fighting withdrawal

[Tazak]

I'm struggling to get a scenario concept to work and looking for some ideas/suggestions

I'm trying to work out the VP's for a fighting withdrawal so that
a. the player gets VP for units he withdraws
b. player gets VP for destroying enemy forces
c. enough VP on the map for the AI to be fast moving
d. but not too many VP on the map that the AI always wins

it seems a juggling act between too little and too many VP so that the player has to carries out hit and run tactics while ensuring he keeps friendly forces alive so to claim VP for using the exit point

[DoubleDeuce]

Let me know what you come up with cause I will have at least 1 scenario like that in my campaign, just haven't got that far yet.

[Mad Russian]

When you start trying to achieve more than one goal in a scenario you multiply the difficulty rating for it to work tremendously.

Break your scenario into 3 parts and playtest each of them.

1) Place the objectives on the map and play it. Does the AI do was you want? If not adjust them until it does.

2) Place the exit locations on the map and see if you can get there.

3) Adjust the values of the VL's to reflect the value you want them to have. I would have a contested battle somewhere within the range of 45-65% depending on how you feel about it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[DoubleDeuce]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

3) Adjust the values of the VL's to reflect the value you want them to have. I would have a contested battle somewhere within the range of 45-65% depending on how you feel about it.

I think that is a major design key right there. It seems if you adjust the starting forces and VL points to get you into that % range it gives you a really good starting point to work from. at least it seems to be working out for me.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

I think that is a major design key right there. It seems if you adjust the starting forces and VL points to get you into that % range it gives you a really good starting point to work from. at least it seems to be working out for me.

Once you get the balancing act figured out for contested range there are multiple ways to get into that spot. Some of it is with OOB's, some of it is with VL's, some is a combination of both. I've made some really lopsided scenarios with the VL's doing the balancing.

The most important thing to remember when using the VL's to balance is that those that are assigned to a side at the start of the scenario count with their forces. Those that are unassigned do not.

I've put some unassigned VL's right in the middle of a sides setup zones before. In fact, I've put a unit right on an unassigned VL before so that it wouldn't be counted for that side but they would get it as soon as the scenario started.

There are lots of things you can do.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Tazak]

thanks for the ideas MR & DD will try out some VL settings over the weekend

[Tazak]

Latest attempt at a fighting withdrawal saw a marginal victory which is as close as I've been able to play out, others were either end of the win/defeat scale.

Had a NATO recce/SPAT covering force against WP Recon/MRR during a night action

VP totals
2914 VP - NATO
4500 VP (3000 held by NATO at start of scenario, rest were used to shake out WP routes of advance)
6571 VP - WP

Scenario lasted 8 hours with objective of 6 hours action and 2 hours to pull units back on a fairly large map
Played it a number of times and if NATO didn't pull back and exit forces to increase VP count then faced a defeat. I've found that force balance and time constricts are key otherwise you can 'stand and hold' which avoid the feeling of the scenario


end game figures:
VPs held
1500 VP - NATO
3000 VP - WP

Enemy loses
2043 - NATO
310 - WP

Exited units
1561 - NATO

total - 61% for NATO
5104 - 3310

[IronMikeGolf]

What about side-specific VP locations to influence AI planning and execution, but the scoring algorithm ignores these? In other words, these function as maneuver control measures (think phase line, delineated axis of advance, etc). These would not be visible to the opposing (human) side.