IrishJoe Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 I know you guys have talked about this subject many times, but I just cant understand the concept of the victory flag you have used in this game. I have played several PBEM games (meeting engagement type) where the object at the end of the game seems to be rush everyone to the Flag for points. It seems so unrealistic to allow your side the heavy casulties just to secure a point on the map. However, in every case so far, casulties mean a lot less then getting the flag. I believe different that each type of game should have different victory conditions according to the flag itself. For instance, in meeting engagements, give a potion of the victory points to the side holding the flag each turn. I know this is a old discussion, but I have become very frustrated with this portion of the game. Anybody want to rip me apart and show me light on this??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikester Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 Couple of comments. 1) In my view, meeting type engagements should perhaps not even have victory flags. Why? Well, in this type of battle both sides are advancing and likely actually have orders to advance to and or take terrain that is at the far side opposite them on the battle map and/or not on the map at all. Yet the engagement type battle ends up with victory flags that are right in the middle of the battle map where the two forces "meet". But is it really likely that one, or both sides, really had these areas as objectives in their advance? Probably not. 2) More importantly, I think we are starting to see the use of somewhat gamey tactics (this could be argued either way, it's a big grey area) in terms of folks waiting till the last minute in such battles to make a run for all the flags regardless of the casualties that might be incurred, etc. This in turn leads us to questions of realism, etc. In the final analysis, I believe it quite strongly leads us to desire a random game ending turn so that players don't know when to make such mad dashes for flags. Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeadams Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 The 'gameyness' in many situations is because we know WHEN the score will be determined. If they was no fixed length, or no ending point at all, then this would change the strategies. With no ending point built in, the players or the AI could decide when continued fighting was pointless and agree to call it a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gashford Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 Just a few things I have found in this. I have been designing a battle for a little while now and have found that the victory flag location is imperative for the AI to know what to do. The intention is for an American defense against German assault of a small hamlet in a forest/farming mix. After designing the game I found that if I played the Americans the German AI forces did not attack the hamlet (the objective for the battle) but milled about not really making much of anything. Switching across to test the American AI response to the game the Americans just got up and left the hamlet, presumably prefering the countryside and went for a nice walk. I added one Victory flag in the centre of the town and repeated the process, the German AI launched a viscious set of attacks and American AI in defence later held out for hell or high water against my German efforts. Although this doesn't answer ever possibility I think that the Victory Flags are required if you want to cox the AI to attack or defend a region on the map. Hope this helps in some small way? ------------------ Well, I thought if I owned the bullet with my name on it I wouldn't get shot, because I'm not going to shoot myself. Mores the pity.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxm2 Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 I agree on the gamey aspect. In a game that I just lost (just call me "Major Defeat"!), I had a schreck guy run for one flag and my opponent sent a tank to capture another. And we both got our flags! On the other hand, one could look at the flags as the most valuable local terrain which must be held for reinforcements, a coming counter-attack, or whatever. In that case, you can't just bounce your units all over the map in an unrealistic fashion, racking up enemy casualties....you have to allow for holding the most useful/needed territory you capture. Naturally the next gamey response will be to have an ambush team hidden at all flag sites to get your opponent when he (I have no fear of sexist generalizations, unfortunately, using that pronoun) zips one unit over to the flag to bag it. "The worst day playing CM or posting to the forum is better than the best day working..." THIS IS YOUR BOSS, MAX; YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE LOTS OF "BETTER" DAYS COMING UP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaster@work Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 the 'rush for the flag' gamey tactic would be negated if CM followed Sid Meier's Gettysburg in extending the time if a flag was contested within the last turn of the game, thereby giving the other player a chance to retake the flag if it was taken only as a sudden final rush with forces to weak to realistically hold it. The other SMG element that could be used is to have a flag have a contested state (the other states being, German, Allied, not-held), so that if the turn ended and even after extended time the two sides were still fighting it out over the flag that the points would be distributed evenly for that flag (or not at all - it would make no difference in the score). ------------------ ---- To download my scenarios: go to http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 I've recently had a series of games in which the last few turns revolved around the "VL scramble". While I agree in general that this is a rather "gamey" aspect, I can usually rationalize it. As others have pointed out, it was not at all unusual for a superior officer to state "You've got take Hill 409 by 1400 hours or I'll find someone who can." And obviously the actual location of the VL is fairly abritrary in most cases. Since you have to "take the town" the location of the "the town" has to be specified somehow and VLs are about the only way to do it. I have a question and a suggestion. Question: It's two turns from the end of the game, there are three VL's shown as neutral. What do you do? Granted it's a bit gamey to suddenly pull a Rifle Team out of the line and have them dash to an arbitrary spot on the map. Especially since they might not survive for more than a turn or two. But this is a game with "victory" determined by who holds the VL's. Do you play "realistically" or do you play to win? In all likelihood I'd go for the win, but I wouldn't like it much. I also like the SMG approach BTW, it tends to discourage such things. What are the opinions of the group? Suggestion: For you scenario designers out there. Perhaps you might consider using MORE VL's that are worth less. For example, if the goal is to "take the town", put a LOT of lower value VL's throughout the town, therefore the person who controlled most of them would control most of the town. Since I haven't played with scenario design that much I'm not certain there aren't problems with this approach, but it's a thought. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxm2 Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 If there were lots more flags, you would need even more troops to cover them all, leading to even more opportunities for "harvesting" flags in the last turn or two. I liked Disaster@work's suggestion about a contested state for VLs. Or does the Question Mark flag stand for uncertain control? Frankly, I don't understand how many units have to be how close to the flag to "control" it. But then, I haven't read the manual about that topic...have to do so tonight. --Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 Can't you make the flags worth 0 points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaster@work Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw: I've recently had a series of games in which the last few turns revolved around the "VL scramble". While I agree in general that this is a rather "gamey" aspect, I can usually rationalize it. As others have pointed out, it was not at all unusual for a superior officer to state "You've got take Hill 409 by 1400 hours or I'll find someone who can." And obviously the actual location of the VL is fairly abritrary in most cases. Since you have to "take the town" the location of the "the town" has to be specified somehow and VLs are about the only way to do it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but at 1400 hours if there was a superior defending force the defenders wouldn't just look at their watch and say "Oh dear, end of regulation time" and then go home. Realistically, the only thing that should stop a battle are conditions not time. The victory location should NOT be arbitrary. In every one of my designed scenarios I've made the VL some strategic spot (the center of town, a hilltop, crossroads, a bridge head). Others should do the same. In the case of a town battle, the VL should be a major building, a rise, square, crossroads, or even a formation outside of the town that dominates it IMO. ------------------ ---- To download my scenarios: go to http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 Not a real fix but a cool feature that I liked in SMG, a keep going feature at the AAR screen to keep fighting. ------------------ The names Ash, Housewares [This message has been edited by Ash (edited 08-17-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 A question mark flag is also used for contested (I think it might be nice to have a half and half flag for contested to make this more clear....) At the end of the game, no one gets points for question mark flags (either if they are contested or no one is there) I agree that if a flag is in contention, the game should extend the number of turns. Now, of course, taht could lead to the tactic of rushing a squad to a flag to contest it to give your self more time to make a concentrated attack on another enemy held flag or some such... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaster@work Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti: I agree that if a flag is in contention, the game should extend the number of turns. Now, of course, taht could lead to the tactic of rushing a squad to a flag to contest it to give your self more time to make a concentrated attack on another enemy held flag or some such...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heh, well that would be fair It would be up to the defender to figure out whether that rush is just a feint and how seriously they should treat it. ------------------ ---- To download my scenarios: go to http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikester Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 The Sid Meier's Gettysburg approach sounds pretty darn reasonable to me. Perhaps even better than variable game turn ending. I like it. BTS? Also, I think as others have pointed out above that in designed scenarios the designer can do some things to prevent this "problem". However, in the much loved quick battles you are stuck with as many or few victory flags as are given relative to the size of the map generally. And in medium and smaller size QB maps that pretty much means only 1 or 2 flags. So having an SMG approach (or variable turn ending) built into the game is one of the only ways to "fix" this issue in the QB's (at least that's my opinion). Mikester out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The victory location should NOT be arbitrary. In every one of my designed scenarios I've made the VL some strategic spot ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, in most of the designed scenarios there's some rhyme or reason to the location, but in a sense it's STILL arbitrary. For example, let's say you've decided that Hill 407 is a VL, so you place a flag there. But in reality your opponent could be surrounding the hill while you have one crummy squad up there. So in that sense, it's still arbitrary in that you have picked one SPOT on that hill. Don't get me wrong, I really don't have a problem with this, it's been part of game design for as long as I can remember, I'm just pointing it out. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 How about, instead of flags, 'victory areas' were what you were after? In the editor you would define the victory area much like the starting areas. CM could put a flag in the middle of your defined area to represent it's status. This way you could define a whole hill, or patch of woods, or town as the victory location, not just one house. I'm sure there are all sorts of problems with this suggestion. Just throwing it out off the top of my head... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaster@work Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 How would you define when an area is taken by an player if it's an area? One square of it has a unit on it? Count off how many units of each are on an area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 Well, CM already does this 'fuzzily'. It's not just the nearest man to the flag that has it. It decides who has more power near the flag, and gives it to them (or makes it neutral if the forces are near equal). So, just have it include all the squares that were defined in it's calculation of who has the area. It would basically be the same as the flag, but just have a larger 'checking radius'. Now, if the scenario designer really did want that specfic area, he could only assign one square. I don't know how far out this checking radius goes from the flag currently. Now, this would probably make generating quic-battles much more difficult for the computer, so it may not be useful anyway... As i said, just a suggestion thrown out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuse Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 This is a reply to the first post, but I've found that just because you hold the VL doesn't mean that you will win. I'm currently involved in a QB in which I hold the flag, but I'm still losing. My guys are torn to shreds and my opponent still has a relatively powerful force. While I might be able to keep him back, I believe he might still win based on casualties. ------------------ Upon the fields of friendly strife, are sown the seeds of Victory. ---Douglas McArthur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts