Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Giving objectives max sizes

 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11148
Location: Canton, CT, USA
Quote: (nealhunt @ 19 Jun. 2009, 08:45 )

I fail to understand why measuring to the center is "the only fair way to do it."  If you're fighting over a 30cm circle or a 34cm circle, both sides capture or contest on the same ground.  I can't think of a single time in any game when I thought "If we measured this differently, the game would have been won/lost."

I can't think of an instance when that has happened either, but I prefer to play it consistently to avoid any possible arguments.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
Neal: The objectives you place in your opponent's half are more valuable to you than those he places in yours, so if you place larger ojectives, while you still both can capture them as easily as each other, the natural tendency of the game to go for Blitz+T&H rather than DTF means that you are at a slight advantage. Measuring from the center stops this potential issue.

Reductio ad absurdum, what if a player turned up with objectives 1 metre in diameter?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:01 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Quote: (Evil and Chaos @ 19 Jun. 2009, 13:56 )

Let's say one side has pin-pricks, and the other side has 60cm circles... it stands to reason that it'll be easier to capture (and contest) the objectives on one side.

Perhaps 'fair' is the wrong word, and 'balanced' would be better.

We're not talking about 30cm differences.  We're talking 2-3cm.

Quote: (Chroma @ 19 Jun. 2009, 14:05 )

Quote: (nealhunt @ 19 Jun. 2009, 13:45 )

I can't think of a single time in any game when I thought "If we measured this differently, the game would have been won/lost."

This specifically came up in the recent Tau vs Titans game some friends played here.

Going by "point of contact" on the edge of the table, the Titan player *didn't* have Blitzkrieg and going by the 40mm objective's outer diamter he *would* have had Blitzkrieg.

We went with "point of contact".

Aye this happens all the time.


I don't get this.  If you're moving to try to capture an objective, you should know before the move whether you will do so.  Whether you're using edge or center measurement to objectives isn't relevant to planning to take objectives.  The player has 3 turns to take into account a 2-3cm difference in movement.  If a loss based on that "happens all the time" then it's the player(s) being sloppy, not a question of fairness or balance.

Objective "size" also provides for further garrisoning distance and places limits on where opponents can put their objectives.
I can't imagine this makes a difference in practical terms.  If a player is placing an objective so the opponent cannot garrison, then they can measure the distance when they place the objective.  They can avoid the garrison site whether either way.  It would take an extremely rare combination of board setup and army list - multiple garrisons and multiple, useful garrison sites situated 30-35cm apart - for it to make a difference.

The same goes for avoiding terrain due to differences in ability to capture objectives, e.g. wanting to keep objectives away from woods because you're facing a majority infantry force.  You can measure and plan at placement so it would take multiple interacting pieces to create any real restrictions.

Objective placement seems to me to be a non-issue for very similar reasons.  It is planned ahead.  If you're at 30cm objetive-to-objective, then you're at 30cm no matter how you measure it.  As far as the space between the objectives and them being forced apart, there is no difference.  That internal objective capture ground is the same.  It might make a couple cm difference on the outside edge of the objective cluster, but since clustering objectives is almost exclusively about setting up a fight/contest/capture within the cluster, the outside edge is a minor consideration.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (nealhunt @ 19 Jun. 2009, 15:01 )

I don't get this.  If you're moving to try to capture an objective, you should know before the move whether you will do so.  Whether you're using edge or center measurement to objectives isn't relevant to planning to take objectives.  The player has 3 turns to take into account a 2-3cm difference in movement.  If a loss based on that "happens all the time" then it's the player(s) being sloppy, not a question of fairness or balance.

I'm not saying "happens all the time".

This was probably the "first" time it's been noticed in our play.  Due to enemy placement of broken units, the Titan player's unit could get within 15cm of the "diameter" of the objective, but not within 15cm of the "edge point" of the objective, so it was significant, and we didn't have a ready answer.

Sure it's taking it to an extreme, but say a Necron player showed up with his, fantastically modelled, 31cm square "Tomb Complex" objective... placing that on the table edge denies a large area for the opponent to place objectives on the Necron half.

Or what about an ornate 15cm diameter Wraithgate objective?  Something like that gives the formations coming out of it a definite advantage.




_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:05 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Quote: (zombocom @ 19 Jun. 2009, 14:59 )

Neal: The objectives you place in your opponent's half are more valuable to you than those he places in yours, so if you place larger ojectives, while you still both can capture them as easily as each other, the natural tendency of the game to go for Blitz+T&H rather than DTF means that you are at a slight advantage. Measuring from the center stops this potential issue.

You're right that your T&H objectives are more important to you.  But you're wrong that it's always an advantage to make them larger.  

There is no tie in taking objectives.  Capturing requires affirmative action and contesting trumps capturing.  Ease of capture therefore helps a potential contesting force more than the potential capturing force.  Making objectives you have to capture larger is a disadvantage as long as there is a potential contesting force.

Larger objectives are only an advantage if, as in Chroma's example, the defender is unable to contest and is instead trying to block the path.

No matter what size objective it is, the defender has the same two options for stopping objective capture - contesting or blocking.  Larger area is easier for the defender to contest but harder to block.  Smaller is harder to contest but easier to block.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
Neal: because different objectives are worth different amounts to each player, the scenario cannot be balanced if the objectives on one side of the board are more easily captured/contested than those on the other side.

Measuring from the centre is the only way to be certain it's fair.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
Zombocom: firstly, measuring from the edge of an objective doesn't automatically mean objectives of different sizes. I play with 40mm objectives, but providing all 6 are 40mm, there is no unfairness at all. Secondly, while objectives on the enemy's side may be more valuble for scoring points, you have to deny points to your enemy, which involves contesting objectives typically on your half. There's really no unfairness - and even if there were - it really doesn't make enough difference to matter one whit. The game is never that balanced that 1cm here or there in deployment would actually affect the outcome noticably in favour of one player or the other (although in a game it COULD affect the outcome, just as with where to measure transportation disembarkation from or how to resolve blast - I don't think the game is biased).

Anyway, my opinions:

- I'm against standard sizes for objectives (a maximum size - 60mm round at least - would be okay)
- I use 40mm round bases typically
- I measure to the edge of the base, even for blitz objectives. I don't like using the center point (much easier to make precise measurements to the edge of the base) and I don't like the measure-from-the-board-edge thing with the blitz. Measuring to the objective base is MUCH easier and far less likely to cause disagreements.
- I prefer to treat objectives as terrain pieces (so block LOS/movement as appropriate).





Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:57 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Quote: (zombocom @ 19 Jun. 2009, 17:59 )

Neal: because different objectives are worth different amounts to each player, the scenario cannot be balanced if the objectives on one side of the board are more easily captured/contested than those on the other side.

Measuring from the centre is the only way to be certain it's fair.

First, now that I've thought about it, I don't agree that the different objectives have substantially different value to opposing players.  You score and contest the same.  Defending your Blitz is similar in value to you as capturing it is to the enemy.  It's +/- 1 goal.  Same for DTF and T&H.

Second, I don't agree that a small difference in size equates to an appreciable difference in the ease of capturing or contesting an objective.  We're talking about no more than a 10% difference in objective radii at the maximum theoretical value.  In the vast majority of cases it's far less, e.g. 40mm square v 60mm round (the two most common objective sizes around here) measured from the edge is a difference of between 1.75mm and 1cm in capture range, about 1-5% difference in distance and about 5-6% difference in overall area.

Third, as I pointed out, contesting directly is not the only way to prevent objective capture.  Blocking is also valid and the ease of blocking is inversely proportional to direct contesting.  Even if you assume that the difference in size makes a substantial difference to capturing and contesting (which, again, I don't), blocking offsets it.

Fourth, 2 of the 5 GT goals have nothing to do with objectives, so the relative importance of the objective size is further reduced by that.  Sure, Blitz and T&H are common, but BTS is common as well.

So far, the ONLY example anyone has provided from a game was not caused by differences in edge v edge on different sized objectives, but on edge versus point measurement.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 12:11 pm
Posts: 167
just because its fun to read the replies to this thread, heres another thing, since you guys seem to like the small dynamics of it all.

Does is give a unfair advantage to either player if your objectives are longer in one dimension than another.

Eg  60 mm x 10 mm hence allowing you to lengthen or shorten  distance covered to and from certain directions of attack / defence. and i guess this is also dependent on wheather you measure to the centre of the edge.



*eagerly awaits the replies*


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (Tim_the_titan @ 19 Jun. 2009, 23:35 )

just because its fun to read the replies to this thread, heres another thing, since you guys seem to like the small dynamics of it all.

And wot about an "L"...   :vD

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:26 am
Posts: 424
Location: Germany
Quote: (Tim_the_titan @ 20 Jun. 2009, 00:35 )

just because its fun to read the replies to this thread, heres another thing, since you guys seem to like the small dynamics of it all.

Does is give a unfair advantage to either player if your objectives are longer in one dimension than another.

Eg  60 mm x 10 mm hence allowing you to lengthen or shorten  distance covered to and from certain directions of attack / defence. and i guess this is also dependent on wheather you measure to the centre of the edge.



*eagerly awaits the replies*

Hehe, good idea.  :vD
Unround objectives sound kinda lame, but might look cool. :)

_________________
"Your limbs are mighty. Let them smite the foes of our Emperor."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (redsimon @ 19 Jun. 2009, 23:41 )

Unround objectives sound kinda lame, but might look cool. :)

An "air strip" would be a cool non-round objective.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 12:11 pm
Posts: 167
Equalaterial triangle   (spelling is probably wrong though knowing my poor misguided education)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Giving objectives max sizes
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 188
Equilateral sounds like a good idea to solve the putting an objective on the board edge issue.

I don't think it's going to make that much difference to the mission balance. As lots of people have already said, the most important thing is to determine how it's measured in the 5 min warmup and to not deviate at the end of the game. Nothing worse then being told you lose because the other guy likes to measure from the center.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net