cbelva
Member
I have running a few small test on scoring in DA. Several people complained about scoring in the game during the now defunct tournament and I wanted to see if I could get a handle on the problem. I am not finished with my tests, but wanted to let you know what I found. First, there is very little in the electronic manual on scoring (in fact I found absolutely nothing). I remembered that Col Lunsford had discussed scoring is a post sometime back and did a search on this board and the DA discussion list. I found the following from him dated Feb 3, 2004:
Victory points are awarded for the following conditions:
1. Possession of objectives. Within the scenario editor, authors can
designate objectives and assign a victory point level for each
objective. Possession is determined by the player who has the most RCP
overlapping (with unit footprints) the objective area. Note: Authors
can assign possession at scenario start to a particular side or leave
the objective unassigned. The idea behind my use of objectives is to
provide for terrain-focused operations.
2. Casualties. VP are awarded/modified for casualties based on a
number of criteria:
a. Baseline Casualty VP. Points are awarded for any loss. Air
losses and PW losses are weighted heavier than other losses.
b. Force Ratio Modifier. Differences in the force ratios
(advantage) one side over the other affects the VP for losses. If I
have a 3:1 advantage over you, then every RCP I lose is worth more VP
for you than when you lose a RCP. Note: I implemented this modifier to
keep a player with a larger force from just expending battalions in an
attrition battle without suffering any consequences.
c. Force-oriented versus Terrain-oriented operations. If one side
is force-oriented, then they will receive more victory points for every
enemy RCP they destroy. Note: It is possible to have one side
force-oriented and the other terrain-oriented during a scenario.
d. Excessive losses. If a force loses more than their "maximum"
loss as directed within the scenario editor, their opponent receives
additional VP.
Hopefully, this sheds some light on the issue. I tried to develop a
good VP system; however, I always figured that discerning players, such
as you and other members of this group, would still debate the merits of
their operation and their challenges with their opponent. The VP system
is more important in solitaire play. In my mind, the ultimate battle
(fun and debate) would be one where the force objectives of the two
sides are so dissimilar that both sides could "win" by achieving their
objectives. Of course, the VP system might reflect the outcome as a
draw. There in lies the challenge of developing a really good VP
system.
I tested scoring by first setting up several very small scenarios just to see how scoring occurred on a small basic. I then ran a larger scenario noting which units took damage, how much damage they took, and ownership of victory locations. Honestly, except for 1 small abnormality, scoring appeared to work as Col Lunsford outlined it in his Feb 3rd posting.
The abnormality was that twice while running one of my small test scenarios I noticed that Blue losses dropped to a -1%. I checked the Blue force order of battle screen and found that several blue units had gained combat power a few tenth points above their starting strength points. (ie—They started with a combat power of 10 and was now at 10.1394). They were also showing 98% strength. I would like to note that on the previous turn they had taken loses and were showing at 98% (I don’t remember the combat power but it was less than 10). I found another post by Col Lunsford which may explain this abnormality. It was also posted on the Yahoo Discussion Forum also dated Feb 3, 2004. According to the article, Col Lunsford had added the ability for units to “regenerate combat power”. I will quote this section for your review.
“11. Regeneration of Combat Power. Units can now regenerate combat power to reflect unit maintenance and the return to duty of injured/wounded personnel. Units will regenerate 1% of their combat power per hour if the following conditions are true:
• Unit strength is less than 99%
• Unit is not suppressed
• Unit morale is average or better
• Unit logistics is greater than 20%
• Unit is not exhausted (fatigue level)”
I am guessing that since the unit was below 98% and met all the other criteria, it regenerated combat power allowing the unit to slightly increase its combat power above its starting setting. This is what appears to have affected the loss report for the blue forces and gave the -1 in the blue losses under the victory conditions.
Personally, I don’t see this as a big problem. I think it could be argued that units should not be able to “regenerate” its combat power greater than what it started with. If Col Lunsford every resurfaces, we should point this out and ask that it be corrected. However, I don’t see it impacting on game play or scoring that significally and should be something that either side in a game may see once in a great while. No, I did not see it happen every time a unit dropped to 98%. I only saw it twice thru numerous runs. I did not see it happen at all during the larger game that I played.
I keep hearing reports that people did not have confidence in the scoring of the game and decided to check it out. I hope that this helps. It would be good if some others can double check this and make sure I am not missing something.
Victory points are awarded for the following conditions:
1. Possession of objectives. Within the scenario editor, authors can
designate objectives and assign a victory point level for each
objective. Possession is determined by the player who has the most RCP
overlapping (with unit footprints) the objective area. Note: Authors
can assign possession at scenario start to a particular side or leave
the objective unassigned. The idea behind my use of objectives is to
provide for terrain-focused operations.
2. Casualties. VP are awarded/modified for casualties based on a
number of criteria:
a. Baseline Casualty VP. Points are awarded for any loss. Air
losses and PW losses are weighted heavier than other losses.
b. Force Ratio Modifier. Differences in the force ratios
(advantage) one side over the other affects the VP for losses. If I
have a 3:1 advantage over you, then every RCP I lose is worth more VP
for you than when you lose a RCP. Note: I implemented this modifier to
keep a player with a larger force from just expending battalions in an
attrition battle without suffering any consequences.
c. Force-oriented versus Terrain-oriented operations. If one side
is force-oriented, then they will receive more victory points for every
enemy RCP they destroy. Note: It is possible to have one side
force-oriented and the other terrain-oriented during a scenario.
d. Excessive losses. If a force loses more than their "maximum"
loss as directed within the scenario editor, their opponent receives
additional VP.
Hopefully, this sheds some light on the issue. I tried to develop a
good VP system; however, I always figured that discerning players, such
as you and other members of this group, would still debate the merits of
their operation and their challenges with their opponent. The VP system
is more important in solitaire play. In my mind, the ultimate battle
(fun and debate) would be one where the force objectives of the two
sides are so dissimilar that both sides could "win" by achieving their
objectives. Of course, the VP system might reflect the outcome as a
draw. There in lies the challenge of developing a really good VP
system.
I tested scoring by first setting up several very small scenarios just to see how scoring occurred on a small basic. I then ran a larger scenario noting which units took damage, how much damage they took, and ownership of victory locations. Honestly, except for 1 small abnormality, scoring appeared to work as Col Lunsford outlined it in his Feb 3rd posting.
The abnormality was that twice while running one of my small test scenarios I noticed that Blue losses dropped to a -1%. I checked the Blue force order of battle screen and found that several blue units had gained combat power a few tenth points above their starting strength points. (ie—They started with a combat power of 10 and was now at 10.1394). They were also showing 98% strength. I would like to note that on the previous turn they had taken loses and were showing at 98% (I don’t remember the combat power but it was less than 10). I found another post by Col Lunsford which may explain this abnormality. It was also posted on the Yahoo Discussion Forum also dated Feb 3, 2004. According to the article, Col Lunsford had added the ability for units to “regenerate combat power”. I will quote this section for your review.
“11. Regeneration of Combat Power. Units can now regenerate combat power to reflect unit maintenance and the return to duty of injured/wounded personnel. Units will regenerate 1% of their combat power per hour if the following conditions are true:
• Unit strength is less than 99%
• Unit is not suppressed
• Unit morale is average or better
• Unit logistics is greater than 20%
• Unit is not exhausted (fatigue level)”
I am guessing that since the unit was below 98% and met all the other criteria, it regenerated combat power allowing the unit to slightly increase its combat power above its starting setting. This is what appears to have affected the loss report for the blue forces and gave the -1 in the blue losses under the victory conditions.
Personally, I don’t see this as a big problem. I think it could be argued that units should not be able to “regenerate” its combat power greater than what it started with. If Col Lunsford every resurfaces, we should point this out and ask that it be corrected. However, I don’t see it impacting on game play or scoring that significally and should be something that either side in a game may see once in a great while. No, I did not see it happen every time a unit dropped to 98%. I only saw it twice thru numerous runs. I did not see it happen at all during the larger game that I played.
I keep hearing reports that people did not have confidence in the scoring of the game and decided to check it out. I hope that this helps. It would be good if some others can double check this and make sure I am not missing something.