Jump to content

What are the conditions for "holding" an objective?


Recommended Posts

I just finished a game where I exited my force off the map, apart from a tank crew that I kept back to hold an objective.

 

The game did not award me the objective however, despite no enemy troops being nearby (I checked after the battle).

 

Do tank crews have some special rule to not let them hold objectives, or is there a certain number of soldiers needed? I had 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have to admit that this situation seems kind of odd.  It should be relatively simple to test though so I might check it out some day just out of curiosity.  I do know that there have been frequent alterations to crews and victory conditions in an effort to prevent what many consider to be 'gamey' behavior so it is possible that crews can't hold objectives.  I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, but I don't know for certain if it is the case or not.

Edited by ASL Veteran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just occurred to me I had this happen to me once and it turned out the objective was not contiguous. I thought there were two separate objectives - there were to areas of green highlighting - but it was really one. So, what I thought happened was I owned on objective and the other one was contested but in actual fact I was out of luck.

Is that possible here? I do not recall any stock scenarios with such a setup.

Just searching for possibilities...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you mentioned, Ian, that's probably the case...it's most likely one Objective that was seperated into two parts  ( two parts in different areas of the Map ), and the Scenario Designer didn't seperate them as two Objectives ( intentionally or accidentally ).

 

Joe

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking in the editor you can see that the main action square of the 2 storey building is not highlighted as an objective. If your man was in that location he was not on the objective. Whether this is a deliberate design descision or a case of a missed tile only the designer GeorgeMC ?? can tell.

 

post-40653-0-09909200-1423589272.jpg

 

Anyways it serves you right for being gamey and using a tank crew to hold an objective  :P

 

P

post-40653-0-09909200-1423589272_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking in the editor you can see that the main action square of the 2 storey building is not highlighted as an objective. If your man was in that location he was not on the objective. Whether this is a deliberate design descision or a case of a missed tile only the designer GeorgeMC ?? can tell.

post-40653-0-09909200-1423589272.jpg

Anyways it serves you right for being gamey and using a tank crew to hold an objective :P

P

You nailed it - that's where my tank crew was. Pretty obvious design bug, but yes, i guess it does serve me right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess the proof should be in the pudding: If the enemy is unable to take back the place even though you have only a couple of crewmen there, then de facto you hold the objective.

 

I assume this is tongue in cheek. :) I think that it can be a real pain to attempt, within the time limits afforded by a scenario or QB, to try to do a house to house (or other LOS limiting terrain) search of a victory objective. Or perhaps some of the maps I've played on have had insanely large objective areas. One can win by playing hide and seek, which hardly seems realistic after a point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume this is tongue in cheek. :) I think that it can be a real pain to attempt, within the time limits afforded by a scenario or QB, to try to do a house to house (or other LOS limiting terrain) search of a victory objective. Or perhaps some of the maps I've played on have had insanely large objective areas. One can win by playing hide and seek, which hardly seems realistic after a point. 

 

This is why I really hate MOUT scenarios and refuse to play them. There never seems to be enough time or personnel to check every building to make sure that some enemy trooper is not hiding in a corner somewhere. If I'm gonna have to do that, then give me double the infantry.

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume this is tongue in cheek. :) I think that it can be a real pain to attempt, within the time limits afforded by a scenario or QB, to try to do a house to house (or other LOS limiting terrain) search of a victory objective. Or perhaps some of the maps I've played on have had insanely large objective areas. One can win by playing hide and seek, which hardly seems realistic after a point.

This is something that scenario designers are learning as time goes on. Huge VLs are features to be used with caution. Huge urban VLs even more so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something that scenario designers are learning as time goes on. Huge VLs are features to be used with caution. Huge urban VLs even more so.

 

The map in question actually does this quite well, apart from the missing bit of objective at the house. While you're tasked with securing river crossings in dense terrain, the actual victory locations are quite small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...