When you make a scenario, how do YOU want the player to determine win/loss?

[Maj.Hans]

Title basically is the question...

 

Here's why I ask.  In a small scenario, where the player is in charge of perhaps one or two platoons, it's easy for me to program the scoring.

"You are in charge of a platoon of tanks and a platoon of PCs.  Capture Objective A+B = Major Victory, capture A = Victory, do not capture A = FAIL."

 

But in a larger scenario, I often times feel like telling the player "The scenario ends in two hours, watch the AAR and decide if you got your butt kicked or not"...

 

 

[12Alfa]

In the mission brief his orders lay out" the mission objectives", ie: take this, advance beyond  here, secure this area. scoring is just a game thing. In RL your mission is pretty straight forward, and if there is confusion you ask. 

So, at mission end, after the AAR, the player should be able to see for himself, if he obtained the stated mission objectives.

 

This is where mission verbs come into play, might be a good idea to layout the mission verbs somewhere to avoid confusion.

 

Just my 2 cents (before taxes)

Edited August 26, 2016 by 12Alfa

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, 12Alfa said:

This is where mission verbs come into play, might be a good idea to layout the mission verbs somewhere to avoid confusion.

 

You mean like:

 

 

[Maj.Hans]

Eh let me expand on my initial post...

 

Two or three platoons, OK, I give pretty detailed precise instructions.

Your primary mission is to take and hold Obj.A

If you have the strength, proceed to take and hold Obj.B

 

Your secondary mission, if you are unable to take and hold Obj.A, is to redeploy your forces and scout Obj.C to determine what enemy forces are holding that area.

 

 

A larger scenario, say, two or three companies of vehicles under player command, I'll give a broader goal...

The enemy is attacking in one or more places.  Locate the main thrust of his attack within 30 minutes, and set the appropriate triggers to indicate which route or routes they are attacking along.  Then kick his ass as best you can for the next two hours, watch a playback on the AAR and decide if you were kicking his butt or he was kicking yours.

[Ssnake]

It seems to me that much is boiling down to the question, what actually IS the player's mission, aside from general butt-kicking. Because Butt-kicking isn't a mission, that's the activity usually involved to achieve the mission goals. It may reflect reality if no clear mission objectives are given because the leadership itself has no clear idea what the hell you're actually doing there. But if you have a clear idea about what the player is supposed to accomplish, it should be possible to find a metric for that to measure success.

 

 

That being said, I'm not a great friend of "victory points" myself. In reality you don't get a battle score - except for what you don't really want to count.

[Nasder]

I'm with some others here. When I make scenarios, for steelbeasts and/or other games, I tend to let the player decide if he won or not. He can look at the objectives and see if he did the one(s) he set out to do and then during the mission or while watching the AAR, he can decide if he is okay with the approach, actions, and losses.

 

I might end a scenario with telling the player he completed or failed the objective(s). But I rarely tell the player that he won or lost. To me, a win can be recognizing a very bad situation and pulling the plug on the mission without losses.

[Apocalypse 31]

4 hours ago, Nasder said:

I tend to let the player decide if he won or not

 

The new 'surrender if' function is a good/realistic way of letting people know who won. I've started using it in my missions.