my favorite, but I guess you can't please everyone everytime. But so far this tournament I've really enjoyed both matches. Also both opponents played well. Can't ask for much more :D
 
Lol and now I'm in the BFC CMSF2 tournament and have to decide whether my opponent will pre-bombard my setup and or whether I should go for such cheeky plans :ROFLMAO:
I don't like to do it, but am I a fool for expecting my oppo not to do it? :unsure:
 
Lethaface said:
Lol and now I'm in the BFC CMSF2 tournament and have to decide whether my opponent will pre-bombard my setup and or whether I should go for such cheeky plans :ROFLMAO:
I don't like to do it, but am I a fool for expecting my oppo not to do it? :unsure:
Click to expand...
That is my big problem with mirrored tourney games. You know setup zone and reinforcement schedule.
 
dkchapuis said:
That is my big problem with mirrored tourney games. You know setup zone and reinforcement schedule.
Click to expand...
Yeah some house rules would be beneficial but not really enforceable. In the end it worked out, both me and my opponent seem to have chosen not to bombard the deployment. He did attack my deployment zone but that's fine I guess and I was prepared for that :).
 
Just completed my game against @mirekm61. Despite heavy casualties, managed to hold him to a draw with my shredded panzer grenadiers. Very much looking forward to seeing the AAR's at the end of the round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top