When two players have different objectives and nothing happens

[Bulletpoint]

So, I spent yesterday evening doing a PBEM. I was defending the high ground of the scenario 'Platoon Patrol', but nothing happened. 40 turns went by and the evening passed.

When finally the game ended, I realised the Germans have different objectives than the Americans. My opponent had been defending his objective down at the river ford, which doesn't appear on my map or in my briefing, and I had been sitting on the high ground objective, which doesn't appear as an objective to my opponent.

So, what's the morale? Scenario designers, please make sure both players see all objectives.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[ASL Veteran]

Actually it isn't a requirement for all objectives to be visible for both players.  Every single scenario I've made has different objectives for each side and each side's objectives are only visible to that particular side.  The important thing is that the objectives are created such that both sides need to engage the other in battle in order to achieve their objectives which is pretty simple to do.  I'm not sure who made Platoon Patrol - is that a third party scenario?  I would say that the issue you have described is specific to that scenario and not an overall indictment of different objectives for each side.  If the designer's intent was to have each side defend a patrol base from the other then the proper way to do it would be to split the terrain victory points and place an occupy objective on the friendly patrol base and place a touch objective on the enemy patrol base.  Alternatively the designer could have placed an occupy objective on the friendly patrol base and a touch objective at some other map location such as a building or something.  A different location for each side that would cause both sides to have to pass each other in order to reach their touch objective.  There are many ways to accomplish the design objective.  It just seems like in the case of the scenario you played the design objective was not met.

[Bulletpoint]

Actually it isn't a requirement for all objectives to be visible for both players.  Every single scenario I've made has different objectives for each side and each side's objectives are only visible to that particular side.  The important thing is that the objectives are created such that both sides need to engage the other in battle in order to achieve their objectives which is pretty simple to do.  I'm not sure who made Platoon Patrol - is that a third party scenario?  I would say that the issue you have described is specific to that scenario and not an overall indictment of different objectives for each side.  If the designer's intent was to have each side defend a patrol base from the other then the proper way to do it would be to split the terrain victory points and place an occupy objective on the friendly patrol base and place a touch objective on the enemy patrol base.  Alternatively the designer could have placed an occupy objective on the friendly patrol base and a touch objective at some other map location such as a building or something.  A different location for each side that would cause both sides to have to pass each other in order to reach their touch objective.  There are many ways to accomplish the design objective.  It just seems like in the case of the scenario you played the design objective was not met.

That's a good point. It's one of the scenarios included with the game, and so probably was one of the very first games made with the CM2 engine. In any case, I'm not really trying to call the designer out, just wanted to highlight the issue. Both players felt pretty sheepish after spending a tense evening waiting for an attack that never came.. though certainly very realistic, it wasn't the best possible use of our time

Edited March 15, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[JonS]

That's one of mine, and you're right; it's amongst the first scenarios I made for CMBN. I'm not sure how you managed to avoid each other, though. The terrain objectives are different, but they do overlap, and the map is tiny. The German player must have conceded practically the whole map and tried to defend the back edge,  while simultaneously the US player never patrolled forward to ensure his objective was clear ... which is clearly possible but presumably not something I had considered anyone would actually do.

[Bulletpoint]

That's one of mine, and you're right; it's amongst the first scenarios I made for CMBN. I'm not sure how you managed to avoid each other, though. The terrain objectives are different, but they do overlap, and the map is tiny. The German player must have conceded practically the whole map and tried to defend the back edge,  while simultaneously the US player never patrolled forward to ensure his objective was clear ... which is clearly possible but presumably not something I had considered anyone would actually do.

Well that's the beauty of scenario design... players will invariably play it the 'wrong way' 

The German defense zone is quite big, especially on the flanks.

Due to the landscape, it's my conclusion that there's no way the Germans can defend the hedgerows close to the river, since they are in full view of hedgerows on the other bank, at around 70-80m distance. The US player can approach his hedgerows through covered approaches, so it's easy for him to bring all his guns to bear.

Since the US player has a 3-to-1 advantage and since the US rifles beat the German ones at close range, there's no way to achieve fire superiority in that setup.

Ambushing with covered arcs doesn't work either, as units must be actively hiding to avoid detection, which means they won't act even when the enemy walks straight up to them. Learning this lesson cost me half my force.

So, my conclusion was to fall back to set up a defense further back, where there's a reverse slope situation on the right and light forest to the left.

Anyway, I can ramble about my tactics till the cows come home, but my point was that the briefing tells me to defend the high ground, not the ford. It is implied that defending the high ground will indirectly maintain control of the ford. So that's what I did...

Edited March 15, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[Father Ted]

It just so happens that I'm currently playing this scenario as the US v German AI.  My conclusion is that, despite me managing to get a decent base of fire with two squads and get the mortar into play, there's no way I have sufficient fire-superiority to attempt to rush the ford.  Incidentally, IIRC, the briefing does give me a get-out clause - something about not risking too many casualties for the sake of the ford, but I doubt I'll get many VPs if I give up now...

[Bulletpoint]

It just so happens that I'm currently playing this scenario as the US v German AI.  My conclusion is that, despite me managing to get a decent base of fire with two squads and get the mortar into play, there's no way I have sufficient fire-superiority to attempt to rush the ford.  Incidentally, IIRC, the briefing does give me a get-out clause - something about not risking too many casualties for the sake of the ford, but I doubt I'll get many VPs if I give up now...

Oh, it should be quite easy to get fire superiority to dominate the ford. You have all the aces on hand: perfect cover for a base of fire, numerical superiority, fast-firing Garand rifles (devastating at the less than 100 metre distances you're engaging at in this mission)... there's no way the Germans can keep you off that ford.

Remember that though there are many potential hiding places for Germans, you only have to pay attention to those that have line of fire to the ford. And those locations are very few, apart from the first line of hedgerows, which are no threat, since you can dominate them from your side.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Bulletpoint