Vectorys and Draws (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Drake -> Vectorys and Draws (10/12/2000 2:05:00 AM)

Im coming to really dislike the points system in SP:WAW. Like just played a game a little bet ago and I had like 4700 points to his 1800 or so and becouse I had all vectory hexes the game ended like 2 turns early and what do I get for this a Draw. Like thats just crazy when I defeated my opponent 2 turns early with over twice the points as my opponant and thats all I get. What I would like to see is if you have 1/3 or more points at the end it should be marginal victory. If you have 1/2 or more it should be decisive victory. Less then 1/3 and it should be a drew. I have always disliked stuff like this but playing the computer you did not mind so much becouse the AI needed every advantage. But playing a human and haveing this happen gets to you. You know you won but you have the game tilling you its a draw [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/mad.gif[/img] Still love the game and all and think you guys have done a great job on it and everything and I would never want to give offence or anything. So if you cant change this, dont warry about it [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Tombstone -> (10/12/2000 2:17:00 AM)

Sometimes the victory conditions are larger than just the victory hexes. Taking too many losses can have a large impact on who wins or loses. In some of the scenarios in Utah to the Rhine the enemy forces are rather small, and taking any significant losses totally invalidates a major and sometimes minor victory. You have to really look at the victory hexes before you get the scenario going to get an idea of what kind of losses you can afford. Tomo



Drake -> (10/12/2000 2:49:00 AM)

Yes I know that and I can see that happening in a scenario that someone designed but in a ramdom meeting engagement battle, I cant dont see how that makes any since.



victorhauser -> (10/12/2000 2:40:00 PM)

I agree with Drake completely. Why even have points unless you can use them to measure your performance? It used to be clear-cut. If you had a 2 to 1 margin of victory (based on points differential at the end of the game), you got a Marginal Victory. If you had 8 to 1, you got a Decisive Victory. Less than 2 to 1, you got a Draw. Drake claimed he had about 4700 to 1800 at the end of the game. That's a 2.61 to 1 margin of victory. That should've been a Marginal Victory. I submit to you that not having clearly defined and spelled out Victory Parameters are going to have unpleasant side effects if Matrix ever decides to hold a tournament and the players don't know what the levels of victory are. There will be trouble. To re-iterate. To me, the whole reason to have a points-based game is to be able to use those points to determine player performance. If there are "hidden" factors influencing the points and the levels of victory, then these need to either be removed from the performance process or else be made public and part of the performance process (and therefore included in the points). As it stands now, and until this gets straightened out, I'm reluctant to take part in an SPWaW tournament. Especially since I might score 4700 to 1800 someday and get a Draw, and somebody else might score 3500 to 1800 and get a Marginal Victory (because of "hidden" factors). That would really upset me.



Fredde -> (10/12/2000 3:05:00 PM)

Are there really hidden factors? Isn't it just that if you take losses (and thus give the opponent a whole bunch of points) the ratio of the scores will be lower. You have to consider the value of the victory hexes on one hand, and on the other hand, the price you can pay for taking them (in own losses).



Fabs -> (10/12/2000 4:33:00 PM)

I am not an expert on how victory conditions are computed to determine the final score and the level of victory, draw or defeat. The introduction of a more sophisticated system of victory conditions has made the game far more interesting. Am I right in assuming that casualties and total units losses are in some way tallied to increase the points of the opposing player to the one suffering the losses? Is the loss of men and damage to equipment that do not result in the total loss of a unit (unit destroyed) taken into account? If this is the case, it would in my view make the victory conditions system complete if this aspect was modified to reflect a varying importance of taking casualties, with scenarios where keeping casualties low is given more prominence in the victory conditions and others where casualties are less important than normal taking a reduced impact on the victory conditions. This could vary within the same scenario between the opposing players. For example, I have often thought that Germans in Normandy and in late Russian scenarios should receive greater penalties for losing AFVs as they would have found it more difficult to replace them, as well as squads or crews of specialist troops such as tank crews, engineers, AT gunners and high experience/morale infantry squads, leaders and Hqs. Allied units should not suffer from this as far as the equipment is concerned, as it was plentiful, but should probably suffer penalties for losing specialists and high caliber squads, leaders and Hqs. Whether this is feasible or not, I agree with the previous posters that the current results are sometimes difficult to understand, and that in future versions they should be modified. ------------------ Fabs [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited October 12, 2000).] [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited October 12, 2000).]



victorhauser -> (10/12/2000 6:11:00 PM)

Fabs, I think you are missing the "point". Victory Flags are given a point value. Units are given a point value. Adding up the flags and adding up the units should ALWAYS yield the same results. That is to say, if I score 4700 points (my flags plus the points I receive for inflicting losses on my opponent), and if my opponent scores 1800 points (his flags plus the losses he inflicted on me), then I should ALWAYS get a Marginal Victory. If this is not the case, then the whole concept of "points" and what they mean is irrelevant and is no longer a way to measure victory and/or player performance consistently and fairly. If the game arbitrarily decides whether a game is a Draw or Marginal Victory or Decisive Victory based on something else besides points, then there is no reason to have points at all. In EVERY Steel Panthers game prior to SPWaW, players could count on 2 to 1 being a Marginal Victory, 8 to 1 being a Decisive Victory, and less than 2 to 1 being a Draw. If SPWaW has changed this, and it looks like it has, then the new victory parameters need to be given to the players immediately. And these new victory parameters need to be fixed and consistent, not variable and arbitrary. Drake's post has me more upset now than anything else I've seen on this forum (with the possible exception of the glorification of the Waffen SS). I am not happy at all right now.



Voriax -> (10/12/2000 6:51:00 PM)

Afaik the game does not decide arbitrarily whether you win or lose. If you have 8-1 ratio, you get decisive victory. 3-1 and it's marginal. Less than that and it's a draw. I guess if it's 1-3 you lose (never happened [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] ) You get points from victory flags and destroyed enemies. From this score your losses are subtracted. So even though if you whack the enemy and get all flags you may end up having a draw if you killed most of your troops. And Fabs, while your comments about how critical AFV losses are to certain countries and less critical to others have certain truth in them, until now the rarity has played no part in the unit costs (points) and I'm pretty sure it won't play any part in the future. Voriax ------------------ OOB-Wan Kenobi



Desert Fox -> (10/12/2000 7:47:00 PM)

I am pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere that the victory margins had changed in v4. This is all fine and good, except that the game still ends early. I played one online game and ended up with about 8000-3000 points. It was called a draw. That definitely does not sit well. I had destroyed nearly his entire armored force (a bunch of shermans) and most of his infantry. He had killed 3 of 4 tigers and a small portion of my infantry. I had an entire company of engineers left in the backfield to protect from special ops. I also had the victory hexes for most of the battle. And when the battle finally ended, before the turn limit, I was chasing down his reinforcements and the few left over shermans to his side of the map with what I had left. Had the battle not ended early (I think there were 5 turns left), I definitely could have inflicted more damage. I think its also pretty clear that the game was not a draw with a 5000 point margin. Anyways, Matrix needs to look at this and determine what they want to change.



Charles22 -> (10/12/2000 7:59:00 PM)

As the game stands, there's nothing to stop you from literally accounting for every point lost/gained, though it would be a ridiculous mundane affair. Perhaps in order to alleviate the problems of a marginal victory being snatched into a draw on the last turn, sort of thing, the system can once again show you a running score, in other words a score as of the very moment you check it. For example, turn one would find the score 0 to 0, but on turn two, with no combat exchanged, would show the one possessing all the timed victory hexes with points for one turn. Whether giving that same player points for end-of-game victory hexes throughout their possession or only at the end of the battle is another affair, which, if you know when those hexes will be accredited doesn't matter, they can still be accounted for as being a minus for the opponent's score (and added to your own), should you have them at the end. Myself, I haven't seen anything to indicate that the victory levels are different in different instances, though I will admit my experience with different levels of victory/loss isn't extensive, but a running score would still be nice to see. Only if how things were being scored, were a secret, could I see the point in not having a running score. Perhaps it's too difficult to implement, but then earlier SPs had it.



Drake -> (10/12/2000 10:50:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Desert Fox: I am pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere that the victory margins had changed in v4. This is all fine and good, except that the game still ends early. I played one online game and ended up with about 8000-3000 points. It was called a draw. That definitely does not sit well. I had destroyed nearly his entire armored force (a bunch of shermans) and most of his infantry. He had killed 3 of 4 tigers and a small portion of my infantry. I had an entire company of engineers left in the backfield to protect from special ops. I also had the victory hexes for most of the battle. And when the battle finally ended, before the turn limit, I was chasing down his reinforcements and the few left over shermans to his side of the map with what I had left. Had the battle not ended early (I think there were 5 turns left), I definitely could have inflicted more damage. I think its also pretty clear that the game was not a draw with a 5000 point margin. Anyways, Matrix needs to look at this and determine what they want to change.
Got to agree with you their Desert Fox. In my book faceing a human opponant and getting a victory like this deserves a dicisive victory or a marginal at the very lest. Like when I face someone of the same skill as me I dont want to have to get twice the points or more just to get a marginal victory. It just dont feal right to me [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img]



jsaurman -> (10/12/2000 11:13:00 PM)

I agree that 3:1 margin does not seem correct for marginal victory. I think it should be 2:1 for marginal and 8:1 for decisive. I also think there should be a running point total in the game so you can see how you are doing. I don't think you should be able to see which enemy units you have destroyed, but the grand total of who is ahead and by how much would be very helpful. That way if you were almost to the next level, you could be a little more agressive on killing retreating crews, etc to rack up more points. JIM



BA Evans -> (10/13/2000 3:30:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Desert Fox: This is all fine and good, except that the game still ends early.
The game length is not set in stone. If one side has control of ALL victory hexes and the other side has very few resources left, the game will end. The computer decided that the losing side capitulated. If you want to avoid this, leave one victory hex in your opponent's control until just before the turn limit is reached. Why would your opponent want to play when his force is so weak he can not fight back? Just to stroke your ego? I wouldn't want to continue a battle where I had no chance of winning. I would say, "Good job, mate. Want to try another go at it?" BA Evans



Desert Fox -> (10/13/2000 5:40:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by BA Evans: The game length is not set in stone. If one side has control of ALL victory hexes and the other side has very few resources left, the game will end. The computer decided that the losing side capitulated. If you want to avoid this, leave one victory hex in your opponent's control until just before the turn limit is reached. Why would your opponent want to play when his force is so weak he can not fight back? Just to stroke your ego? I wouldn't want to continue a battle where I had no chance of winning. I would say, "Good job, mate. Want to try another go at it?" BA Evans
Yes, I am quite aware that holding all the victory hexes greatly increases the chance that the game will end early. It has been like that since SP1. But in this game, I was barely past the middle grouping of victory hexes when the game ended. I certainly was in no position to take his last set of objectives from the middle of the map, as he had a couple infantry platoons guarding it. And something I have learned from years of wargaming is that surrender is never an option. I have seen more than enough times where the last few beat-up teams end up pulling out a huge upset. And in SPWAW, hidden infantry can definitely turn the tide of battle.



BA Evans -> (10/13/2000 4:36:00 PM)

If this was an internet game, your opponent could have capitulated. There is a command to voluntarily give up. Maybe your opponent decided he had enough and hit this button? BA Evans



Desert Fox -> (10/13/2000 10:18:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by BA Evans: If this was an internet game, your opponent could have capitulated. There is a command to voluntarily give up. Maybe your opponent decided he had enough and hit this button? BA Evans
Nope, I asked, he didn't.



Wild Bill -> (10/13/2000 11:31:00 PM)

I have posted this before but I will post it again. Human vs computer More than 1-3 Decisive Loss 1-3 to 3-1 Draw 3-1 to 7-1 Minor victory 7-1 Higher Major victory The odd vs human player are a little lower This is due to the predictable action of the AI in computer generated battles. More than 1-2 Decisive Loss 1-2 to 2-1 Draw 2-1 to 6-1 Minor victory 6-1 Higher Major victory The problem as I see it gentlemen, is not the calculation of the odds but the value of the objectives. Objectives for larger scenarios should have a maximum value of 500, not 250. That way you could with 21 objectives get a score of up to 10,500 instead of 5,250. Now when the game was limited to 30 formations or thereabouts the 250 point value was okay. With the larger scenarios, these numbers can never reflect the scores needed to show a true major victory. So the problem is not with the ratios but with the points. Now scenario designers can overcome this with special objectives, but the poor gamer who play generated battles is s... out of luck unless you uses the generated map and preset objectives. Let me talk with Tom P today and see if it is in anyway possible (I've heard that it is not) to modify these points. If it can be done, I know Tom (or Mike) is the man who can do it! I'll keep you posted. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games [This message has been edited by Wild Bill (edited October 13, 2000).]



Wild Bill -> (11/13/2000 3:19:00 AM)

Since Bonzo referred to this one, I'll bring it to the top and mention that after talking with programmers, I was told these numbers could not be changed without a major overhaul of the code, so they will remain as they are...WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



Warrior -> (11/13/2000 4:31:00 AM)

For a touch of humor to a serious topic: Notice how much all the quibbling about victory points sounds like the Democrats crying about the Presidential election. (all brickbats will be accepted for this)



Don Doom -> (11/13/2000 5:58:00 AM)

Mr WB. Why would the source code be changed if all is being changed is reference numbers? Or is the ref # buryed in the code instead of in an reference file or lib. that can be called or linked to? I know you do not know maybe but could ask the code guys the above question. Thanks Don [img]http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net4/0000007.gif[/img]



Charles22 -> (11/13/2000 8:17:00 PM)

While the objective point totals are an important part of how these battles are going I have another idea. Is it possible that the ol' 'give the defense the advantage rule' is taking place here somewhat? What I'm saying is that perhaps the old rule of giving the defense twice (or more) points for each casualty inflicted, has been done away with, and now it's being put into the final point score instead? Confused? We all know that the defensive side is given in some cases, advantage, by virtue of being dug-in. Well, in one of the SP predecessors, there used to be casualty bonuses given to the defensive side. What I'm saying, is that perhaps, this has been done away with, and instead the margin for all the victory levels has been heightened when you're on an offensive mission. If the 'normal' rate for a meeting engagement were 8-to-1 to make it decisive, perhaps on an advance it becomes 10-to-1, and in the case of an assault, even higher (the decisive margin might be 10-to-1 for the offensive player, while only 4-to-1 for the defensive player). I'm only guessing here, because it seems as though IF there is an alleged scoring inconsistency it could only be because the side with offensive missions are expected to achieve a higher margin than in a meeting engagement. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited November 13, 2000).]



panda124c -> (11/13/2000 11:43:00 PM)

Concerning victory hex points per turn, when a game ends before the end do you get the victory points for holding the per turn victory hexes for the unplayed turns??? In other words if I capture a victor hex worth 30 points per turn on turn 10 of 30 and the game ends on turn 20 do I get 30x10 points or do I get 30x20 points?????



Wild Bill -> (11/14/2000 12:00:00 AM)

Sorry Don, I can't answer that. I don't know. I postulated the possibility of upgrading the points and was told it could not be done. Since Tom is the programmer and I am only a designer with no knowledge of coding, I just accepted the verdict. Actually, it was David Heath who told me that this was Tom's reaction so it is third hand news. I guess I'm to old to start learning that now [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]. As to defensive values being increased, that would be another coding issue I could not address. Finally, as to the victory points, I am told and it seems to be true from scores I have seen that even if the game ends prematurely and you have the victory hex, you get the points as though the game had played through. Example, a victory hex is worth 50 points a turn. You get it on turn 6. Before that it was neutral. The game ends on turn 15 and was set for 25 turns. You should get 500 points (turns 6-15) and another 500 points for the same objective (turns 16-25) for a total of 1000 points for that objective. WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



BlitzSS -> (11/14/2000 3:00:00 AM)

_________________________________________________________________________________________ “The problem as I see it gentlemen, is not the calculation of the odds but the value of the objectives.… So the problem is not with the ratios but with the points.” WBW You can win the battle and lose the war or vice versa. WBW really has most of the answers in his comments, but I just felt the need to add the following. Since game designers can setup and define the objectives, it is up to them to make sure that the scenarios goals are also defined. By making objective values very large (500pts), implies that a group of these objectives needs to be taken at all cost. While high point objectives that are valued per turn possessed imply not only do these objective need to be taken, but also they need to be taken quickly. Exit hex victory conditions set the stage for another type of strategy. WB is right, the victory conditions problem doesn’t exist in the ratio of the numbers. It lies in the design of the scenario; and just as importantly in defining the objectives for each side by properly stating these in the text document prior to play. It would not only be very frustrating, but historical, to kick the other guy all the way off the map claiming victory, just to find out that he was winning this campaign though strategic withdraws.



Raindem -> (11/14/2000 4:13:00 PM)

I for one think we are getting too wrapped up in points and labels. To me, the enjoyment is playing the game, not what numerical outcome I can achieve. In tournament, and head-to-head, you can always agree before hand on victory conditions, and to the moon with what the computer says. And in generated campaigns, it doesn't matter anyway. Only in user defined linked campaigns does level of victory have any game value whatsoever (it will determine what "thread" you take). And from what I've seen the campaign designers do an excellent job of relating the victory conditions to your actual achievements. If I out-score my opponent (AI or human) 8000 to 3000, then I'm satisfied that I won, and I don't really concern myself with what shows up on the screen. Many of you may disagree, but I thought I'd just offer a different perspective. RD



mogami -> (11/14/2000 5:10:00 PM)

Hi I just posted a response to simaliar thread in Matrix Games Network forum. I think the whole points system is out of whack it should be mission outcome. Lets face it Russian and Japanese commanders were not measured by lossess but did they complete their mission? Points would work if they were a reflection of how common/expendable unit were not just add up armour/speed/gun into a value. Production of the T-34 would allow soviets to lose 5 to one and still call it a victory when facing Tigers but not in game. Soviet and Japanese infantry are just as costly as german. I do not know how the germans ever lose a battle in SPWaW (I understand not winning them) but draws are the order of the day. U.S. units while having a high production (except Marines) were not subjected to conditions where lossess would exceed 4 or 5% so it should be harder for them to win a victory but at same time the means of keeping lossess low (lots of cheap/effective arty and air) should be available. A Tiger costs 170 points a T-34 130 points is this a true reflection of their relative value? based on production numbers alone if a Tiger is 170 points a T-34 should cost around 20!!!! Shermans should be the same cost (thus freeing large amounts of points for above mentioned cheap air and arty) U.S. Infantry (aside from USMC) should cost twice as much as it does not because it is so good but because US commanders were not allowed to just throw it away (I know I know what about Mark Clark) Its purchase price is ok but it should count double in VP's. cheap to buy expensive to lose. The required victory points are so hard to get in SPWaW because the unit values are out of whack. The flavour of the period and battle conditions are lost when you just use even points and conditions for different nationally/reality. 1944 Germans can not afford to lose material and still must meet mission objectives. Soviets in 1943 can lose men all day provided they meet mission objectives. US has to keep lossess down but can hit enemy with overkill numbers and support units. Mission results should replace point system Did you capture\hold the objectives? and then based on time period/army adjusted to reflect quaility of victory. US player who captures all victory hexes but sustains loss higher then 5% of points should be down graded to marginal. Oh I could just babble on and on concerning this subject. ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!



Charles22 -> (11/14/2000 7:50:00 PM)

Mogami: Calm down now. You're wanting a T34 to be less than half the price of the cheapest German halftrack? [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/confused.gif[/img]



mogami -> (11/15/2000 5:11:00 AM)

Hi, I hate to be the one to have to point this out but Germany lost WWII. If the how and why is not part of the game something is missing. It was in fact easier for the Russians to build a T-34 then it was for the Germans to build a Kampfwagon. The Soviets built more T-34's then the Germans built halftracks so yes they should be cheaper. If you want to be a German who rampages through the opposition stay in 1939 and 1940. ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!



Drake -> (11/15/2000 5:46:00 AM)

I think the thing your forgeting do Mogami is that players are not confind to the same restrant as the commmanders back then were. If we cound module them restrants I could see doing what you want but if the units were just priced on their production rates the Germans would never win a battle Human vs Human again. If you want this just for fighting the computer, all you got to do is change your OOBs.



mogami -> (11/15/2000 6:01:00 AM)

Hi, I practice what I preach I am axis 44 and never use Tigers/Panthers/Wurfherman/air and I have not lost a battle yet. I use VG infantry small calibur arty. I like the flavour of being out numbered and having to use my limited resources wisely. If you are just interested in victory then keep it the way it is but if you want to know what it was like to be a german soldier in 1944 then forget about equality and get used to being shelled/strafed every turn and having much larger enemy forces to deal with. Anyone can win battles driving around in herds of Tigers and Panthers against a equal sized enemy but show me where it happened after 1942. Even during the Bulge in 44 after 48 hours the germans were right back to being outnumbered. There are a lot of genius's running around the halls of SPWaW thinking they are good because they never risk battle unless they are sure of having all the good toys. These 15 turn equal force meeting engagements are pure fantasy. ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.8125