Total victory conditions

[private]

This issue comes up regularly, and imho, its really an issue of matching your victory conditions to your scenario.

 

Personally, I am loath to specifically spell out "you must kill Base A" or "you must destroy ship B" to achieve victory.

 

However, if your scenario is complex, with any number of ways of a player attacking it, it would be a good idea to at least nudge the player in the right direction. (Especially helpful with noobs).

 

Simpler scenarios generally have obvious victory conditions, because there are probably only a limited number of enemy installations, surface groups, etc.

[Akula]

Well, when you look at my scenario 'Operation Island Wind' there really was only 1 objective. In that case, it only made sense to spell it out to the letter 'go blow up base A'.

 

But in a more complex scenario...say a Taiwan under attack by China for example my orders might read: 'We must hold out with at least 50% of our bases surviving until reinforcement arrives in 72 hours.' That is directly stating the objective.

 

On the other hand, one could be even more ambiguous by saying 'It is imperative that our forces remain largely intact until reinforcements from the US start arriving.'

 

Either way gets the message across...force preservation is a key to victory. But in method 2, the player does not have to know that a big 'on station' box is surrounding Bases A, B and C saying at least 50% must be active for 72 huors.

 

The main thing is to be sure that in the orders, the player can get the general idea of what he needs to do to win.

[private]

The main thing is to be sure that in the orders, the player can get the general idea of what he needs to do to win.

 

Yes. I have to say that, most times, its fairly intuitive.

[donaldseadog]

This issue comes up regularly, and imho, its really an issue of matching your victory conditions to your scenario.

 

Personally, I am loath to specifically spell out "you must kill Base A" or "you must destroy ship B" to achieve victory.

 

However, if your scenario is complex, with any number of ways of a player attacking it, it would be a good idea to at least nudge the player in the right direction. (Especially helpful with noobs).

 

Simpler scenarios generally have obvious victory conditions, because there are probably only a limited number of enemy installations, surface groups, etc.

Maybe in complex scenarios the victory conditions need an "OR" condition for each possible approach while in the simpler ones there can be multiple "AND" conditions to get a very tight victory requirement.

Generally I've found every ones comments very instructive, now I think I need to go over all scenarios I've uploaded and check my Vic Cond's and orders....

[TonyE]

My understanding that we're leaving the code as is; essentially requiring MinVic be achieved before TotalVic can be awarded?

[private]

My understanding that we're leaving the code as is; essentially requiring MinVic be achieved before TotalVic can be awarded?

 

I would vote 'yes' at this point in development.

[donaldseadog]

My understanding that we're leaving the code as is; essentially requiring MinVic be achieved before TotalVic can be awarded?

 

I would vote 'yes' at this point in development.

I vote yes too.

It does make sense that you must obtain your minimum victory, that should be the main focus of the scenario. Total I guess is icing for doing a good job.

I guess we learn these things by trial and error as we go along

Don

[broncepulido]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding the question, but I see the problem from other viewpoint.

For me, as in real outcomes of battles, it can be inconclusive, a draw, or an overhelming victory (with a lot of gradations, of course).

Now in the game, with the presente victory conditions at our service, we could do apparently the same combinations:

1. None of the players obtain none level of Victory: as now, the game is a draw, neither side realizes a clear and decisive play (as example, sunk or shoot down a irrelevant number of enemy units)

2. One of the players obtain MinVic conditions: the game is a lesser victory, as in the real life (as example, sunk a main enemy ship, but of secondary value as target or in relation with the aims of the mission). Ever if the other player obtain after a TotalVic condition, the game is a a win for the first player (as example, the first player had obtain a MinVic sunking a enemy DD, but after the second player sunk a CV, specified as TotalVic, and with this succession of facts, the victory remains in the first player at the end of the game )

3. One of the players obtain TotalVic condictions: the game is a total victory, as in real life (as example, sunk a main enemy ship, as a carrier, and that was the aim of the mission). But it's only if the other side has not obtain MinVic previously, as in the aforementionated example, for me that's an absurd outcome, and very usual in many scenarios.

 

And for me clearly 2 and 3 are independent and different targets, is very usual as outcome a side fulfill 2 and the other 3, and it's not must to fulfill 2 for after fulfill 3. it can seem more entertaining to have to fulfill first the MinVic and after the TotalVic, but I see it unrealistic and of near impossible dificulty in a lot of cases.

 

And now the draft of my idea. I suggest other "algorithm" or sucession of possible victory condition events, if the code permits it, and in my oppinion can do the game more interesting from the start to end, because no player will be sure of having obtained a definitive victory, since it will always have that it is attentive to that other does not go so far as to fulfill any of his conditions of victory, and multiply the number of outcomes:

1.None of the players obtain none level of Victory: as now, the game is a draw, neither side realizes a clear and decisive play.

2. One of the players obtain MinVic conditions and the other none: if the game concludes is a lesser victory, as in the real life (as example, sunk a main enemy ship, but of secondary value as target or in relation with the aims of the mission).

3. After fulfilled 2 (or ever simultaneous) the other player also obtains MinVic conditions: the game for me can be a draw at his end, if the victory condition is not time-sensitive, if not specified otherwise and both sides had similar or identical victory conditions.

4. One side (or both sides, simultaneous or not) had obtain MinVic conditions (i.e., fulfilled 2 or 3), but after one side (fulfilled previously MinVic condition or not) obtains TotalVic conditions, the game is a victory for this side (if the first side don't obtains another victory condiciont (as in the previous and very easy example, at this moment in the game, if the first side obtain a minor victory fulfilling a MinVic condition, as sinking a DD, and the second side fulfills a TotalVic condition, as sinking a CV, the first side ever win , with this alteration, the victory comes to the second player, as he a fulfilled a TotalVic condition after the first player a fulfilled early only a MinVic condition).

5. One of the players obtain TotalVic condictions, and the other none, or only MinVic conditions (it's fulfilled earlier 2, 3 or 4): the game is a total victory for this, as now in the game and as in real life.

6. After (or ever simultaneous, or ever after fulfilled in game the previous victory condition 2, 3, 4 or 5) the other player obtains also TotalVic conditions: the game for me can be also a draw at his end, if the victory condition is not time-sensitive, if not specified otherwise and both sides had similar or identical victory conditions (as example, the outcome of Midway, a lot of carriers sunked in both sides, the strategic implications is another issue, but it can be depicted specifying different number of carriers sunks for each side as victory conditions).

 

Well, I see it can seem a little confuse, but the basic idea is very simple, and I think it's factible with the same structure of the victory conditions we have now ...

[private]

I have to admit to having difficulty following most of that, Enrique, but I have these concerns with changing the current approach:

 

1. Sinking a carrier when you were supposed to sink a destroyer might, in theory, seem a bonus but it could have catastrophic results. Perhaps results never intended by the scenario author.

 

Here's a hypothetical. Suppose, for example, that a DPRK midget submarine sank a US Navy carrier instead of the corvette Cheonan. Pyongyang might have reasoned (in their own bizarre way) that sinking a corvette would achieve certain political means. Sinking a USN carrier, however, although perhaps worthy of much greater 'glory', might inevitably bring war to the DPRK, lead to a toppling of the regime, and put an end to the DPRK altogether. Not exactly desirable.

 

My point is that achieving a technically greater result (whether measured in tonnage, etc) is not necessarily a 'win'.

 

2. Putting Minimum Victory as a requirement before Total Victory leaves the proper arrangement of the victory conditions, so as to avoid nullities and nonsensical results, in the hands of the scenario author. Where it should be.

 

3. Changing the current approach might wreak havoc with the countless scenarios already written and produced.

[TonyE]

Enrique, please add your information to your wishlist. I agree with Brad here and am not so sure that what you are proposing doesn't require changes to the game structures (especially the parts about time sensitive items).

 

Plus I like knowing that Total Victory is Total Victory

[broncepulido]

Ok, I will try to put it in other more clear text.

[TonyE]

Broncepulido brought this up again via e-mail, a bit different situation.  If there is no minimum victory condition defined for a side, should the game evaluate the Total victory conditions?  I think yes.  Similarly, if there is only minimum victory defined, should total victory be granted once minimum victory is reached for that side?  I'm less sure about this one.  Was there an intent that a side could achieve minimum victory but not total victory unless all enemy units were destroyed?

[donaldseadog]

I made the mistake of thinking about this when I went to bed ... 

Yes I agree total victory conditions should be tested if no minimum victory conditions are specified but I think minimum victory conditions should always be specified (as a minimum so to speak )

If no total victory conditions are specified total victory should be granted if minimum conditions are met and all enemy are destroyed - otherwise the player goes hunting around looking for what they haven't done.

Maybe the scenario editor (or somewhere) needs a few hints for the scenario designer to get a better idea on what's expected? What makes a good set of victory conditions and how orders can be written to lead the player to victory?

I'm sure some players just start the game and go blasting away at everything, but that defeats the purpose of a detailed and accurate simulation. Really the orders and the victory conditions are as important as the game structure, in fact I got thinking about having multiple scenarios with the same structure but different victory conditions and orders. It sounds promising to me, escalating from easy to hard.

don

[broncepulido]

Yes, many points on it. In general I agreed.

Sometimes (I think remember, but not sure) I did build some scenario with only Min or Max Victory Conditions, trying to reflex some points, as fog of war, uncertainity, and to mask some too low or too high goals, sometimes unachievable goals, but the player unknows it.

[TonyE]

Update:  I am down a deep rabbit hole on VCs at this point and want to document a bit before chasing the rabbit some more.

Changes Made:

1. Victory conditions are checked every two game minutes.  Previously it was one side per two minutes so every four minutes both sides were checked.  This is also a stepping stone toward checking victory conditions for more than two sides.
2. The code checks both minimum and total victory conditions and records the time each level is met for each side.  You can now achieve the total victory conditions before minimum victory conditions, HOWEVER you will not be granted total victory until both the minimum and total victory conditions have been met.
3. If a side has no minimum victory conditions defined, only total victory conditions will be examined for that side.  In short, you will be able to be granted total victory if your side has only total victory conditions defined.