Victory Locations Puzzles

[xe5]

As you'd expect, the Arnhem Road and Nijmegen Bridge maps are the most valuable in terms of total VL points (29 & 26). Trick question...which is the 3rd most valuable map?

Grave, Ravenstein or one of the other southern bridge maps? Arnhem RR Bridge as an alternate Rhine crossing?

Nope. Its North Osterbeek at 21 points. Was this intended, or just an unplanned byproduct of distributed map production?

Other VL questions:

Why is Ravenstein (16) worth more than Grave Bridge (15)?
Why is Best (16) worth more than Son (14)?
Why does Oss have two major VLs when most maps have none?
Why is Beek (17) worth more than the Arnhem Rail Bridge?
Why is Nijmegen town (20) worth more than any of the minor bridge maps?



Edit: The VL point total for all 64 maps = 949

[xe5]

Attached graphic of total VL points per map as plotted on the strat map...

[Priapus1]

If you'd be willing to make them more suitable using your own discretion I'd certainly include it in my little mod.

[xe5]

The phrase "more suitable" raises several points of discussion. Firstly - for what type of GC? Allies vs AI, Axis vs AI, or H2H? IMO each type of GC should have a different set of VLs. The Allies vs AI set should use as many VLs as possible. The larger number of VLs will slow the Allied player's advance when Force Morale is used. Conversely, an Axis vs AI GC should use few VLs, most non-bridge maps having just a central VL and their normal complements of exit/entry VLs. This VL arrangement, with FM on, makes it easier for an Allied AI to attack and tougher for the Axis player to defend.

Ideally, a H2H GC should weight per map VL totals so that the major and minor bridges are worth the most. Northern bridges s/b worth more than southern (eg. Arhem > Nijmegen > Grave). But, for the Allied player, a map s/b worth max value only if its bridge is intact or repaired and a major supply path can be traced back to Valkenswaard. Indeed, the Allies should score a major victory in any type of GC where they control either of the Arnhem bridge maps and can trace supply back to Valkenswaard. Of course impossible w/o patching the .exe to emphasize the importance of the supply path.

Somebody did a mod the crux of which was reworked VLs in TLD? or CC5? or GJS? Anybody got info or a link to that?

[xe5]

A big VL question - does a map's VL point total affect AI strat movement?

Why the fixation with placing VLs in the middle of roads? Its not the pavement thats important, its the key overwatch terrain which allows a force to control the road that should get the VL.

The default Eindhoven VL scheme (left below) is reminiscent of Pac Man's powerup placement. Putting non-entry/exit VLs in the middle of roads only increases the armor's advantage - theyre easy for vehicles to drive to and, being so exposed, are very dangerous for infantry to access.

A alternative VL scheme emphasizing overwatch terrain is shown on the right. All the better for play focused more on infantry if there are some non-entry/exit VLs that vehicles cant access.

[xe5]

In addition to all 3 types of GCs having unique VL sets, all the stock single battles should have their own VL set. The single battles VLs could eliminate entry/exit VLs since there is no strat movement. As it stands now, I only use the stock single battles as an easy way to look at a particular map. Otherwise those battles are simply just generic 'attack onto the map' situations.

Another disadvantage to having only a single set of VLs is that play tends to get predictable and stale. You wind up manuevering along the same tried and true covered approach paths toward the same tired old VL locations. Using berndn's Automated Mod Installer its easy to launch LSA with various sets of custom files inc. modded VLs with new Map.btds.

[Andrew Williams]

It's the tLD Score mod

Available here:  http://closecombat.matrixgames.com/Long ... Dmods.html


by Bob Feurer and Robert Griswold

[Andrew Williams]

There is a problem..
the Tac AI does not know it has to get a certain exit VL to satisfy the cravings if the Strat AI's want to move to a certain map to gain a Strat points advantage... they don't know each other exists.

A lot of time was spent on re coding all elements calcs... see how elements values have changed... but there has barely been any noticeable change in game play ensuing.

I was pushing for a link to be made between Strat and Tac AI.... pfffft... it was better to recode a tree.


And that is why the AI sits twiddling it's thumbs on most maps.... it doesn't know that it should have a master (Strat AI)  driving it on to the required exit VL.

[xe5]

Thx for the link to the TLD Score Mod schreck. I didnt fully investigate the mod when it surfaced but recall it had some interesting ideas like zero pt VLs.

You'd think it'd be relatively easy to code the TacAI to prioritize entry/exit VLs to maps it didnt control or contest. Who gives a rat about owning the fictive 3 point center of Dinther when 'to Oss' or 'to Veghel' is the really direction you need to move? Pity that entry/exit VLs wont work when valued at 2 or 3 pts.

There's a minor anomaly on the Valkenhuizen map - a non-entry/exit VL (Groenendaalseweg) coded as 1 pt. Its non-standard but it works.

[Tejszd]

Some good comments/questions!

The VL number/total points per map affects strat AI/map movement and VL placement affects the tactical AI in battle. It would be nice if the strat AI could add points/value to entry/exit VL's it wants to get to higher value maps. This could make game play more random to if the importance of exit vl's changed battle to battle.

Having 3 sets of VL's would provide the best gameplay, if done right, and you wouldn't think it would to tough a change.

[Andrew Williams]

hmmmm... If the game could recognize that you were playing AI (Axis or Allied) or H2H and assign the adjusted VL points appropriately, that would be a good start.


Also the Exit VL boost applied by the Strat AI is another great idea.


it's a shame though that the Allied Tactical AI doesn't even know that it has to get from Valkenswaard all the way up to Arnhem.... and the German AI doesn't know it has to stop the Aliies from doing that.

[xe5]

ORIGINAL: Tejszd
The VL number/total points per map affects strat AI/map movement...

Im not seeing this in my testing. I removed all BGs from the GC except for the Irish Gds in starting in Valkenswaard at 1500 on Sept 17, and a German BG reinforcing on the last turn. I made all maps Axis-controlled and removed all Allied minor depots. So the Allied strat AI has a open field to run on. The image below shows the Allied AI's identical strat moves in the first 5 tests.

Clearly the AI can 'smell' bridge (and ferry) maps. In fact the AI appears so attuned to controlling bridge maps that, after moving to Grave, rather than making a beeline for Arnhem it detoured thru Oss to pick off Raventein. Also, after taking Hatert Bridge, it marched southeast along the canal to collect the Blankenberg and Heumen minor bridges as well. Kind of odd that it didnt move from Tersdijk to Honinghutie first, then thru Hatert, Blankenberg and Heumen.

Then come a couple of moves that discount the importance of a map's total VL points (or even total point + number of VLs). From Dreihuizen it moves to Beek (17pts/11VLs) rather than Nijmegen (20pts/13VLs). Then from Nijmegen Bridge it chooses Oosterhout (11pts/8VLs) rather than Bemmel (14pts/9VLs). In both instances these higher valued maps had paths to the subsequent maps chosen by the AI.



Cookie question #2 - what VL point differential, or ratio, distinguishes a Major Victory in battle from a Minor Victory?

[xe5]

Cookie question #2 - what VL point differential, or ratio, distinguishes a Major Victory in battle from a Minor Victory?

You need a ratio of 2:1 in total victory points to score a Major Victory in a single battle. 8:1 to win a Decisive Victory. After all these years, I didnt know that until today.

Tomorrow I may know what the ratios for Major and Decisive Victory in a campaign are. What I do know is that the Allied player can control the entire road and from Valkenswaard to Nijmegen to Arnhem and still be deemed the loser.

[xe5]

OK now Im really confused. I engineered a planned finish to a H2H GC. The final Allied Debrief screen is shown below. On one hand the game awards the Allies a Minor Victory based on their overall VL Point total (488 - 461). On the other hand the game contradicts itself by declaring the Allies have lost because they did worse than their historical counterparts.

[xe5]

The performance of each side's "historical counterpart" is determined in the /Data/Base/Campaign.txt file...

# Historical Axis score for each turn of each day, one line per day.
# "Score" is a precentage [sic] of victory for the Axis. Allied score = 100 - Axis score.

The Day 10 Axis Score = 47. This means the Axis player needs to control more than 47% of the total VL points to do better than his historical counterpart. Conversely, the Allied player needs to control more than 53% (100-47) of the total VL points to do better than his historical counterpart. Were both sides to get exactly 47% and 53% respectively, its assumed they would both be judged to have done as well as their historical counterparts.

However, in the same H2H campaign, the image of the corresponding final Axis Debrief screen shows that the Axis can get more than 47% and still be considered to have done worse than its historical counterpart.

A) How can the Allied player both win a minor victory and do worse than his historical counterpart?
B) How can both sides have done worse than their historical counterparts?
C) If these strat maps represented the actual Market-garden situation as of ~2100 Sept 26th 1944, the Axis should probably be considered to have won a smashing victory.

[xe5]

Cookie Question #3:

The percentage of VL points needed by the Axis to do better than history goes steadily down from Day 1 through Day 9 for each of the five difficulty levels. Why does this percentage go up on day 10?

Day1...88,87,86,86,84
Day2...83,82,81,80,79
Day3...78,77,76,75,74
Day4...73,72,71,70,69
Day5...68,67,66,65,64
Day6...63,62,61,60,59
Day7...58,57,56,55,54
Day8...53,52,51,50,48
Day9...45,45,45,45,45
Day10.47,47,47,47,47

As they say in Ewe Zealand - this one will separate the men from the sheep!

[xe5]

The increased percentage of VL points, from Day9 to Day10, needed by the Axis to to better than history represents the territory (~S. Osterbeek) given up by the Allies Sept 25-26 in Operation Berlin, when the remnants of 1AB Div were evacuated across the Neder Rijn.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Pvt_Grunt]

ORIGINAL: guitaryf

I’m pleased for this beneficial excellent page; this is a form of subject that sustains me although out the day.We’ve

normally heard been lately wanting near to in your web-site right immediately after I observed about these from a shut buddy

and was delighted when I was inside a placement to acquire it adhering to wanting out for some time.

Err, what language is this post supposed to be in? [&:]

[kweniston]

ORIGINAL: Pvt_Grunt

Err, what language is this post supposed to be in? [&:]

Yeah, I wonder too how spam can ever be successful if this is what they come up with! Hahaha