Scoring advice (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

butch4343 -> Scoring advice (4/17/2021 4:32:15 PM)

Hi all,

Am looking for some advice regards scoring. I'm currently in the early phases of developing a series of scenarios based on an old table top game.

One of the scenarios is a 14 day game where the scenario is quite dynamic, ie in one game France is neutral, or Syria sides with the wp in one game and in another its neutral. I usually score via points 1 for a nato frigate, 2 for a dd ect the problem with this scenario is that in one game it could be the us with 10 ships against 10 soviet then in the next load it could be 30 nato ships vs 20 soviet , 10 Syrian, 8 expiation therefore my usual method of saying between 10-20 equals a major nato victory won't work because every game the max number of points may be different.


I haven't even thought about how to imminent a scoring system in cmo yet am just at the top level thought process on it , so any thoughts u might wish to share would be great

Kind regards

Butch



Gunner98 -> RE: Scoring advice (4/17/2021 5:55:12 PM)

Hay Butch

Are you planning to give points for achieving objectives as well as casualties? That can be a good equalizer.

I also find that setting a higher point threshold gives you more flexibility. So instead of 1 point for a FF, if you went with 10, you could adjust up and down - an FFL=8 and a higher end FFG=12 for instance.

You may also be able to set the score thresholds in lua - I don't know if that is possible but probably. As a minimum you can adjust a sides score. So for instance if one iteration of your game heavily favours one side, you can adjust that sides starting points lower so they have to achieve more to win.

hope that helps.

B




butch4343 -> RE: Scoring advice (4/18/2021 6:06:05 PM)

Gunner

Thanks for this I use higher scoring points so that I can better vary the scoring, it might be that the only way I can really score it for players is to do it by WP forces end games in area X then deduct ten points from NATO kinda thing. The scenarios that the table top mentions gives vague objectives in terms of the scenario, keep the SLOCs to Israel open or prevent the Black Sea Fleet from landing troops in the Adriatic, so I can cobble something up that gives you a win or loose proposition.


BTW I really like that scenarios that you create with your northern fury series, the dpeth and breadth is really impressive [:)]

Regards

Butch



AndrewJ -> RE: Scoring advice (4/18/2021 8:29:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: butch4343
I'm currently in the early phases of developing a series of scenarios based on an old table top game.


Which game? The 2nd/3rd/5th/6th Fleet series?



butch4343 -> RE: Scoring advice (4/18/2021 9:09:58 PM)

Andrew

6th Fleet mate, I have the basic and the intermediate scenarios completed , am working on the advanced ones now.

Butch



SeaQueen -> RE: Scoring advice (4/19/2021 2:28:54 AM)

Build the scoring system around the scenario's goal, and the acceptable level of risk for accomplishing that goal. Suppose the goal for a scenario is to destroy a deeply buried chemical weapons manufacturing plant. The plant site consists of several hardened underground facilities, some above ground facilities, several tunnel entrances, a generator and a transformer. Those are my targets. For destroying those I will award points. Typically I think of point values in terms of fraction of the job done, so everything in my world is on a 100 point scale. 100 points = 100% of the job done, 50 point = 50%, etc. Everything within that schema doesn't have to be weighted equally. Maybe collapsing the hardened underground facilities is worth more than striking the entrances. In that case, the underground facilities would count for more than the entrances.

The acceptable level of risk statement is more complicated. It might say something like, "Loose no more than 15% of all tactical aircraft, and no high value airborne assets." If you lose more than 15% of all tactical aircraft, I might subtract 25 points, and if you lose a HVAA you might lose 75 points. It doesn't matter, every scenario is different.

If the scenario is fundamentally defensive in nature (e.g. protecting an airbase), I might flip it the other way around, where you START at 100 points, and then lose points as the bad guys destroy the assets you're attempting to defend. You might also lose points for exceeding the acceptable level of risk for various assets.

That's how I think about scoring. I hope this helps.

I typically discourage people from just giving points for destroying things and losing them for losing things, because my observation is that it tends to make scores kind of meaningless. They become arbitrarily weighted reflections of the loss exchange ratio, and that's probably not the best way to think about how a scenario works. I know it's not how any real military operation works. If you use a schema like I suggest, it means if you can accomplish the scenario goal without killing anything off the target list, then more power to you. That's usually not the most successful coarse of action, but it's certainly a possible one. That makes electronic warfare, stealth, avoidance and deception more important, because you don't want to engage with anything you don't have to.



BeirutDude -> RE: Scoring advice (4/20/2021 12:47:00 AM)

What is the situation? Full war or "operations other than war? If you just look at the scenario as a "game" or just a military engagement then no you might not want to assign a value to a unit, but if your looking at it as a real world simulation of not just warfare but the political/national morale/price paid for loss of a unit then you might want to assign some cost for the loss of a unit.

Consider the USN airstrikes on Syria in Dec 1986 where the loss of three aircraft and capture of LT Goodman had a huge impact on America's Lebanon policy. So in my scenario on this subject yes you loose points for loosing aircraft, not because an A-6 or A-7 is so important in the larger scheme of things but because of the psychological impact of the losses.

or consider Desert One (Operation Eagle Claw), America was shocked seeing pictures of a charred airman on TV, and Jimmy Carter refused any other military solution to the Iran Hostage Crisis. The national psyche was crushed and Jimmy Carter became a one term President. So what was a lost C-130 and CH-53/8 airmen in the larger scheme of the cold war? Not much, but what was it to the millions of American's at home, frankly it changed everything!

The loss of an F-117A over Yugoslavia

So to me they're not just units, in many cases they represent national prestige in addition to military units. If a DF-26 sinks the Ronald Reagan, over and above the loss of a High Value Unit there is the potential loss of thousand of her crew and air wing. This has a impact far beyond the single engagement you are involved in.

Another example when you might want to award points for some units and not others in a full war situation. WWIII and a convoy attack by a sub. Maybe assign points for the loss of the merchants and USNS vessels but not the escorts. Now the player has to decide how many rounds to use against the escorts while reserving enough to "win" by destroying merchants. Maybe the losses aren't as felt at home, but it give a measure of your success in your mission, striking the high Value Units, in this case the merchants.

So another POV.



BeirutDude -> RE: Scoring advice (4/20/2021 1:02:40 AM)

quote:

One of the scenarios is a 14 day game where the scenario is quite dynamic, ie in one game France is neutral, or Syria sides with the wp in one game and in another its neutral.


Let me warn you about biting off too much! I'm known for developing huge scenarios and at some point they become unplayable as the player has to do too much. I'd suggest playing/looking at "The Libyan War, 1986" in the Submitted Scenarios section of the forums, not because I created it, but because it went wrong. Great concept, France (who was fighting Libya in Sudan and Chad) and the U.S. go after Libya. The execution, not so great it becomes congested and confused as you're performing tasks which a squadron commander would be taking care of. A 14 day scenario won't be played by many. A series of seven two day scenarios would have a better chance!

Just some advice (which I'm not following right now in my current design attempt to be honest!)



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125