Please Help - Objectives / Scenario outcomes

[wbp3517]

I've recently picked back up a project started last year. Close to the end but I've hit a roadblock on Victory Conditions.

Question regarding Objectives, Victory Conditions and Scenario Outcomes.

I saved the game on next to last turn and finished 3 separate times within intended test finishes (All Primary Objectives completed, 1 of 2 Primary Objectives completed, and 0/2 Primary Objectives completed).

Basically, what I believe should be MINOR DEFEAT is showing as DRAW. How can both primary objectives not be fulfilled yet it is giving results as a DRAW?

Is there something simple I might be missing? Can post details as needed but thought I'd start here. . . .

Both Primary Achieved - Minor Victory (Functioning Correctly)

Functioning Correctly

BothPrimaryObj_MinorVictory.JPG (226.56 KiB) Viewed 3316 times

Single Primary Achieved - Draw (Functioning Correctly)

Functioning Correctly

Draw_OnePrimary Obj.JPG (285.09 KiB) Viewed 3316 times

No Primary Objectives - Yields Draw - Not Minor Defeat (Functioning Incorrectly)

MinorDefeat_NoPrimary.JPG (351.83 KiB) Viewed 3316 times

Note: As you can see default Event Outcome titles are currently retained. I've updated the pictures already, however.

Thanks in advance for any assistance!

[Deja Bru]

It might be helpful if you posted a picture of this screen from your scenario:

Screenshot 11.jpg (108.72 KiB) Viewed 3311 times

Aside from that, you may have an objective trigger problem because I notice that your "Maintain the 82nd Airborne's Effectiveness" objective is fulfilled ("9/9") even though it is marked as defeated.

I can't tell without looking at it but sometimes what also happens is that there is no primary objective for the hostile alliance to achieve in order to bring about the human player's defeat. This is often overlooked. What needs to happen is, when the human player fails a primary objective, the trigger needs to also let the AI win a corresponding objective. If the AI has no primary objective to win (and it could be as simple as "AI Wins"), then the result is a Draw even when the human player fails.

Capture931.jpg (140.5 KiB) Viewed 3310 times

[wbp3517]

Thanks so much.

I expect it as you suggest - no primary set for the other team - I wasn't sure whether that was required in 1 person v AI scenario (which this is). Expect that is the problem.

I'll update and try when I have a chance - most likely next week.

Failing there I will post more detail with the Mission overview. Will update on this post regardless.

Thanks again!

[wbp3517]

Quickly tried but it did not work - same scenario save using the same Save Games (would that be a problem?).

Will make better attempt next week when time. In interim here are some pertinent screens. . . .

If it is easier to upload the scenario please advise.

Thanks again.

MissObj_82nd.JPG (143.48 KiB) Viewed 3305 times

82_SME_EndCheck.JPG (130.28 KiB) Viewed 3305 times

[Shards]

A save game contains a copy of the scenario as it was when it was started. If you've changed the scenario you'll need to restart.

Thanks

[Deja Bru]

The mission screen shows that you did not goof something on that by mislabeling the outcomes; both of the instances that you showed above (Draw - Functioning Correctly and Draw - Functioning Incorrectly) ended with this outcome which is listed for the Draw result on your screen, as was proper because I think in both cases the result was a draw:

Capture933.jpg (21.96 KiB) Viewed 3284 times

The "Hold SME End" trigger is not the one that I was questioning, it was the one dealing with maintaining 82nd Airborne effectiveness. I was wondering how you failed that even though you were 9 for 9 on the objective, not knowing what that means. Sometimes, though, depending on how an objective is structured and dated, you can achieve it and still fail on the very last turn. Or, maybe 9 was a bad thing you were counting up to which, when reached, meant failure.

That leaves what I said about the AI needing at least one primary objective to win (and make you lose). Otherwise, if you fail one or both of your primary objectives, the result is technically a draw because nobody won. Shards helpfully pointed out that whatever you are doing subsequently to your scenario does not affect saved games. Apparently the scenario structure is saved along with the game so a new game would need to be started to test this.

Heh, this is why scenario designing for OOB is not for sissies!

[wbp3517]

A save game contains a copy of the scenario as it was when it was started. If you've changed the scenario you'll need to restart.

Thanks

OK. I'll need to re-run all the way through with the AI Objective I created (and thought I tested but apparently didn't) activated - I think that is the underlying problem.

Note: The "Maintain the 82nd Airborne Effectiveness" is a counter of bad events (units destroyed). Anything under 9 is accomplish - Anything 9 or greater is a failure.

Thanks much Deja Bru and Shards!

[wbp3517]

BTW, this is my first attempt at scenario design. Started it last year around this time and then set aside for a long while.

This scenario focuses on 82nd airborne operations on D-Day and is intended to potentially fold into a series of scenarios for a campaign based on D-Day (and maybe D-Day +1) on Utah Beach. Next would be 101st operations and then the Utah Beach landings.

Had as much fun designing as I've had playing base games - it is fun seeing your vision come to life - particularly when it "plays" as you envisioned it.

Thanks again.

[Deja Bru]

Um, did you ever have one of those "Oops, I screwed up" moments? I just had one in the shower, thinking about this comment that I made:

Heh, this is why scenario designing for OOB is not for sissies!

My hair is still wet as I rush back to my laptop to reassure you that I was not intending to be dismissive of your fortitude and stamina. More like "Hey, we're all in the same boat, brother." From what I see in your triggers image, it looks like you have plenty of fortitude and stamina; those certainly look like complex triggers and the scroll bar is positioned less than halfway down the list!

From your intervening posts, I see that you took no offense, however.

Anyway, you said "If it is easier to upload the scenario please advise." If you do want to post your scenario here, I would be glad to take a look at it; I enjoy doing this kind of thing.

No strings attached in that if I were to make suggestions, were you not to take them would not offend me in the least. Also, I am no expert, just an enthusiast.

Unfortunately, even if you zip the scenario folder, you probably cannot just post it here because the size limit for a zip file is 2MB. Instead, you would need to share a link to such a zip file from a Dropbox or Google Drive account.

[wbp3517]

Success (or at least partial)!

It was indeed the lack of AI Primary objectives that was causing the problem. I now have it partially working - need to work on how the AI Objective works so it doesn't automatically trigger if the Axis take back the key Hex prior to scenario end.

Now I need to do some thinking based on the MajDef, MinDef, Draw, MinVic & MajVic definitions above - whether I can work within those definitions based on current scenario parameters or whether I need to change my defined objectives - as I've defined it will pretty much be an all or nothing for the Allies - currently one of the secondary objectives is not achievable at all (Douve Bridges) and was not even close to being achieved IRL.

Think I can deactivate it in scenario after it is presented in the briefing - trying to create a scenario where player has to react to encountered situations and re-define success. That may work to that end. . . .

Regardless, think I'm on the right path - really appreciate the help.

Once I've gotten a bit more refinement I'll loop back to see about posting a testing version here or elsewhere.

Thanks again.


(BTW, no offense taken based on comment - understood it as intended - but appreciate the follow up)

[wbp3517]

Here is the base scenario as it currently exists. Like I say, I know the objectives (axis added objectives are at the end) need some work. I have not included the associated PNG files so the pictures obviously won't work. But if you like you can load and see what I'm working towards.

I've played this so much I know what is going to happen so not real sure how balanced it is. Certainly open to suggestions and would appreciate feedback on balancing particularly. Note there are some random placement spawns so it will not play the same each time.

If you like a battle royale this is not going to be for you - this is VERY much intended to be akin to historical which means assembly of coherent formations and doing the best you can with limited resources.

Some of the popups have some unpolished language - overall intent is there but by no means is it finalized.

Cheers.

[Deja Bru]

Okay, that's a way to get around the 2MB zipped file size limit - it's the pictures that build up the file size. I understand that the pictures will come up blank. I will look at this tomorrow (Sunday, US EDT).

By the way, when you zip a scenario or a campaign, you want to do so in a manner by which the player can just take a ready made folder and dump it into his \Documents\My Games\Order of Battle - WW2\Scenarios or \Campaigns folder. Much easier and avoids confusion. Your zip file should look like this when first opened:

Capture938.jpg (112.73 KiB) Viewed 3248 times

So that I, your customer, can extract the folder right into this location ready to play:

Capture939.jpg (58.08 KiB) Viewed 3248 times

I attached my version of your file so you can see the difference.

MissionBoston82nd v95h.zip

(494.33 KiB) Downloaded 78 times

[Deja Bru]

Wow, I'm liking this already. (I took a peek at it before bedtime).

First of all, nice going on the reasonably-sized map. 60 by 60 hexes is plenty. I've been guilty of making huge maps and living to regret it.

Second, I see from your game text that you have a good command of English, spelling and grammar. That's a plus around here.

Third, if this is your first scenario, I am impressed with the complexity of your trigger work. It certainly looks impressive; whether it works we'll have to see.

Fourth, I see that you now have primary objectives for both AI alliances opposing you. You said those are what you were missing and that they do the job now?

I'm just going to examine the triggers and objectives to see if I can see any flaws or make any suggestions; I assume that will be helpful to you. You don't say whether you actually are going to share this scenario with the public. I would rather wait until you do so, perhaps in beta as is standard practice but otherwise finished, to actually play it and assess its gameplay quality. That way, you get other opinions about that as well. I will help with the building blocks for now.

Talk to you tomorrow.

[Deja Bru]

Talk to you tomorrow.

Oh what the heck. Who needs sleep?

May I make a few comments on your map? Such as a suggestion to use outlying housing found in the editor's Decorations section to make your villages look more realistic. For example, this village looks rather unnaturally hexagonal in arrangement (click to enlarge the view):

Screenshot 1.jpg (149.33 KiB) Viewed 3245 times

Placing a few housing decorations around the perimeter of the village hexes . . .

Screenshot 2.jpg (85.83 KiB) Viewed 3245 times

. . . makes the village look more realistic (okay, maybe I overdid it a bit but you get the idea):

Screenshot 3.jpg (131.5 KiB) Viewed 3245 times

[Deja Bru]

Continuing with the map . . .

You have several places where it does not seem logical that a paved road would become a dirt road and then go back to being paved again. Beside not looking normal, this will have an effect on unit movement during the scenario which you may not intend. You may want to go through the map and "pave roads" where logical (click to enlarge the view):

Screenshot 4.jpg (198.72 KiB) Viewed 3243 times

I like what you did with the central swampy area. You widened rivers by running them through lake hexes. This is fine and looks good except remember that while rivers can be crossed with some delay, lake hexes cannot be crossed at all. Wherever you did this will be impassable by land units:

Screenshot 5.jpg (267.87 KiB) Viewed 3243 times

One last thing. The game has trouble building bridges when there is not a clear cut river crossing. That is, the road or railroad must cross a river hex cleanly. This issue here is caused by running your railroad through too many bends in the river from one hex to another. If this railroad is important, you may want to relocate it to the right a bit:

Screenshot 6.jpg (74.24 KiB) Viewed 3243 times

That's if for now! Remember, you don't have to take any suggestions that I make, of course. It's your scenario. Well, now I am going to bed!

[terminator]

It would be a pity not to finish this project.

At least two places have no name :

Location.png (181.93 KiB) Viewed 3225 times

The indications for the secondary objectives (?) are not made :

SecondaryObjectives.png (105.12 KiB) Viewed 3225 times

[Shards]

On the paved/unpaved road, that looks like it's a meeting of the two types? If I remember correctly, the game uses whichever on was placed last at a junction. So if you just click again on one of the roads in that hex, it'll changed to paved and look much nicer.

[wbp3517]

All,

First I really appreciate the feedback.

A couple of comments:

A) Axis Objectives - not quite functioning as intended - but they are working so that Defeat situations are triggering - (previously was getting only DRAW outcome even if no Allies objectives were fulfilled - ultimately this issue was why this thread was started originally - see original post above). I believe currently it may be triggering upon Axis re-take of SME (and not end game). Sure it is something I have in the activation / status check triggers but I haven't looped back to that. To me this is highest priority to finalize / complete.

B) Allies Objectives should be functioning as intended I believe (Activation, Success, Fail). I've intentionally left as open (Question marks) until completed or at least temporarily secured. I may need to tweak the actual objectives language because the bridge objectives should be capture & hold at the end. The SME by Turn 10 will toggle to completed if done by turn 10 or turn to fail if not completed by then. The Douve River bridges (destroy) objective will ultimately be set to disappear as an objective and really shouldn't be achievable (if anyone is able to complete please advise). It could be left as stretch objective but think I'll need to take it out to make victory conditions work the way I want them to ultimately (so Maj Victory is achievable). Need to think on this and consequences if this ever wraps into a broader campaign. . .

These are intended to be Question Marks at the beginning (vs failed) but if that is confusing let me know.

C) Map - I recognize that the map certainly has limitations at this point. I had two major re-positioning efforts (primarily moving T&N LZ's west and the associated western cities in order to make swamp are a wider and not enable the Allies to consolidate (more below). Focus was getting the game to function as intended. Definitely planning to loop back and polish (location names, road types, etc). Have held off (after initial time investment of making it "pretty" was all undone after first repositioning). Do appreciate any items you see that would help as a) I'm sure there lots of folks with more experience / better knowledge on how to dress it up and b) easier to work from a list of observations to address than proof & QA on my own.

D) Merderet River / Swamp: The river / swamp area is intended to only allow passage through in limited areas. This is so that the allies cannot consolidate easily and pool their supply points. IRL the troops on the western side of the Merderet ended up cut off and isolated for up to 3 days before relieved. Became a survival game vs. supporting primary objectives. Much of the 507th (DZ T) landed in the middle of this area IRL. The elevated railroad track served as unofficial gathering point as troop blindly headed to highest ground. These troops funneled south along the elevated line to the village of la Fiere and linked up with units from the 505th moving west from SME. In game I'm attempting to drive those troops similarly but have their condition not be very high when getting to la Fiere area.

E) Hill 30: The supply area SE of LZ "N" and NW of the CDP bridge was Hill 30 where a number of the 508th gathered and held out for 3+ days (I believe) disrupting German operations toward Chef Du Pont bridge. Need to label this area and point out in popup (probably in association with the Scattered Drop popup and with potential removal of the Dourve river bridge destruction objective removal - I envision potentially having the Maintain the 82nd Airborne's Fighting Effectiveness to activate and the Destroy both Bridges over the Douve River to Deactivate at this time.

Balancing between giving enough supply vs. allowing too easy of local or overall consolidation is part of what I would love some feedback on based on actual run throughs. It is hard for me to objectively assess at this point. . . .

F) Gameplay, Income & Balancing: I've really only played the scenario as intended (LZ's functioning with too little / too much supply, strength of initial patrols / random spawns vs. initial state of airborne troops, ability to strengthen to withstand main german assaults at SME and LaFiere Bridge, etc). Right now the Chef du Pont bridge is probably the easiest to "game" around - will probably look to incorporate triggers to begin strengthening statically placed defenders around the CDP bridge mid-scenario so the Allies can't make a mad rush to the bridge and then never be threatened. Sure could game the scenario to that end at this point.

A couple of Questions:
- Have separate Axis Teams b/c I could not seem to place two independent German armies on the same team. This was done for Axis income separation (Assault forces would have more but didn't want to enable the ramping up of all the initially placed RED team forces by the AI. (the assault forces represented on the BLACK team were not Waffen SS IRL as defined in game). If there is a better way to achieve separation of income please advise.

- On that note. . . .if anyone knows whether in game the WaffenSS troops with 0 experience & same year are stronger / more effective than normal "German" troops in game please advise. Seems to be when playing but it could be that these (BLACK TEAM) are just coming in at full strength vs. other German (RED team) troops at partial strength.

- AI seems to pretty randomly distribute income points - noted on Team RED that the AI seems to strengthen the AA units while not strengthening the infantry troops. Seems counter intuitive to me. Is there a way to direct the AI to this end?

Notes:
- There is a Folder at the top of the Trigger definitions that can be toggled so full visibility into all troop movements is allowed during game
- Original post regarding scenario here. . . . http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 74&t=76674 As you can see has been a start / stop affair. If I go dark for a period please don't take offense - it is just availability.


Wow - this post got lengthy real quick. . . Thanks again to everyone and I'm happy to see the interest.