| Bashytubits | 24 Feb 2018 1:44 p.m. PST |
How fixed are you upon achieving your objective in a game?
|
| Cacique Caribe | 24 Feb 2018 1:54 p.m. PST |
That's called bait. :) Dan |
| VonTed | 24 Feb 2018 2:03 p.m. PST |
I tend to never play games with objectives…. always ends up being a slugfest :) |
| Leadjunky | 24 Feb 2018 2:54 p.m. PST |
Without them the game seems kind of pointless to me anyway. Line up and blast or chop each other to bits is fun sometimes but gets rather old. |
| USAFpilot | 24 Feb 2018 3:19 p.m. PST |
Every military force has an objective. Strategic objectives can be broken down to tactical objectives. An objective may be as simple as ‘defend this place' or ‘attrit the enemy force'. Or destroy that bridge to prevent the enemy from being reinforced by its reserves. etc etc. The possibilities are endless. |
| David Manley | 24 Feb 2018 3:41 p.m. PST |
Played an interesting Marlburian campaign a couple of years ago. Our opponents went hell for leather to crush our armies. We remembered the aim of the campaign was to old three objectives, bridges across a river. At the end of the campaign our armies had been hammered, but we held three bridges. Our win, enemy muchly embarrased at having lost sight of the aim |
 Herkybird  | 24 Feb 2018 4:33 p.m. PST |
I always thought 'Objectives' were people who complained about the game you were playing!!! |
| Oberlindes Sol LIC | 24 Feb 2018 6:08 p.m. PST |
In a slugfest, the objective is probably, "destroy the enemy force" or "hold the enemy force in this area for X turns." Objectives always matter in my games, whether I'm playing or running. They are really the only thing that matters; winning or losing is based on the objectives. |
| Mick the Metalsmith | 24 Feb 2018 7:03 p.m. PST |
I have seen tactical objectives abused often in scenario design, often ar odds with the strategic situation completely. Holding a particular town, at the end of the battle (Eylau anyone?) really did not matter when the objective strategically was to destro the opponents ability to campaign. Not every crossroads is a quatre bras,' some are Wavres. They usually are pretty arbitrarily chosen if just to make players fight in a particular sector. |
| attilathepun47 | 24 Feb 2018 9:20 p.m. PST |
The cat's objective was quite clear. |
| Vigilant | 25 Feb 2018 3:03 a.m. PST |
Best games have different and frequently conflicting objectives. My favourite was a Spanish Civil War game at Yarkshire Gamer's where each player had secret secondary objectives to gain victory points. With 3 on each side it caused some interesting moves. |
| ZULUPAUL | 25 Feb 2018 3:55 a.m. PST |
Often I'll have objectives for a game, it does help focus the game but there is a place in my gaming for a good "bash 'em" type game too. |
| Big Red | 25 Feb 2018 9:31 a.m. PST |
+1 Leadjunky. "Without them the game seems kind of pointless to me anyway. Line up and blast or chop each other to bits is fun sometimes but gets rather old." and I might add gets rather old quickly. |
 Legion 4 | 25 Feb 2018 9:57 a.m. PST |
In the real world objectives are very important, generally … In gaming yeah … for the most part, I always have a plan and OJBs in a game. At least at the start …  |
| steamingdave47 | 25 Feb 2018 11:34 a.m. PST |
Always seems rather artificial to me. In a real campaign you have one objective- the complete defeat of the enemy, so that they are no longer capable of offering organised resistance. Capturing a town or holding a crossing point on a river might be helpful in acieving the ultimate objective, but are just steps on the way. |
| Big Red | 26 Feb 2018 11:56 a.m. PST |
Context and objectives are at the heart of scenario design. Campaign games provide their own. |
shows how to make roads, using the formula of the late Ian Weekley.
has been spending time in paradise lately.
