Objectives

[Garnier]

With the stuff I learned in our chat last night, I've figured out a new objectives system to try.

Instead of winning by holding more at the end of the game, we can use the in-game points. You'll hold objectives for certain intervals, say 5 minutes, and at the end of each interval your side will get 1000 points, and one round of artillery ammunition for each of your guns. (This from each objective.) Maybe if we decide that the in-game points are already useful and that casualties and killing guns should be worth victory points, we can lower the points from objectives so that these actually have some effect on the total.

I'll have to add some extra staff officers for each side to hold objectives since you won't only be doing it at the end of the game. I think having a regiment (or 7 guns) near the objective will have to remain necessary unless we think of something else, but with a large radius it won't be as annoying.

This will obviously make the last minute charge obsolete, probably making games more involved early on.

Objectives can then have a large radius so you really have to clear the enemy away from it to hold it, making fighting more worthwhile.

Holding or contesting an objective for some time even if you'll lose it later will be worthwhile.

Objectives appearing later in the game will not just add uncertainty, but also make starting positions less of a deciding factor. However, they also won't mean that you automatically win if you get lucky and have an extra objective in the rear.

The artillery ammunition thing will I assume raise some opposition, but I think it's a good idea. It gives a tangible in-game benefit to holding objectives. I'll never claim that it's realistic. If you wish though, it could vaguely represent that holding more ground makes it easier for your supplies to move around. Of course if we try it and most people don't like it, we'll drop it.


Thoughts, ideas, anger?

[Turbotay]

I've been wanting to try basically that idea for awhile now. Although I would say keep the points lower for the objectives, unless you can fix it so the game doesn't auto-end when one side gets 10,000 points. I also like the idea of having the objectives give benefits as you hold them. Perhaps you could set it up so that an objective would randomly give one of the three possible bonuses (ammo, morale or fatigue).

As for adding additional officers, would they out-rank our division commanders? I ask because, if the objective rewards system works like it did in TC2M, then the officer holding the objective distributes the bonus to all his subordinates. Therefor, a corps or army commander would be able to give the bonus to the entire force, whereas a division commander could only give it to his division.

Anyways, I'm all for trying out the point system. I'd say start out with an objective giving 100 points per 5 minutes. Seems like that would allow combat to still effect the outcome of the battle.


--
Robinson / Muleskinner

[SouthernSteel]

I agree with Robinson...he posted right as I started to, and I was going to say many of the same things. I don't think one artillery round ought to cause much angst - how could it?

But I do think that lower overall point values would mean casualties matter more, and so holding a point but having your division slaughtered wouldn't be rewarded, certainly not as much as previously.

[Garnier]

I've put in an initial version. The points are mostly going to come from objectives for now. Casualties matter because when you lose men, it's harder to hold the objectives. They'll still affect victory points directly but only a little.

There's no artillery ammo effect from objectives yet.

I'm leaving now, but assuming a battle starts while I'm away, just use whoever has more points at the end as the winner. If one side gives up early, they lose. So there's no draw possible right now, but later I'll make a rule for draws if the points are close.

Hopefully it's fun.

[Garnier]

The rule for a draw is now on the rules page. Essentially it says if the difference in points between the two sides is less than 20%, it's a draw. But it gives a consistent procedure for determining this.

[Garnier]

After a test and some thinking about it, that idea's been scrapped.

Now, the objectives appear throughout the battle (all the way to the end), they have to be held for 15 minutes to get 1000 points. If the are contested, then they're worth 2000 points (assuming OccMod works as I think it does). They disappear after anywhere from 30 to 70 minutes, so it's possible after fighting over it for long enough, it will vanish and neither side gets points.

Obviously objectives that are not occupied by 15 minutes before the end of the game will be worth nothing.


Where they appear is completely random, two could appear on the same spot. So I won't be able to predict their locations anymore.

I added options for up to 40 objectives, the longer the game the more you'll want I assume. Definitely will want more than before, since they won't all be on the map at the same time.

Because there's no predicting where they'll be, holding as much ground as possible is the best idea.

So, let's try this and see if it's better.

[Garnier]

I've fixed the bug with objectives disappearing early or not appearing at all. They'll last from 30-60 minutes now.

Also changed the duration you have to hold them for to be an option so we can try different ones easier.

Edit:

Also changed a bunch of other numbers to options. If you're hosting and don't know what certain options do, click the "Reset" button to set them to the defaults.

[SouthernSteel]

Predicting Seal will still complain. All in favor?

[Willard]

Not a big fan of the objective system.

The object is to force the action, not chase randomly appearring/disappearing objectives.

Is there any way to have 3-5 objectives, perhaps 1 major and a few minor, appear at the beggining of the battle vice randomly popping up? This would give players the ability to determine right off the bat where the action was going to be fought. I always like the Sid Meier's system as it was laid out right away what you needed to take. Plus with the points being what they were, it would give you the option of holding the minor VP sites and still win without the large VP site.

[KG_Soldier]

Garnier,

Is there a way to make the objectives pop up between the armies?