Custom Battle 3/31/2015

[kg little mac]

Perhaps make the game a two hour battle?

[WJPalmer]

Certainly an option to consider, especially where players feel otherwise there's inadequate time to plan and execute attacks.

Another wrinkle that seems possible (though it requires an additional tweak to the file after the battle is created), would be to assign different point values to the objectives. For instance, one of them could be made a primary or major objective, and the others secondary or slightly less important. This might open up different combinations and paths to victory by the two sides.

[Jonah]

i dont give a rats arse about my rank i am not enjoying these battles so i have made my views clear and wont be playing when we play them ultimately its the communities loss not mine i am neglecting other games to play this so right now a break is in order.

[Matt]

I personally would like to see the games have the objectives needing to be held for 30 or 40 minutes, but the objectives not showing up until about 20 minutes into the game if this can be done. This way, both armies would make there way to the middle of the map with neither having any objectives. The objectives would then show up and the battle would elevate up a bit. The early part of the game would be purely positional and then the latter would be the struggle for the objectives. Not sure if this is possible....

As i was typing this, i was looking through the maplocations file which seems to be the file that defines all of this for a scenario.

One other alternative to try might be the following - Objectives up at start, 30 minutes to hold them, but they don't disappear after the points have been awarded. So basically a beginning time of 10:30 and ending time of 12:00 and an interval of 30 minutes. This would mean that a side can hold the objective for 30 minutes and get the points again if they continue to hold it or the other side could take it from them and hold it for 30 minutes and get points. In this way the anomaly of a side getting the points then quitting the position or a side feeling they must do crazy things to prevent the early knock out would be alleviated. So you may start off in a bad position, but you have time to organize and recover from the other side holding 2 of the 3 (or 3 of the 5) objectives becuase you can take the objective from them and get points for it later. This would minimize some of the current gameyness. Is it perhaps too similar to the current games? Hmm....i don't think so because of the length of time you need to hold the objectives and the large points value for doing so.

Also, since we can easily edit the maplocations file, one other thing we might do both in this new type of game as well as our regular games, is to make one or more objectives major objectives. By directly editing this file, we could have say 1 of 5 or 2 of 5 objectives for example be "major" objectives which are worth say 50% more points than other objectives are. This would add a whole new level of thought to not only getting the closest objectives, but trying to get the important objectives as well. I do realize that this could create a situation where in a five objective game one side gets 3 objectives by spawn and 2 of those objectives are major objectives, but that would be the exception not the norm i think.

Here is what the maplocations file looks like for a 7 objective game. Each hold for 30 minutes to get points. Minor deliver 5,000 points for 30 minutes. Major 10,000 points for example. All start showing, none disappear. Took me about 2 minutes to mod the file and it tested out correctly.

[39325]_Objective_1_(phase_1)_(1500) minor hold 100 84526.38 142250 100 5 5000 0 0 0 2 10:30:00 12:00:00 0:30:00 GFX_Obj_Minor
[39325]_Objective_2_(phase_1)_(1500) minor hold 100 48577.2 140059.6 100 5 5000 0 0 0 2 10:30:00 12:00:00 0:30:00 GFX_Obj_Minor
[39325]_Objective_3_(phase_1)_(1500) minor hold 100 80662.05 86040.27 100 5 5000 0 0 0 2 10:30:00 12:00:00 0:30:00 GFX_Obj_Minor
[39325]_Objective_4_(phase_1)_(1500) minor hold 100 55233.5 109806.2 100 5 5000 0 0 0 2 10:30:00 12:00:00 0:30:00 GFX_Obj_Minor
[39325]_Objective_5_(phase_1)_(1500) minor hold 100 43434.59 95837.09 100 5 5000 0 0 0 2 10:30:00 12:00:00 0:30:00 GFX_Obj_Minor
[39325]_Objective_6_(phase_1)_(1500) major hold 100 58200.07 85693.95 100 5 10000 0 0 0 2 10:30:00 12:00:00 0:30:00 GFX_Obj_Major
[39325]_Objective_7_(phase_1)_(1500) major hold 100 98186.56 125281.5 100 5 10000 0 0 0 2 10:30:00 12:00:00 0:30:00 GFX_Obj_Major
Northwest_Corner major hold 0 8168 44896 0 10000 0 0 0 0 1 10:30:00 12:00:00 10:00:00 GFX_Obj_Major
Southwest_Corner major hold 0 139240 44896 0 10000 0 0 0 0 1 10:30:00 12:00:00 10:00:00 GFX_Obj_Major
Northeast_Corner major hold 0 8168 175968 0 10000 0 0 0 0 1 10:30:00 12:00:00 10:00:00 GFX_Obj_Major
Southeast_Corner major hold 0 139240 175968 0 10000 0 0 0 0 1 10:30:00 12:00:00 10:00:00 GFX_Obj_Major

[Jonah]

I like the idea Matt has this would certainly change the aspect of the game team a could in theory hold the major objectives and win the game but team b could hold all of the secondary objectives and conceivably win the game by doing so we would need to make the secondary objectives work out to be close too or the same value over time as the primary objectives in my opinion.

[WJPalmer]

Lots of good fodder for experimentation here. I especially like the idea of delaying the appearance of any objectives for a period as a way to further minimize the impact of an advantageous spawn. So, for instance, if all 3 vp's first appeared 15 minutes into the battle, I imagine there would be some early skirmishing for potentially advantageous ground (gun positions, woods, hills, creek banks, etc.), but neither side would be willing to go all in before knowing what will actually become critical to VP possession. After some testing this morning, it's clear that 15 minutes of preliminary marching on a full size random map is not enough for a division to make it all the way to the middle from a map edge or corner, but it certainly is adequate to get close enough to carry through with an assault capable of neutralizing a 30 minute timer on an enemy possession.

I'd also note that it's unlikely delayed VP's by themselves will eliminate all complaints of "unfair" spawns because, with both sides moving to the middle early, the chances seem even greater that the various VP's will pop behind one army or the other, rather than being in front of both, as is usually the case with early VP's in regular games. What it should do, however, is put an army's ultimate fortunes more at the mercy of its own (sometimes blindly made) decisions.

As mentioned in an earlier post, I hesitate to introduce too many new variables in one battle to keep things from getting too crazy, but for tonight's Custom Battle 5, I'd like to try both delayed VP's and designating one VP as a "Major" objective that carries a flat 1,000 point bonus over the other 2 VP's. The Major VP will be shown as such on the mini-map.

This would create new potential victory combinations and, I think, an additional strategic dynamic. An army would win, for instance, in each of these situations:

-Controlling any 2 VP's;
-Controlling any 1 VP where the enemy controls 0;
-Controlling 1 Minor VP where enemy controls the Major VP -- but is down 1,000+ casualty & other points;
-Controlling 1 Minor VP with any advantage in casualty & other points where enemy controls 1 Minor VP.

PS: I may also put the Major VP on a 40 minute, rather than 30 minute, timer. Haven't decided yet...

[ernie]

i really like the new idea palmer, as well as some of the other suggestions. i feel that we should try your original format first, see how it goes, then maybe implement some of the other suggestions. either way it really sounds interesting. thanks again for all the work putting it together.

[Siliconmagician]

What time will people start gathering for this game? I missed the start last night by just 10 minutes.

[WJPalmer]

Check the website for today's "Scheduled Battle." It should be adjusted to your timezone. Most players gather 10-15 minutes ahead of time. We'll try to have captains picked and team selection commence 5 minutes or so before go time. I try to start the game promptly at the given time, but Custom Battles take a few additional moments to set up, as they involve some file tweaking before launch.

[mike1984]

In the first game (or maybe it was the second?) the Rebels were screwed over as bad or worse by VP locations than the Yanks in last night's battle, yet ended up making a grand-spectacle Pickett's Charge with 4 divisions uphill across a big open field to take an objective -- and ultimately came within 8 minutes of victory despite being down 2,000 casualties. It was beautiful.
http://www.sowmp.com/gcm/battles/battle/39478

Just went back and watched the replay. It's a travesty that not one player thought to snap a screenshot of that grand assault.

[SJDI]

Any thoughts on adding a small Moral, Fatigue & Ammo bonus to the objectives ?

[WJPalmer]

Not at this point, SJ. Remember that every adjustment involves time working in the files after each battle has been created -- and while a dozen or more players are anxious to get going. I don't want to turn this into brain surgery with lots of small stuff, especially when we're already introducing some fairly major changes.