Victory Flags: Ideas for the future (patch or more than likely CM2)

[kb9sog]

Let me just say that I love the game and the guys and gals on the forum as well. I even love using the search engine.

That being said:

I propose an idea to kick around to help improve an already great game. I haven't thought it all through so let me give you all the bare bones of the idea and maybe we can come up with a way that would work in implementation.

I biggest quibble with the game has to be with victory flags/locations. It is true that each scenario has to have a purpose and a goal. I realize this point. However, I hate the "definitetiveness" about them. I don't like that the defender and the attacker have equal knowledge of what the objectives will be over a given battleground.

I do love the addition of "dynamic flags" that were included in the map editor. I am currently in the design process of several scenarios that have them in it. However, there are not enough scenarios and no option in the QB generator to use these to (IMHO) their full potential.

The goal for the combatants on the battlefield is to seize ground that is in some way has intrinsic value to it. (High ground, a bridge, a cross roads, etc.) The victory flags in canned scenarios usually reflect that premise. However, I think that it would be interesting to remove flags altogether and use the following idea for a substitute/replacement for the current system.

I propose that victory flags be eliminated and replaced with a hidden feature. One that determines the worth of terrain (in terms of points, as in the victory flags) but done so deep inside the engine of the game.

This could be done in much the same manner as the way elevations are "painted" on the map in the editor. You would paint point values on the map. At the end of a battle, players would receive the points for holding control of the territory. Point values would be different for different types of terrain. The idea behind all of this is to have the players in a game make up their own minds on what is a significant piece of terrain and not just be "defenders of the flags."

What would this do?

1. Add a more FOW element to each and every battle. It would also change the idea of fighting for "flags" to fighting for key ground.

2. As an attacker, I pretty much know the areas that a defender will be lurking based on where the flags are located. The defender can't win without that territory that is CLEARLY marked.

3. As a defender, you won't be able to just set up a defense network that will prevent an attacker's progress to the desired victory flag. The defender will have to determine what is it that "we control" that an attacker would want and set it up accordingly.

I don't know if it is feasible to do this in the current scope of CM but it is fodder to kick around for the next installment.

It would add a creative element to the game. It would make battles a bit more dynamic in nature too.

I think that the AI could work with this type of scheme because it uses victory flags now as a means to determine what is important. However, now the point values for terrain will be hidden within the context of the map editor.

I don't know if I am expressing my thoughts well enough and I'm sure that others will be able to add commentary to this discussion that I have not thought of beforehand.

------------------

BJ Simpson

Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio.

IN HOC SIGNO VINCES

********************

I'm still a psychophant...err sickophant...err elephant...err Nahvawhatsitsdamnnameagainwaffe...err (where's my meds?) sychophant...yeah, that's the ticket.

[Pak40]

The biggest gripe I have about the Victory Flags at this point is that there arn't any in operations. This sometimes leaves the computer AI dumbfounded as to where to attack. The AI only "attacks" to the opposite side of the map, it does't know to attack an objective such as a bridge or hilltop or town.

Victory flags in operations will help scenario designers specify which areas of the map are most important for the computer AI.

[David Aitken]

I'm not completely sure that terrain 'values' would function much differently from victory flags. In a given scenario, you're going to have an objective – capture a hill, or a bridge, or a town. In short, these aren't vague terrain features – they're objects, which might as well be marked with flags.

If it's up to the players to pick the map feature of greatest value, they'll go for the most prominent object – the same place that the scenario designer would put a flag. So why not a flag?

In terms of defending, the defender need not have all his/her men in the actual objective – he/she can arrange to allow the attacker to advance, and then outflank him/her. Taking away the flags won't create any illusions about where the attacker is going – it will always be the most obvious terrain feature. Moreover, if different terrain types have different values, players will soon learn which is best. So you can take away the flags, but I don't think it will change the way people play a given scenario one bit.

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[kb9sog]

Pak40:

I know what you're talking about and I agree with you. Except that I'm not really saying that we should remove the one thing (the flags) that provide the AI with the logic to conduct its attack. What I am saying is to keep the knowledge "hidden" from the human opponent. Areas of high value will still be stipulated in a map's design..just under the hood of the map editor.

What I am thinking is to have a map designer specify the areas of victory by "painting" them onto the battlefield in much the same way that we "paint" the elevations for a map. That way, I think, will provide just a bit more uncertainty in playing a battle.

David:

I hear you.

quote:

If it's up to the players to pick the map feature of greatest value, they'll go for the most prominent object – the same place that the scenario designer would put a flag. So why not a flag?

end quote

My idea on terrain values goes something like this:

All terrain has a value to it. Ranging from 0-15. (Not just the key features having a value.) Although, in doing that, the scoring methods and terms of victory would be vastly different than what we have now.

To be perfectly honest, I really don't know if the terrain value vs. flags would be worth it. I was really hoping to bring up an idea that would spark a better one from someone else. Sort of a "if we could design it differently, how could we make it better?" type of theme.

quote:

Moreover, if different terrain types have different values, players will soon learn which is best. So you can take away the flags, but I don't think it will change the way people play a given scenario one bit.

end quote

That is true. And it is the major flaw in my logic with taking out the flags. But perhaps, if we think about it just a bit more, perhaps something could be done in the way of improving it?

I would almost settle for Combat Mission scenarios to be set up with entirely all dynamic flags as an alternative to terrain values.

Attack, Assault, Probe scenarios would always allow the Attacker to choose which flag is the real one at the scenario start.

Meeting Egagements (IMHO) should be set to something like a "destroy" type of mission--just as in some of the operations now. I dislike flags in meeting engagements because of the tendency to rush to them quickly and defend them until time runs out. A meeting engagement without flags would make the encounter far more interesting. It would take the need to focus on terrain objectives to win away and allow two opponents to focus on maneuver and destroying the enemy.

I know that victorious generals in this game should in fact use maneuver to full advantage to thwart his/her opponent. But really, as I see it, flags in a meeting engagement offer little value to the game other than the points that you may receive if you hold the ground when time runs out.

Dynamic flags in the other types of scenarios will allow for just a bit more uncertainty than we already have.

In the end, I think that I could go with dynamic flags every time in scenarios of Attack, Assault, Defend and zero in meeting engagements. What do you think of that option?

------------------

BJ Simpson

Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio.

IN HOC SIGNO VINCES

********************

I'm still a psychophant...err sickophant...err elephant...err Nahvawhatsitsdamnnameagainwaffe...err (where's my meds?) sychophant...yeah, that's the ticket.

[This message has been edited by kb9sog (edited 09-20-2000).]

[David Aitken]

I agree with you totally on meeting engagements. I hardly think it's realistic that both sides would converge on an objective (eg. a crossroads) at exactly the same moment. One would arrive earlier, and the battle would become an attack/defence.

I'm working on a meeting engagement scenario just now, and I've been deliberating over whether or not to use flags. The one thing I would say is, they enable you to ensure that the battle is fought over your preferred part of the map. For example, I have a bridge overlooked by a hill. The Germans could advance across the bridge and up the hill before the British reach it. The British end of the map is covered in trees, so this renders the British mortars (their main asset) useless, and the battle is effectively lost. On the other hand, if I have a flag on the bridge, the German player will be more inclined to hold back and wait (although a really good player will advance regardless).

I think this kind of specification is necessary to distinguish one scenario from another. If I didn't use flags, to be fair I'd have to allow the British to win without their mortars. The force becomes larger and more varied, and the concept of the map loses clarity. It may be unrealistic to 'rig' the scenario in this way, but that's what makes it unique – and ultimately, if it's an enjoyable scenario you won't notice.

So there you go. If you just want a general skirmish in a random part of the map, don't bother with flags. But in order to create a scenario that is predictable enough to accomodate 'flavour', you have to 'rig' it to some degree, and that involves using flags.

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Tanaka]

Hi...

Maybe this is a bit off-topic...

I´ve previously written posts abaut the falgs/objectives like this topic, complaining abaut the flag race that some games turn to be.

After more experience in the game I came to the conclusion that BTS did a great job with the falg/objective thing. Now I will give 2 exemples that prove this:

1) ...The flag was 5 m of an house, my enemy ocopied that house with 3 crews and an Infantry squad, all of them were in panic... 30 m away from the house I have only a Infantry squad and he was in good condition. At the end of the game the flag/Objective was mine.

2)... In one game my enemy managed to grab 50 % of the objective flags, I didn´t grab any... at the end the game the result was a draw, he managed to take the objectives, but payed an heavy price doing it.

What I mean with all this is that CM is not like SP,CC or any other game that I know, as it treats the flag/objective

matter. There is a lot of calculation in to it. Another good thing is that during the game your flag assessment is based in your knowledge of the enemy, and it mey be not the real flag situation

Of corse in a game there is always room for improvement...

João

[kb9sog]

Good replies so far. Here are some more thoughts.

David:

I agree with what you are saying on your situation with the meeting engagement map that you are building. I understand the need to put a little bit of clarity into the picture to allow for some play balance.

I know the last thing that a scenario author wants to hear is that one side or the other of the conflict has an impossible task to win.

Let me ask you this:

Is the flag placement on your scenario to help the AI make a decision in its advance (the computer will do strange things that you don't want it do without the flags) or is it because you want to provide human players with clear objectives to help the scenario's "replayability."

In other words, do you feel that the scenario would be spoiled for two double blind human opponents trying to outwit each other in a meeting engagement?

Perhaps it is both. I agree that unless you put down something on a battlefield for the AI, it will do things that you do not want it to do. And thus, we put the carrot out there for the HAL 9000 to use. Without the flags, the clarity of the scenario author's vision would be lost.

I'm not entirely sold on the thought that without the flags, human opponents would cause a loss of clarity in a double blind situation. To some extent, I do see a need for it (to keep in line with the scenario author's vision) but mostly I wouldn't necessarily think it would be mandatory.

Human opponents can weigh the pros and cons, unlike our buddy the computer AI.

In essence, I'm saying that in the example of your scenario, a human opponent's reaction to your scenario would more than likely follow the vision of the author even without the carrot.

I don't think that your vision of how the scenario should be played (between humans) would be lost if the objectives of the scenario were not spelled out for them? In fact, the flags under the hood would be for the computer's benefit but would not generate points towards the final victory scores. (Meeting engagements only.)

I only wish that dynamic flags could be an option in the QB Generator for Assault, Attack, Probe, Defend scenarios.

Just thinking out loud. I enjoy hearing your thoughts and everyone else's too.

------------------

BJ Simpson

Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio.

IN HOC SIGNO VINCES

********************

I'm still a psychophant...err sickophant...err elephant...err Nahvawhatsitsdamnnameagainwaffe...err (where's my meds?) sychophant...yeah, that's the ticket.

[patboivin]

I am wondering how the AI could possibly know which road intersections are more important.

How would this work for city scenarios, where there are heavy buildings everywhere?

The only minor (very minor) thing I would try to fix with the flags is the way they block movement plotting when where we want to send a unit is on the other side of a flag. For some reason the flags take up a lot of space over the graphics of the game. It is really minor though because it is easy to move around and position our point of view on the other side of the flag, then click to tell the unit where to go.

I doubt there can be an automated system out there that might correctly identifies what the priorities could be for either side in an engagement, it depends on too many things. Even the mix of units matters here, e.g. how fast units can move.

[David Aitken]

kb9sog, I agree that the lack of a flag would probably not make much of a difference were my scenario played between two humans. Played as the British against the AI, it actually did what I would expect a good human player to do – advanced across the bridge (which, incidentally, is at right-angles to the line of advance) and up to the woods, preventing me from shelling its forces with my 3in mortars.

Consider that your ideas were implemented, and terrain values could be 'painted' onto a map. If there were one area of particular value, this would be effectively the same as a flag. If the high value terrain was more spread out, could both sides not occupy high-value terrain simultaneously? It seems necessary to have a single point of value, to encourage the combatants to contest it, instead of just picking their own bit of high-value terrain and taking pot-shots at each other.

patboivin, you are aware that flags can be toggled on and off? (shift-F)

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Vanir]

Having the option for dynamic flags in QBs has been a long time (relatively speaking) wish of mine.

------------------

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys