Homba

Good point Philistine. You have certainly identified a small chink in the armor of my proposal. The situation you describe above has an "odd" feeling. Admittedly a certain amount of abstraction is needed if you are going to accept that the sneaky attacker has obtained AND RETAINED the points for the VF after moving off it, all unknown to the defender (who still thinks the flag is his). First I'll say that no flag scheme can be perfect, BUT we've got to make a choice- between the current rule and a new, amended rule. As I believe the illustrations and examples in this thread have shown, my proposed rule gives us a realistic result in 90% of the situations in which it is applied, whereas the current rule gives us a silly, unrealistic result in 90% of the situations. (Look at Seahawk's example, and all the others). Now which rule do we want? 90% right, or 90% wrong? I think the choice is simple- amend the rule. Second, I'll say that I can give you a rational answer to your above situation. It is not the strongest argument I have made in this post, admittedly- but it is consistent with the theories and examples I have talked about. Also, and more importantly FriendlyFire's argument/example is addressed- we MUST let an attack pass through a VF and retain control of it when he moves on, or else we have an unrealistic situation of garrisoning useless (to the attacker) positions, and a consequent dilution of manpower for the final attack or destruction of the enemy, if one has the remaining resources to attempt this. (Sorry, I am about to get to my explanation.) FriendlyFire, I understand your example now, and all I can say is- yes, those VFs should be yours, and all you have to do to take AND HOLD them, under my rule, would be to pass a unit through them and move on. Granted, you DO have to pass a unit through. Just because you "surround" an unoccupied VF, under my rule, its still the defenders. I would first say that the attacker wont know if it's unoccupied until he actually moves in, and shouldnt get the credit himself. Maybe the defender retains the points due to the hindering and worrisome effect a supposed strong-point has on the attackers plans. That is good enough for me- because dispite a chink or two, I want an amended rule that is 90% accurate, rather than what we have now, which is 90% bogus (in an attack/defense sitution). So there is your answer, Philistine, best I can do. When those attackers sneak through, they LEARN that the position is harmless, and get all the attendant benefits of knowing that. For the attacker, who is just entering the territory, PERCEPTION plays a large role. And the defender is wholly deprived of the position, be it a radar site or depo that the staff was trying to evacuate, etc. It doesn't have to be a defended bunker to have value to the defender. And just because the defender still thinks they have control, doesn't mean they do in fact. For the defender, who knows the land, it is REALITY rather than perception which is important. I once read a story about a commander who had no barbed wire, but ordered his men to plant fence posts all along the front- the resultant delay and indecision caused to the enemy (who was too far off to suspect there was not wire between the posts) allowed reinforcements to reach the position before the enemy attacked. (Sorry, I don't remember the detail, when, where, and who, etc.) So I thank Andrew Hedges for supporting the obvious choice: Let's choose the lesser of the two evils here! 90% right vs. 90% wrong. FriendlyFire, I think aka_tom_w made the correct response to your first concern regarding the flags. I would add that with a new flag patch, BTS could just tell us what the distance is, so that you could draw a LOS from your men to the flag and KNOW you were close enough to have the flag UNLESS an enemy was hidden nearby (in which case the flag would be contested, but you wouldn't know it, as is the case now.) I have stated this very clearly earlier, but I will say it again. If the defender counter-attacks the VF and takes it back, they are again free to move off and defend it from whereever they think they can best defend it- if that is not ON the VF, then that is the commanders choice. This is consistent with the realistic principles around which the whole idea for the patch is based. My off-the-cuff answer is no, I dont think anything needs to be adjusted. Maybe someone disagrees with this, but I don't think the impact is that great- you get a lot of added realism with little impact on game balance. No new flag types are needed. I have already covered this on page 2 of this thread. I think we should continue to discuss the attack/defend flags, but I also think we should now open up discussion on flags in meetings. The goal of course is to present a unified flag theory for a proposed patch. This patch could be applied to CM1, CM2, etc, all at the same time. So I'm not worried that the patching days for CM1 are done- this flag issue spans the whole game engine, whereever you set the fighting. So please be sure to note which situation you are discussing- att/def or meeting. Homba (edited for bold/quotes) [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-16-2001).]

Tournamenthouse's 9 round, swiss-system CM Winter 2001 Tourney concluded last night, with Swamp (7W-1L-0D) facing off against Atlas (6W-2L-0D) for the championship. Swamp came away with the win to conclude the first of our seasonal CM tourneys. T-House sends out a great "thanks!" to all players who participated. Getting this tourney under our belt has really helped identify problems with the format that can easily be fixed to provide a smoother and more enjoyable future tourneys. Be looking for CM Summer 2001 Tourney sign-up coming soon at T-House. We will be changing over to 1 game per week (instead of two), with deadline start time on Saturday night rather than Sunday night. Additional fixes will also be implemented! A big congrats to von_Schlaburg, GravesRegistration, Labapple and Subvet who all finished extremely well. We had 30 participants and we can handle 300 with our site's one-of-a-kind (as far as I know!)automated swiss-system tourney coding, so we hope you ALL will join us for Summer 2001! In the meantime we are upgrading the graphics and features in our Chat/Play area to something similar to the MSN Gaming Zone. We also have an email opponent locator with game log. Everything you need. Come join the ranks! Homba http://www.tournamenthouse.com/CM/

Colonel, I hope this quote is an adequate condensed version of the first part of your latest post: Yes, as the defender, you should retain control over the flag until the attack takes it from you. How you choose, from where you choose, and whether or not you choose to defend any given objective flag is up to you. To explain why this is realistic and should be the rule, lets first answer this question: What is the nature of an objective flag in a CM attack/defense scenario (either QB or created scenario)? Colonel, I agree with you. The flag represents and/or identifies an area/item of great importance and benefit to the defender’s strategic and tactical aims both in the area of the battle map, and in the larger war, such as an ammo/fuel/supply dump, a command post, radar/radio station, defensive terrain (hill, town, fortification, bridge, etc), supply routes, roads, crossroads, rail junctions, airfields, politically important targets, factories, field repair shops and on and on... The worth of these items is represented by marking/representing them with the 300 point or 100 pt flag (or two or more flags for a relatively more important objective). The attacker is attacking the area in order to deprive the defender of the important benefits of these areas/items/objectives- with the goal of destroying the defender’s ability to effectively resist both at the local battlefield, and in the larger context of the war. (The proposed rule change is compatible with both views of a CM battle.) For this reason the attacker aims to take these points in some way during the attack (though frontal assault is not always best- the attacking commander gets to decide). The defender also has choices to make- do I leave one flag unguarded to protect the other 3 more heavily? How do I balance defense of the flags with attrition of the attackers if the flags do not lay on good defensive ground? Should I suck in the attacker, give up the flag, then hit his flanks? etc... The bottom line is: if by battles end, the attacker has deprived the defender of the flag and its attendant benefits to the defender’s war effort, then the attack gets the points. If re-captured in a counter-attack, or if the attacker doesn’t take the flags in time, the defender retains the points. If contested at the end, no one gets the points. (I agree that the oft-proposed variable turn limit is a great idea and discourages the gamey end-game flag rush.) How and where you choose to defend (or not defend) the flags is your choice, but until overrun IN FACT by the attacker, you retain the benefits (the points) of these flags which began the game within your defensive set-up zone, whether in front, middle or back. of that zone. First- I don’t remember another “squad” at the bridge. I saw the movie two nights ago, and I remember everyone defending in the town, and retreating to the bridge at the end. There may have been a man or two there already but I think you mis-characterize the event. Second- Whether or not you or I am right, it doesn’t matter- the allies were defending and the bridge was in their defensive zone. Until the Germans reached it and took it, the allies retained the benefit of its use, WHETHER OR NOT “A SQUAD” WAS “GUARDING” IT WHILE THEIR COMRADES DIED IN THE TOWN. Still not satisfied? Well, what if no allies were at the bridge and those allied Shermans had rolled up earlier, could they have crossed? Yep... Why? because the Germans hadnt taken the bridge yet? Yep... Is this realistic? Ummm... real as life! You see how your example reinforces my position and undermines yours... Your whole 20 mile march rant is way off base. We are talking about periods of 10-15 minutes/turns in a CM game. A twenty mile march is not even relevant. You have to make your arguments applicable to the time-frame in which a CM game takes place. The flag rule has to be realistic in the context of battle’s time limit. So don’t talk to me about taking a village and marching a day away and then wondering if the village is still yours. We aren’t dealing with that amount of time, or that large of an area of terrain. Traitor to what? How often in either a designed scenario or a attack/defend QB have you seen a flag RIGHT ON THE FRONT LINE? I would venture to say that *most* are not. The point of these attacking games seems to be to fight through some amount of defended territory in order to reach the objectives. And I asked you nicely not to patronize me with the CC crap. Was CM made to mirror real war? of course! Was CC? of course! Does CM do a better job in many many respects? Of course. Colonel’s next argument is a response to my following quote from earlier in which I wrote: Colonel responds as follows: Let me elaborate. First, you are treating the MG nest incident as a meeting engagement, because you say “it is in neutral territory.” We are limiting the discussion to attack/defend flags. So lets just assume this is an attack/defend situation (which indeed fit the actual event) and go on- I doubt it changes your argument much. YOU ARE THE ATTCKER. You don’t need to squat in an MG nest! You cleared it- you deprived the enemy of its value, and therefore of the points. You have gained the points due to your success in this mission to take the MG nest. Now- in the scant minutes or hour that remains in the battle, under my proposed rule, you have to make the same real-life decisions the commander in the field makes: are their some germans over in those trees that might try to re-take this gun-pit and regain its benefits? Should I therefore garrison the pit? Should I leave the pit behind and hope that the enemy has no plans to re-take it? If I garrison the pit I may not be able to defeat that squad of the enemy hiding in the house over that hill, but I have to take it also, as it is the enemy command post... Being in command is what makes the game fun. Having realistic decisions to make adds to the fun (if you like realism!) As the flag rule now stands, you can’t make these decisions. You are FORCED to leave men in the pit to get credit for depriving the enemy of the use of the pit- when in fact, the enemy isn’t going to be able to counter attack anyway. If they do manage it, then the regain the use and benefit of the gun-pit, and get the points back that you earlier took from them. Which rule is better? Better= More Realistic! My rule is better because it reflects life more accurately. My god! I asked you not to patronize me. I think I’ll let the community be the judge of who’s view is more realistic. If the public are all clones of you however, I will be out of luck- not wrong, but out of luck. Look, what you are doing is setting up “a straw man”- ME, as a CC goon, who doesnt know what the hell im talking about, and then saying that because I am a CC goon as you say, I must “not understand,” I must be an idiot who doesn’t know enough to blindly defend the CM status quo. This is one of the classic fallacies of the art of argument- the “straw man.” All it does is show that you feel your arguments by themselves arent good enough, so you essentially attack my character to make up for it. And this from a man who was instrumental in the change which allowed infantry to run on their own from a building that was about to destroyed. So please, stay on target (the issue, not me). I would be making the same argument if I had never played a day of CC in my life!!! (No hard feelings bud, just a friendly war of words- touche’! But I do think you’re wrong of course.) FriendlyFire: No, we don’t need new flag types with my proposed rule- I don’t know why you are trying to make things more complicated than they are. BTS models the flags perfectly NOW in the respect you are talking about. No beacon, etc. Here’s how it works now: I have a flag that starts in my defensive zone. If I don’t put any men near it, it doenst belong to me (it’s this I want to change.) If the enemy creeps up unseen and takes the flag, all I see is a question mark- as the rules stand now. If the rules were modified as I suggest, I would possess the flag at the beginning, even tho I chose not to guard it. If the enemy crept up unseen and took it, the flag obviously wouldn’t change to a question mark, I would continue to see it as my flag. Only if I got confirmation visually that there were enemies there, would I see the flag change. If the enemies snuck well away before I spotted them, I would still think the flag was mine, but of course my opponent would see the truth- the flag is his- having overrun it secretly and deprived me of its strategic value. Fog and darkness would only make it harder to spot the enemy. As far as I know this simple illustration would suffice to explain in the book. I find it funny that you worry about explaining it to newbies when even we people here discussing it took a while to get ourselves straight on how flags work RIGHT NOW. It is going to take newbies a while to learn anything in this game. That is not an excuse for not making the flags more realistic. ... Your example is very unclear to me, especially the last two sentences, and I don’t think you understand where I’m coming from, though I have been as clear as I know how to be. PrivatJoe: Well, you talk about the Battle of the Bulge, weeks, etc... as above, I am only talking about the context of a few minutes time- one CM battle. I sympathize with your example of the attacking guns covering the crossroads (assuming they could see them - I put a ridge in the way of mine) but if they could “control” the intersection from that range (which they could in many respects), then we’d have to re-write the whole code. Your guns would raise the same question with how flags are treated now, and though it’s a valid point, it isn’t relevant to my argument that we can give flags a much more realistic treatment by just changing a few lines of code (I hope it’s that easy!). Knaust- I promise to stop fighting.. uh.. writing and get back to our game! (Knaust’s increasingly dramatic attack against my stalwart defenders with every flag at issue is what inspired this thread!) Homba P.S. I too am sorry for any sarcasm I let slip- it doesn’t strengthen an argument and I try to avoid it, but sometimes can’t help it. I think it will pass among all you gentlemen who seem to give as good as you get. (edited for bold stuff) (edited to remove the outrageous quote by me: "When you are right you are a majority of one." Im not right unless the community agrees, and it doesnt matter unless BTS makes a patch!) [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-15-2001).] [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-15-2001).]

Right. You agree that, as my example proves, the best place to defend a VL flag is not (always) ON THE FLAG. I'm not sure I understand what abstractions you're talking about. Unless it is the imaginary adjacent battles whos imaginary attackers rout the imaginary defenders so thoroughly, quickly and consistently, that they are always a threat to come over onto your map and take your VL (which they never do in the game, and no one EVER plays as if there is a threat that they will). I dismissed this argument a long way above in the thread. I can have an abstract view of my battle being a slice of a larger one (or not), and I still vastly prefer the flag rule change im suggesting as being the much more realistic than the current rule (and I am still limiting my argument to defense/attack situations, as I requested above). I dont think there's anything abstract about, for example, a vital crossroads being the objective of an attack, as in my example. No abstraction there. Real as life. So I'd like to know specifically what you mean by appreciating abstraction with regard to the flags, and why this abstraction justifies the current treatment of flags in attack/defend scenarios? Maximus: You must be one of those people who always ask for a "last man standing" game! Who needs objectives? Lets rumble! Do you lose a lot when wise people sit back with an equal force in a meeting and let you drive into their guns? Your 100-0 example confirms what Graaf Spee posted on how the scoring works- so I'm not sure why you keep trumpeting your test in the same breath as you criticizing his (which I think is obviously accurate and well tested). And I won't leave your SPR example without commenting. I will assume for the sake of argument that the MG nest is a 100pt objective. You say that after destroying the nest, the attackers move on without manning the nest- they don't need to man it. I'm glad you're coming around to my point of view. If my flag rule change suggestion gets implemented, you will get the 100pts for that MG nest at the end of the game even though you left no units on it. ONLY IF enemy forces IN FACT re-occupy the MG pit would they get the points for the flag. And the above is how I would handle the re-capture by the once-ousted defender of flags in an attack/defense situation. This is the logical next step in the discussion of the attack/defend flag rules: what happens once the flag is overrun by the attacker, and the defender attempts to re-capture it? I say it should be handled as stated in the MG pit example above. The attack can move on and retain possession of the flag without leaving anyone on it, and unless the enemy physically re-captures it, the attacker gets the points for it in the end. In essence, the attacker, having taken the Flag, now becomes the defender of that vital objective, and is free to defend it however he sees fit- be it throwing caution to the wind and charging the shaken enemy remnants, or finding a safer location to defend the flag against any attempt by the original defender to re-capture it. What does everyone think about the above "re-capture sub-rule" in the context of the attack/defend flag modification argument? (I can think of one palatable alternative.) Thank you Seahawk for you lucid supporting statements. I sense that a few people are starting to change their minds. At least we are having some constructive discussion. Homba (edited for quote designation problems) [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-15-2001).]

Let me first back up. Let's limit the discussion *only* to how flags should be handle in attack/defense situations: when the flags start the game in the defender's DZ. After we has through that, we can deal with meetings- which is a more complex topic and may or may not require different handling. FriendlyFire: you are stuck on the "front-line" thing- which was merely an illustration on my part, not the heart of the flag amendment I want enacted. Your quote: As I and others have already stated in this thread, we dont need an algorithim to determine where the front line is in order to make this amendment work. (My proposed amendment: "A flag starting the game in my DZ when i am defending should remain mine regardless of whether or not I have a squad occupying it- unless and until taken by the attacker.) If the attacker fights through to the flag and wins it in the allowed time, he gets the flag points. If he doesn't make it to the flag, I have defended it successfully REGARDLESS OF WHERE MY DEFENSE WAS BASED, and I therefore get the points. We dont need to define the front line to enact this amendment. The only question is: did the attacker take the objective? If not, the defender gets the points for a succesful defense of it. I hope that answers your questions 1, 2 & 3. Colonel: you (and everyone else) totally fail to address my "crossroads flag/ridgeline defense" example above! You don't address it because you can't argue with the logic. The heart of my argument is: it doesnt matter where i base my defense, as long as the objective is defended successfully. Lets look at a few of Colonel's quotes: I view the game the same as you do! Yes the positions will be guarded/defended, just like in real life. Where we part ways is HOW this defense is conducted! Am I look one level deeper into the realism that we're striving for? The best place to defend an objective is NOT ALWAYS AT THE OBJECTIVE. You fail to address my "ridgeline defense/ crossroads objective" example above. Do you think it is realistic, Colonel, for my men to lay in the ditches at the crossroads while the enemy tanks take the ridge and blast me to hell with HE? Hell no! You set up your defense at the ridge, on the reverse slope, so the enemy infantry has to try to root you out of your holes without support. If the tanks top the ridge, you hit them with schrecks. Why are you doing this?? TO GUARD THE VITAL CROSSROADS. I don't care if the crossroads is a mile behind my defensive line- if I stop the enemy from taking it, I have successfully defended and should get the points! This is as real as it gets! Men in the ditch at the crossroads is as GAMEY as it gets. Now i am weary of being patronized by those telling me I need to "unlearn" my old ways, etc etc etc... Address my points if you want to argue with me. I hold every wargame I play up to the light of reality and try to determine what works and what doesnt. If a simple fix can be made to increase realism, then by all means I am going to suggest it. I have already stated that the CM flags are superior to the CC flags because of the elimination of "the beacon effect." So, MarkIV, please read what I have previously written before instructing me (if that was your intent). CM is superior to CC in a great many ways, except perhaps for the "atmosphere" of the 1-1 infantry representation. But don't let me get off topic. If you will limit your responses to the topic of flags in attack/defense situations as I outlined above (and to which my whole post was directed) then we will make some progress. I want someone to refute on the basis of realism my 'crossroads objective/ridgeline defense' example for starters. The story about the troops moving through the town above is more apt to a meeting engagement (nor does it address my ridgeline example), and I suggest we reserve that discussion for after we sort out the defense/attack flags. Homba (edited for grammar) [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-14-2001).]

Thank you, Swede, this is my point exactly. Sticking to an attack/defend situation for now, if the flags are in my DZ, it is my job as the defender to prevent the attacking side from seizing/overrunning these objectives, within the time allowed for the battle. If I succeed, I should get the points- regardless of whether I have men there. Take this simple example. I am defending a crossroads (upon which sits the flag), which lies in an open field. 200m to the west of the crossroads/flag is a belt of woods on a ridge. The crossroads, and ridgeline are all in my initial DZ. My opponent is attacking from west of that ridgeline, and must cross the ridge to secure the crossroads. My opponent is going to attack with infantry and heavy support. I have mainly infantry, and dig my foxholes on the reverse slope of the ridge, in the woods- sheltered from the enemy support- the best defensive location. (Note I do not dig a foxhole on the crossroads itself! My nearest troops are 200m away on the ridge!) The battle unfolds, and my plan works. I take heavy losses, but stop the enemy- they cannot cross the ridge and fail to capture the vital crossroads. I argue that I should get the points for the flag, having successfully defended the objective of the attacker's assault. What difference does it make if I have some lowly squad remnant down there at the crossroads flag or not!? No difference at all! It is silly, unrealistic, and yes, GAMEY, for me to have to send a squad down to the flag to get credit for it. I think this is something that can be easily fixed, and a great fix it would be! As for the “kill em all and get the flags afterwards” crowd, this is again a cop-out answer. That's great if you rout your opponent off the field- this will be rare against a well-led defense. Taking objectives (flags) wins wars. To win a war you have to defeat your enemy’s ability to fight effectively. You do this by taking objectives which inhibit his ability to supply and move his forces. You can quote Patton all you want- people who are playing a winning hand can talk crap. Germany was already in collapse when he was driving around in 1944, the fact that they could resist so well is a testament to the martial skill of their soldiers, but they could not hope to prevail. I will quote a (IMHO) more respectable authority, Sun Tzu, who said- “winning 100 battles does not make a general great: winning without fighting- that is what makes a general great.” In war, cannot kill every one of your opponent’s soldiers. You have to take away their ability to fight you. You do this by taking important “objectives”-- and you should attempt to do this as efficiently as possible. The enemy, if well led, will try at all costs to prevent you from taking them. Objectives are a VITAL part of CM, and its realism, and they should be handled correctly for the good of the game- and therefore, I propose my changes.

Holien, thanks for that great post-link. Just the info I needed, and it confirms the way I hoped flags were handled. Maximus, I am afraid this contradicts your statement that flags are not important/not an issue in CM. (Thankfully so, for the sake of the game, IMHO). Apparently the flags HAVE been given the weight and importance of the objectives they purport to represent. I am posting the most important text below, but the whole thread is valuable reading on this topic. Quote from Graaf Spee: Ah... a resupply of ammo to shoot at you and Pak40 with, Maximus... INCOMING!!! Good lord, are my empty FOs all about to head to the back or what!? Can I actually retreat them off the map!? And Holien, between my 5 pbem games and organizing the tourneys at Tournamenthouse.com, i am strapped for time, but I will remember your offer and look forward to crossing swords eventually! (Edited for spelling and message to Holien) Homba [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-14-2001).]

And the resistance thickens... I really thought more people would be agreeing with me. I appreciate both of your comments, though I still disagree- but the question of how the flags are actually scored is raised- and I would like more info on this- and on how the game itself is scored at the end. Has anyone come out and actually given us the formula on how the game is scored? In scenario creation, the flags are described as 100pt (small) and 300pt (large) flags. Can anyone help with the scoring info? As for your posts, I will try to get a reply together. Homba

Pak40, I consider the CM battlefield to essentially BE the front line (though on big enough maps, there are certainly "rear areas"). Whether the lines are well defined, or jumbled is determined by the actions of the players in the game, and where they setup/move their units. Last time I checked, this can be done in the game as well. I do the above in my games. I make it a point to test my enemy's flanks and envelope them if possible. It wreaks havock and hurts the enemy commander's morale- he doesn't know where to turn his tanks. I can also capture rear area flags that my opponent has left unguarded or lightly held. Note that "the enemy" in the above passage defined as follows, and the above statement is premised on the following assumption: Is that so!? How many times has this happened to you in a CM game? Units from "another adjacent battle" breaking through into your battle? Really? This is pure fantasy, and therefore not a valid argument. NEVER in a game of CM has a flag been captured by a unit *from another battle* breaking into a back area and taking a flag. Units from THIS battle- yes, from ANOTHER battle- no. I will think of the front lines exactly how they appear in the game, when I play it. The last few quotes of Pak40's make clear how he understands, or imagines the game. According to Pak40, it is a slice of a larger battle, with the units in adjacent battles able to play an active role in your battle, and thus influencing things like the flag rules (that I am attempting to get changed to comply with my first post in this thread.) Let me ask you a question Pak: When was the last time you left a platoon or a tank out on your flank to guard against this potential attack from the imaginary adjacent map? I venture to say NEVER. Here is how I think of a CM battle. Yes, it can be a slice of a larger battle (or it can stand on its own- which is enough for me!). If part of a larger, then the forces involved on MY map all have objectives on MY map. Same holds true for the imaginary "adjacent maps" - within the time constraints of a CM game, none of those forces on adjacent maps are going to have time to seize their objectives in detail, and come to the aid of forces on MY map. Why is my idea of a CM game "better" than Pak40's? Lets not use "better" (too subjective) - let's use "more practical, workable, and accurate." Why? Simply because my view is CONSISTENT with the way a player plays in the game (assuming he plays to win!). Pak may keep his view, but he won't leave his forces on the map edge to guard against potential off-board attackers. (If off-board attackers were possible, you'd have to guard against them- but they arent, and you dont!) Pak40 may keep his view, his abstraction of a CM game, but guess what? He and anyone else like him PLAYS according to the principles of MY idea of a CM game. For that reason alone, his arguments counter to my flag proposition (which he bases on his "abstraction" of a CM game) are meritless. I stand by my previous statement: If my opponent cannot take the objective flag(which started the game in my DZ) within the time allowed by the mission, then I have successfully defended that objective, and I should get credit for the flag (whether or not I have a scared 2 man vehicle crew on it at the end). I have yet to hear a valid argument (grounded in reality) as to why this should not be changed. Changed in order to add realism and thereby make the game more fun. Homba

Sorry guys, I did some testing before I made my first post, and realized that vehicle crew CAN hold flags. I believe it is only the oddly pistoless arty spotters who can't hold a flag. I edited out a section of my post regarding vehicle crews, and forgot to edit the top bit (it was 2am). But that wasn't really my main gripe, as a few of you have picked up on. FriendlyFire & aka_tom_w: Not good enough! Two issues- (1) should flags behind your lines have to be manned? .. and (2) what about that sneaky sniper? (1) The point is NOT that "you can send SOMEBODY back there and its not that big of an issue"-- that is a cop-out answer. It is an issue for me RIGHT NOW in a pbem game I have going. It is going to be very down-to-the-wire in the final turns, with nearly every flag at issue, and I need every armed man at the point of contact, not manning a rear-area flag that I know my opp won't reach in time. I am forced to send armed men crawling back to the rear, just so I can secure the points for that flag- which may be the difference between winning and losing. (2) What if a sniper had infiltrated my lines and was sitting on the flag? This is a better argument, but still fails. Let's say the sniper does secretly take the flag, and I have no-one manning it. I wouldnt know that the sniper was there, and under my proposed modifications (combined with the current code which eliminates the "HELLO HERE I AM" flag of Close Combat fame), I would still see the flag as belonging to me, but I wouldnt get the points for it at the end- my opponent would see the flag as belonging to him, and would get the points. Great, fine, I totally agree with this. Here is the problem- just because I don't know FOR SURE that a sniper hasn't infiltrated secretly to take my flag, doesn't mean that I shouldn't get the points for the flag AT THE END, IF my defensive line was not breached, or if the breach was contained. YES, I don't know FOR SURE if I still control the flag, but, in reality, if I still do (if it is still behind my perimeter, in my set-up zone, and my opponents attach has not carried that objective) THEN i have done my job, defended the objective for the required time, and I should get the points. jkMrkIII: If it worked like you suggest it does, this would be perfect. I don't know for a fact if you or jgdpzr is correct, but I assume jgdpzr knows, or he wouldnt contradict you. Based on the above, my complaint still stands. It is silly to say that I dont get credit for the flags within my defensive perimeter at game's end. I should not have to send men back to picnic there. If my opp hasn't taken the flag, I have defended the objective, and should get credit. A meeting is no different. Homba

My complaint about objective flags: You MUST have a squad or team on or near a Flag (and spotters/vehicle crew won't do), or else the Flag changes back to "neutral" '?' ... This state of affairs is most ridiculous when I am defending a section of land in a defensive battle. The flags are inside my initial deployment zone (DZ) and also inside my defensive perimeter. But I dont get credit for possession of these flags if I dont have a squad/team ON the Flag. This is not realistic, because after stopping the attacker at my defensive line, I can stroll back and picnic on the flags- which, having started the battle inside my deployment zone, were safely in my possession inside my defensive perimeter the entire time. This should really be fixed. For defensive battles, the flags in the defender's DZ should start the game as the defender's color, and remain that way until actually controlled/occupied by the attacker- regardless of whether or not the defender has men on the flag. For a "meeting engagement," obviously the flags start neutral if they are in the neutral zone. In a meeting, I was at first able to rationalize the flag changing back to neutral if I left the flag, my assumption being that I actually have to occupy these objectives "for some strategic reason know only to HQ." If I move in, and then leave, I have not accomplished the mission, and the flag goes back to neutral. I can no longer rationalize this. It is no better in meetings than it is in defenses. For example- what if you overrun the objetives and establish a defensive line in more favorable positions 100m beyond the flags. They are now within your defensive perimeter. You should not be denied the benefit of these flags simply because you aren't willing to leave teams behind to sit on them- ridiculous when the objectives (flags) are safely within your perimeter, meeting or not. BTS got one thing right with the flags- they dont act as an "I'm HERE" signal, they way they do in Close Combat. If my opponent doesnt know my men are hiding on it, or have just moved in, all my opponent sees is a neutral flag. But please fix the problem I am addressing above. I wonder how other people feel about this? Homba

password test AH it works... (please delete this post- I fail to see why I cant delete my own post.) [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-13-2001).]

Does anyone know if there was an engagement protocol established for the various tank armies of WWII? For example, I can imagine that if a line abreast of 4 panthers moving forward across a field suddenly encountered a line abreast of 4 T-34s emerging from an orchard to their direct front, that, assuming all German crews spotted all 4 enemy tanks simultaneously that German crews would have been trained to each engage its opposite target, rather than firing at a random target. Granted, this is a very simple example, and contact and engagement rarely occurs on the battlefield in such a neat package. However, the point remains that some sort of engagement protocol was probably in place to discourage the wasteful redundant targeting of a single tank when possible (assuming redundant targeting was not DESIRABLE, as when a few tanks with superior armor relative to your guns were encountered). This protocol would at least help to somewhat (though admittedly not fully) rationalize CM's TARGET command. At least, it is a good enough explanation for me. Surely someone here can tell us about engagement protocols in the allied and german tank armies in WWII. Homba [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 02-07-2001).]

27 signed up as of Sunday 3:30pm central time. Sign-up closes Wednesday at midnight, so don't delay. Homba

To all CM enthusiasts: Tournamenthouse.com has opened its Winter 2001 CM Tourney for registration. The registration period will run from today (Saturday, January 27) until Wednesday, January 31st at midnight, when registration will close. Entry is free, and you do not have to be a T-House member to join (although we encourage you to join our popular CM ranking system, and play at our always active CM chat/play area). T-House CM Winter 2001 Tourney pages: http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/2001/ T-House CM main page: http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/ T-House CM Chat/Play area: http://tournamenthouse.com/CMChat.htm (allow a few seconds to load chat client) --------------- WARNING TO EUROPEAN/ASIAN/AUSTRAILIAN PLAYERS: Please read the rules carefully and realize that if you register for this tourney, the deadline times are going to be difficult for you. We will soon be hosting an EASTERN HEMISPHERE tourney that will be suited to your time zones. -------------- The format for the tourney will be a nine (9) round hybrid Swiss System, with a 10th round to resolve any ties for 1st place if the first tie-breaker (previous head-to-head result) does not resolve the tie. As many of you know, the Swiss System means no elimination- you will have the opportunity to play in all nine rounds. After a random pairing in round 1, players with like records will play in future rounds. Please view the CM Winter 2001 site for the full Introduction and Official Rules. http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/2001/ Each round will consist of one Quick Battle (“QB”) fought between the opponents. The parameters of the QB for each round will be posted at the QB area on the tourney site. The player higher up on the pairings list hosts the game, and the player lower down on the list picks side. Each player will have one opportunity to decline the map. The QB will work well in this tournament format. Though non-QB tourneys are possible in the future, Winter 2001 will be a QB tourney. The scheduling mechanisms employed in this tournament will ensure the prompt completion of each round. After registration concludes at midnight of Wednesday, Jan. 31st, pairings for Round 1 will be posted. Pairings will always be promptly posted following the completion of each round. Two rounds per week will be played, with a deadline on Sunday/Wednesday night at 7:00 pm Pacific Time. You are to contact your opponent by email after pairings go up for the round and arrange to play your game. If you cannot arrange to play before the deadline, you MUST play at 7:00 pm Pacific Time on the deadline night (either Sunday or Wednesday). You must come to the TournamentHouse CM chat area and meet your opponent for your game. Between 6:45 pm Pacific Time and 7:15 pm Pacific Time, you must sign in on the Tourney Forum (which will log the time you signed in), in order to prove your presence in the event your opponent does not show up. This will assure your automatic win if your opponent fails to appear. Please see the Official Rules for a detailed description of the above procedure. T-House CM Winter 2001 Tourney Schedule: Registration Begins: Saturday, Jan. 27 -Registration is Closed: Wednesday Jan, 31 at midnight Round 1: Begins Thursday Feb. 1; Deadline Sunday Feb. 4, 7pm pacific time Round 2: Begins Monday, Feb. 5; Deadline Wednesday, Feb. 7, 7pm pacific time Round 3: Begins Thursday, Feb. 8; Deadline Sunday Feb. 11, 7pm pacific time ***Round 4: Begins Monday, Feb. 12; ***Deadline Thursday, Feb. 15, 7 pm pacific time (we will not play on Wednesday night, which is Valentines Day) Rounds 5 through 9, and 10 if necessary, will follow the same pattern, with deadlines on Wed. or Sun. at 7pm pacific time. See the tourney site for all dates. ---------- Come check out the tourney page and register today. T-House hopes you'll join this great tourney, and play your CM with us, meeting your opponents at our busy CM chat area. T-HOUSE HAS EXPERIENCE RUNNING TOURNEYS. YOU CAN COUNT ON ONE THING- THIS TOURNEY WILL BE DONE RIGHT, AND RUN PROFESSIONALLY. WE HAVE ALREADY SMOOTHED THE WRINKLES FROM THIS FORMAT IN PREVIOUS TOURNEYS. NOTHING IS LEFT TO CHANCE. COME JOIN IN A GREAT CM TOURNEY. Please spread the word to your corner of the CM world. Sincerely, Homba