Objectives...how was it now again?

[Gurra]

Aren´t objecives 'force relative dependant' in CMBN? In CMx1, you could hold a flag by greater firepower and good positions, but now it seems it´s enough to position a squad or a team a few metres inside an objectiv area to deny it from the opponent.

Played Bois de Baguin yesterday and was surprised that my friend succeded in denying me my objective by having just a few men inside 'my area', pinned by and opposing a + platoon or so of my troops. Also, [POSSIBLE SPOILER] he got his points from having men inside his objective area some 30 meters from my force, since the two sides objectives were overlapping each other, I think.

Could someone clarify how this works in detail? I must confess I get a little disappointed if it is more effective to get the company cook into an objective as a last desperat effort, rather than setting up, say a couple of heavy machine guns with possible direct fire to the objective.

[George MC]

Not sure you are correct about CMX1 and holding positions. I lost a few flags to crews from KOd vehicles hiding in the undergrowth in CMX1 - buggers!

Re the occupy objectives in CMBN. Some of this is donw to very large occupy objectives. This means unless you clear the objective of all enemy forces it still counts as contested. This has provoked some debate with one school of thought saying you need to clear, others saying well I had my Tiger sitting on it so surely that holds it.

I think some of this can be down to the designer ensuring the size of the objectives (and scenario time) enables either the player to hold it easily or at least deny the enemy holding it; or give the player the time and assets to clear occupy objectives.

[WynnterGreen]

I just discovered the same thing with objectives, after playing my first PBEM, a meeting engagement with a town as the objective.

The ONLY German unit still on the field at the end was a immobilised P-IV.

It happened to be in the very last corner 'action spot' of the objective area and not actually 'in' the town at all. I had 60+ infantry holding 95+% of the objective.

The trackless and isolated P-IV ended up denying me the 'ground victory'.

I think the current mechanism for deciding objectives is left open to incredibly gamey mechanics where an opponent could sneak in a single man from a depleted unit to hide on objectives in order to deny ground victories?

Surely some other method of calculating 'control' of the objective is warranted?

When thinking about it later I came to the conclusion that the small town could (should) have been split into four or five terrain objectives, each one with a smaller victory points value. That way, in the instance I mentioned, I could have received four small objective 'check marks' and been denied the one with the P-IV on it.

[Pak40]

This has been brought up previously. If a single enemy soldier is still in the objective area, it can deny you the objective. So it's possible you might have a single cowering soldier trapped on the 3rd floor of a building that you've already swept through and he ends up ruining your day.

Also, don't forget that if it's an 'occupy' objective, you MUST have a at least one unit inside the objective area at the end of the battle. You can't just march your men through the objective and through the other side thinking everything is secure.

[Gurra]

The ONLY German unit still on the field at the end was a immobilised P-IV.

It happened to be in the very last corner 'action spot' of the objective area and not actually 'in' the town at all. I had 60+ infantry holding 95+% of the objective.

The trackless and isolated P-IV ended up denying me the 'ground victory'.

That must have caused you to grind your teeth down to very fine powder.

This is exactly what I mean. I guess I am on the side of those who favours an 'on top of the game perspective' where a probable continuation of the battle after its limit is reached, should be taken into perspective. Which it is when taking into account how victory points might be dealt out in relation to losses or inflicted losses. And it is also very true that it comes down to the scenario designer to make this work in a realistic or gamey way. But having it regulated that way also makes it uncertain and a fall trap for certain play styles; i.e hold back and contest the area with firepower (most realistic) and make the final push another day, or force some remnants of a squad into place because the game's mechanics sets the rules.

[hoolaman]

Not sure you are correct about CMX1 and holding positions. I lost a few flags to crews from KOd vehicles hiding in the undergrowth in CMX1 - buggers!

He is right, flags in CMx1 could be contested: [?] or held by either side. An objective in CMx1 was a point but must have projected some kind of zone around it which could be won or lost depending on the weight of forces nearby, not just a binary "kill every single dude".

If you lost a flag to an enemy crew, you must not have had it under sufficient control.

[Erwin]

Yeah, I think CM1 sorted this sort of thing out in a much more comprehensible manner where it was not hard to have sufficient power exerted on a flag so that the presence of one or two beat up enemy units was not sufficient to keep the VL neutral.

[YankeeDog]

I actually think CMx2's system is superior. If there is a fuzzy "contested" logic that decided who controls objective, there will always be a grey area -- in CMx1 there was always debate about exactly how many forces near a flag should be required to make it "contested". For example, is a single LMG team enough to "contest" the flag if the other side has a full platoon around the objective? What about a vehicle crew? A half-squad?

However, CMx2's system does require a different approach by scenario designers. IMHO, it is generally not a good idea to design scenarios with large area "hold" objectives in CMx2, unless an extensive sweep-and-clear operation is how you want the endgame of the scenario to play out. Rather, it is usually better to use multiple smaller objectives to represent a larger tactical terrain goal.

For example, if the attacker's objective is to seize and enemy-controlled town, and the designer simply "paints" the entire town as a 100pt. objective, then the attacker has to search every building in the town and make sure all enemy are clear to get the points. If the player misses even one enemy unit hiding somewhere, he gets 0 points for the objective.

However, if the town objective is instead represented by 4 smaller 25 point objectives centered around the important tactical features of the town (for example, the crossroads at the center of town, the heavy stone church & yard, a particularly large building, and the bridge across the stream), then the attacker has less area to search and "clear" the objectives, and also gets some points for clearing and holding some, but not all of the the objectives.

[Gurra]

However, CMx2's system does require a different approach by scenario designers. IMHO, it is generally not a good idea to design scenarios with large area "hold" objectives in CMx2, unless an extensive sweep-and-clear operation is how you want the endgame of the scenario to play out. Rather, it is usually better to use multiple smaller objectives to represent a larger tactical terrain goal.

Well, regarding the scenario me and my friend played, it´s objectives were designed very much like Yankeedog describes - which is good - but as it turned out, 3 out of 4 of these small objectives in the village was not known to me. That mislead my defense somewhat, and together with the above discussed issue, it resulted in a minor defeat for me even though I had inflicted some horrible losses on my opponent and still had fresh troops in waiting behind the objectives. It just felt a bit unfair that he thwarted my victory because of having 4 shellshocked blokes at the right place, given my overall successful defenses. With that said, I am well aware that the meat of this particular example is entirely due to design decisions and has nothing to do with how objectives are resolved in the game engine.

in CMx1 there was always debate about exactly how many forces near a flag should be required to make it "contested". For example, is a single LMG team enough to "contest" the flag if the other side has a full platoon around the objective? What about a vehicle crew? A half-squad?

Well, is it really that fuzzy when you think about it? The example you mention is perhaps a relevant one, because in that case it might be a bit uncertain who exerts the most influence depending on the terrain. But on the other hand, a full platoon should be able to flank and neutralize a single MG, don´t you think?

IMHO, it´s a balancing act between numbers and quality of troop and firepower. But then again, I suppose terrain could be key, thinking about Monte Cassino, or indeed Hill 112 outside Caen, where the Allies had to get troops onto the objective to negate the germans from it, regardless of bombardment.

[YankeeDog]

Well, regarding the scenario me and my friend played, it´s objectives were designed very much like Yankeedog describes - which is good - but as it turned out, 3 out of 4 of these small objectives in the village was not known to me... [cut]

Yes; this is another topic for discussion. "Hidden" objectives can be fun occasionally, but IMHO they have to be used very carefully -- it's very frustrating to the player if he loses points because he didn't know he had to have a unit *inside* the churchyard to get the points, and having an unit just on the other side of a stone wall, covering the enemy approach with MG first wasn't good enough, even if this was tactically a very good choice.

Well, is it really that fuzzy when you think about it? The example you mention is perhaps a relevant one, because in that case it might be a bit uncertain who exerts the most influence depending on the terrain. But on the other hand, a full platoon should be able to flank and neutralize a single MG, don´t you think?

Sure, it's fuzzy -- My point was not to discuss the relative weight of a platoon vs. an LMG team in "controlling" an objective per se, but rather to point out that no matter what you thing the standards should be, there's always going to be a grey area. If you think that a full platoon on an objective should get the points if the enemy has a LMG team on the objective, then what if it's only a half platoon? Or, going the other way, what if it's a full platoon vs. an LMG plus a 2-man scout team? Should factors like experience, morale, and remaining ammo matter? What if one side has a tank sitting on the VL, and the other side has a full infantry squad, but said squad is in a bad morale state and has no AT specials left? etc.

This is why I think it's just easier to say, "if you have at least one unit in the objective area, and the enemy has none, you win the points." Clear, unambiguous. But this more straightforward definition of objectives does require a some finesse on the part of scenario designers to create believable tactical goals.

It's also worth remembering that CMx2 has lots of other ways the scenario designer can award points that CMx1 didn't have -- touch objectives, preserve objectives, destroy objectives, casualty objectives (both own and enemy), etc. There are many ways to mix and match these to create all sorts of interesting goals.

[Gurra]

Sure, it's fuzzy -- My point was not to discuss the relative weight of a platoon vs. an LMG team in "controlling" an objective per se, but rather to point out that no matter what you thing the standards should be, there's always going to be a grey area.

Sure, I am not going to argue against that, but I wonder how the system worked in CMx1, where in fact some kind of force relativeness was used, thoughg not saying that whatever was used in CMx1 was great or better.

[slysniper]

He is right, flags in CMx1 could be contested: [?] or held by either side. An objective in CMx1 was a point but must have projected some kind of zone around it which could be won or lost depending on the weight of forces nearby, not just a binary "kill every single dude".

If you lost a flag to an enemy crew, you must not have had it under sufficient control.

Not true, the system in cmX1 generally worked, but not always. I had run tournaments and there was multible times that complaints were filed because a small force would somehow neutralize or even capture a flag with a large enemy force in the same area. There was plenty of theries as to why, but the old system did not always make sence, but I will say most of the time it did a good job.

[slysniper]

but as it turned out, 3 out of 4 of these small objectives in the village was not known to me. That mislead my defense somewhat, and together with the above discussed issue, it resulted in a minor defeat for me even though I had inflicted some horrible losses on my opponent and still had fresh troops in waiting behind the objectives. It just felt a bit unfair that he thwarted my victory because of having 4 shellshocked blokes at the right place, given my overall successful defenses.

As for this type of situation, there will never be a game system that will stop this type of problem in this type of game. You can make the perfect system, but scenarios are designed by humans and balence is not always adcheived or programmed correctly into the scenario. I just finished Carbide, Carbide as the allied player, did what was asked and the score will reflect a stalemate at best. The designer just recently tried to fix it to score better with a new updated version.

So what I am saying, at times you will never get the score deserved in playing scenarios. If you played well and you know it, then you and your friend should know what the score should really reflect.

Now as for tournaments and ladders and such, then at times it sucks, but only good designers can help with that problem.

[Gurra]

As for this type of situation, there will never be a game system that will stop this type of problem in this type of game.

I guess campaigns is the way to reward realistic behavior in the long run, i.e if a defense resulted in defeat but paid off in enemy casulties. But, sadly, no campaigns or operations in H2H

[A Canadian Cat]

I guess campaigns is the way to reward realistic behavior in the long run, i.e if a defense resulted in defeat but paid off in enemy casulties. But, sadly, no campaigns or operations in H2H

Yes, that would be brilliant. So many quick battles and even scenarios end up in a fight to the last man when in real life the battle would have been over sooner due to high casualties.