Help support TMP


"Multi-Objective Gaming" Topic


12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Game Design Message Board


589 hits since 23 Aug 2012
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Wartopia Inactive Member23 Aug 2012 7:17 a.m. PST

Many games use a single reference point for victory conditions. Usually it's objective markers or casualties (friendly or enemy). For example, DBx using casualties while FoW generally uses objective markers with casualties determining level of victory.

Do any games use multiple victory conditions of roughly equal weight?

For example, if you inflict more than half casualties on the enemy you score X points, suffer less than half casualties you score X points, and for each objective you control you score X points. The points might be weighted to encourage aggressive play.

Other objectives might be included to reward different troop types. For example, if you get a speedy unit into the enemy deployment area you might earn some points for recon work. Or if you maintain an area free of enemy incursion your defensive oriented unit might score points for holding ground from the start of the game.

The idea is to allow disparate armies to compete on roughly equal terms by allowing them to play to their strengths and to avoid the dreaded, and boring, "rush a bunch of units onto Hill 423 on the last turn".

Nathaniel23 Aug 2012 7:33 a.m. PST

I think I've seen rules over the years that take a bunch of things into consideration and then give results like "Marginal French Victory" or "Major German Victory."

It's definitley more popular to have multiple means of scoring in hex based consim board games than in miniature gaming.

MajorB23 Aug 2012 7:49 a.m. PST

Do any games use multiple victory conditions of roughly equal weight?

Dirtside II does.

Personal logo Martin Rapier Supporting Member of TMP23 Aug 2012 8:00 a.m. PST

Many of the Peter Pig rules (Square Bashing, AK47, PBI etc) have clever mechanisms for determining victory as a combination of taking things/killings and sometimes other stuff besides.

Square Bashing in particular has a very neat mechanism which couples relative attacker/defender strength with a VP handicap (so very strong attackers have to do proportionately better).

Any victory system which includes objectives will suffer from 'last turn rush' syndrome though, unless you make the game end indeterminate through some form of randomisation – cards, dice, progressive unit exhaustion or whatever.

As mentioned above, boardgames are good source of ideas for interesting and varied victory conditions.

Personal logo Tango 2 3 Supporting Member of TMP23 Aug 2012 8:37 a.m. PST

I hope the following is related to your question, Wartopia and are from my own scenarios.

1) Objective, but "victory" is determined from time to achieve objective, and losses. This is for when i run "tournaments" which are simply multiple players or teams playing the same scenario, usually with a choice of what type of force make up;

Winner is by lowest points (note the trophy now has three plaques)

2) Multiple victory conditions based on gaining a poker chip for each objective captured, surrendering poker chips to other side when a loss (squad, gun, AFV), and earning poker chips when the opposing side calls in reinforcements:

Poker chip colours and values

3) Multiple objectives, side is evaluated on the value the other side places on objectives. This example was for two games being played at the same time:

Evaluating performance based on the other side's objectives

--
Tim

Wartopia Inactive Member23 Aug 2012 10:30 a.m. PST

Yes Tim, that's what I'm talking about. A friend of mine, former infantry officer, did something like that for his Vietnam games. IIRC he called it "own objectives" as in each side had their own objectives which may or may not overlap with the enemy's.

The US side may be tasked with searching a village to uncover weapons caches and suspected VC while the VC side had their own ideas and might not mind giving up the weapons if it meant killing Americans or getting VC safely off the table. Made for more interesting gaming than "have a unit within 6" of that objective marker at the end of the game".

Ran The Cid23 Aug 2012 10:47 a.m. PST

It's rather common in tournament play to use missions with more than one objective. In the larger 40K events, using multiple objectives is almost a mandatory requirement to separate the hundreds of players.

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP23 Aug 2012 10:51 a.m. PST

I haven't ever played a rules set that didn't have multiple victory conditions/objectives, even different ones for each side, usually scored in points for a variety of objectives.

Some have even had individual objectives for each player, such as Whitehouse's colonial rules. What rules have only one objective for their scenarios?

ChargeSir23 Aug 2012 11:40 a.m. PST

Many of the Peter Pig rules (Square Bashing, AK47, PBI etc) have clever mechanisms for determining victory as a combination of taking things/killings and sometimes other stuff besides.

Including my favourite extra points if your name is Rob, I considered changing my name

OSchmidt23 Aug 2012 12:13 p.m. PST

Been doing this for years. Often run games where each commander has personal victory conditions (some of which are actually inimical to the side he is on (He is an absolute coward, he gains points for noe having bullets anywhere near him) etc.

I always use asymmetrical victory conditions.

Lottsa fun-- sometimes. Sometimes players are lost.

haywire Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2012 8:56 a.m. PST

Early 40k had objective cards that you could issue out per squad.

AT-43 had objectives that when you hold them you either got Resource Points to call in reinforcements or Victory Points if you are holding them at end of game.

Wartopia Inactive Member10 Sep 2012 5:25 a.m. PST

After playing some Battlefield 3 this idea is growning on me and I can see how it could make army list creation even more enjoyable.

BF3 is a multi-player video game in which you assume a class and fight in a battle along side other players. Each game has its own specific objectives which must be captured or destroyed but how players support those objectives depend on class. Engineers are good at killing tanks and vehicles. Recon designates targets and provides foreard spawn/parachute points and can snipe. Support provides ammo, mortar fire, and MG fire for suppression. And assault can carry smoke grenades, act as a medic, and has good all around weaponry…jack of all trades, master of none.

These classes in some ways provide their own "objectives". For example, Recon on its own can't kill a tank but can designate one for destruction by other players using guided missiles. Recon also "wins" or provides a huge boost for the team, especially when attacking, by providing spawn points closer to the action or behind enemy lines.

In miniature gaming terms multi-objectives can reward a force for taking a variety of troop types. More often than not tourney systems and scenario objectives faor one force compostion over another, at least for a given "mission/game type". But if you allow a player to score VP in different ways you might be able to reward greater variety in force design. For example, scoring points for penetrating deep onto the table quickly, holding objectives doggedly, and killing enemies while avoiding deaths, all in the same game, would reward very different troop types (fast troops in light vehicles, heavy infantry, and AFVs respectively).

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.