Cpl Steiner Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Just saw this in a QB I am playing. Do I have to occupy just the green rectangle outline or do units inside the rectangle count for points? It seems odd that you would not get points for occupying the inside of the rectangle. Maybe the designer of this QB map made the inside a hidden objective just for aesthetic reasons? I would prefer not to open the map in the editor to find out as I would see enemy positions etc. and would like to finish this battle without cheating. Any help much appreciated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 This initially confused me as well, so I'm not surprised to see you ask this. In my experience you must be on the green objective square. I too thought that being inside would be sufficient but I do not think it is. One can look at this many ways. My "interpretation" of this is that it's important to secure a wider area, and not just a small zone in the middle. This pushes anyone trying to hold the objective into ensuring that they protect more territory making it more challenging. It's not bad, just takes a moment to wrap ones head around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Agreed, I have kept to this design decision for CMBS in my maps also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Agreed, you must have at least one pixelguy "on the green".I imagine this method may have been used to avoid issues with the enemy having one broken man lurking inside a building somewhere in the green VL denying you the points. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkin Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Although I do not play BS, I had to jump in. I saw way back a scenario design tutorial for RT (April 2014?) using hollow occupy objectives and wondered why.I began to see them in WWII QB maps but they do not seem to be applied consistently. I think of them as a design tool to simulate the tactically important part of say a town or village. For example, I've seen small unit handbooks - I think the US commenting on the Germans in WWII - stating the Germans tended to defend the perimeter of towns not the interior. The rational: buildings, especially if there are just a few (and ammo is plenty) can be lucrative targets for an approaching attacker. At times, its tactically better to dig in outside the town with more choices to position your units with interlocking fire and ambush potential. So, maybe hollow objectives are meant to simulate that was well as guard against endgame tricks.Kevin Edited December 21, 2015 by kevinkin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Agreed, you must have at least one pixelguy "on the green".I imagine this method may have been used to avoid issues with the enemy having one broken man lurking inside a building somewhere in the green VL denying you the points.My thought as well although @kevinkin has an interesting way of looking at it too. If the entire town is part of the objective then you have to clear every floor of every building. One broken guy hiding in a corner spoils the objective for you. With the open rectangle you still have to have good control over the town but do not need to go house to house to clear the whole place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Good point, Kevinkin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 Thanks very much for your replies. Now I can as least finish the QB without worrying if I have wasted troops by putting them in the centre of objectives. It is an odd design decision but at least now this threat has cleared things up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I figured they were mainly there for aesthetic reasons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.