Poll: Do you attmpt to attack/defend all Victory Flags?

[nikib]

I tend to go for a small realisable number - though this may change after recon. I tend to use the majority of my attack on single points ie a single focus.

I may have a secondary target, especially early on in my attack. This usually poses a diversion and also acts as a recon for later. However, I find it important that this attack is not sucked into an all out brawl.

So, to answer the question. I only attack a small number of flags and build up from the initial attack. I do not try to cover all of them, especially early on.

Nik

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

AND As Maximus says, kill ALL the opposing units and the flags are all yours anyway.

Focusing just on the flags can get your guys killed too quick.

Try also finding out where your enemy is weak and attack his units there. Then Exploit that weakness and continue the attack, if you are doing well killing the other guys units the flags when eventually fall to your control.

Anybody who plays a scenario in CM with the intention of starting out to take all the flags will likely end up getting their advancing forces all killed off far too quickly for my liking.

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FINALLY, someone who sees it my way.

The way I look at it, look at the BIG flag as THE main objective, forget about all those little flags scattered around the board. Then go after the enemy. Eliminate the resistance and the flags don't matter. I'm not gonna waste a platoon of men guarding some little flag in some obscure corner when I can use it to help destroy the enemy in more important areas. Besides who counts Victory Points in War?

So its like the when the Eighth Air Force went on it numberous bombing runs over the Third Reich, it considered its targets by how many points they were worth. Hell no, that ball bearings plant was probably worth about the same as that oil refinery. The objective is to win the war, not how many flags you hold at the end. And to win the war, you have to incapacitate the enemy. Holding a "Flag" back at Cherburg is not gonna win you the war.

If a lot of you play these scenarios as just a capture the flag, then those games must be boring as hell. Hell, even when I am on the defense and I start getting the upper hand, I counter attack in order to destroy as much of the enemy as I can before they surrender.

When Gen. McClellan didn't pursue the Confederate Army after Antietam, just because he held the "Victory Flag" on that battlefield, he lost the chance to end the war sooner.

Why do you think my original Handle was "Ol' Blood & Guts", because I admire his "Attack, Attack!" mentality. We don't need to garrison Paris if we keep driving those SOBs back to Berlin.

Appreciate it, Tom, for seeing it my way.

And Croda makes a good point also, why spread yourself thin like that defending areas that are notreally importanty in the game.

[Ted]

Yes but after McClellan held the Large Flag at the Dunker Church and the Confederates were in retreat he didn’t press for the small flag at the crossing of the Potomac and didn’t get the increased victory ratio and so lost bragging rights and his job.

And so it comes back to capturing flags

[Banshee]

My defense is based on terrain not flags, happily they sometimes coincide. Attacking, terrain dictates the axis of attack, but I wont stop until I have destroyed all forces on the map. In the specific situation hat started the thread, well it sounds like you both kind of lost.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[bigmac@work]

Well, I suppose I'm a combination of a lot that has already been stated. Yes, I believe all flags are important and require coverage, BUT, my main goal is to destroy the enemy. PERIOD! Using the terrain, I will assess my best avenues of approach that will allow me to assemble a killing force that may deal with any opposition. I try to anticipate my opponents force commitments and place my units accordingly. I don't rush for the flags (anymore...), but use the terrain for a controlled drive toward said objectives. I DO commit groups of forces to each flag, with the intention of eventually taking all the flags. With the exception of the largest of the maps, what some may call "spread out" units, I see as pinchers. As I said, this holds true for all but the largest maps. I'm currently finishing up a QB on a LAAAAARRGGGE map, on which this theory doesn't apply. I'm now in the unenviable position of marching a stream of troops in lemming like fashion from the three V/L's I currently have toward the end of the map containing the two my opponent holds. His initial amassed troops committed to those two flags greatly overwhelmed the forces that I had committed. I grossly underestimated his commitment to securing those objectives, but what this did do was offer me numerical and firepower advantage over "my end" of the map. It's rather humorous to see, but doesn't bode too well with my Generalmanship ego... I allow myself options of which way to finally commit the forces based on opposition and terrain, whichever direction I feel gives me a superior firepower to my opponents. I can always leave mangled units or the inevitable orphaned crews to maintain my presence on the flags that are toward my rear echelons. Once a dominance has been determined, then I attempt to continue "rolling up the carpet" toward the stronger side of my opponents map. Yes, I know that's an artificiality of the rectangular maps we play, but that is the environment in which our gaming Nirvana occurs... We have to live with it! How has this been working in reality? Well, I'm currently 6-6 in all my PBEM's, with my games in progress going very well... (Tiger... No comment! ). The one thing that holds true for me, and hopefully, by all of us if we want to improve, is that this is how I CURRENTLY play... other options or ideas may be presented which may cause me to alter some, part, or all of this... The way we play our games is most likely, in reality, a dynamic process. Tweaking here, adjusting there, as we play and gain experience. Really, who would want to play EVERY game exactly the same? This game would get old quick if there weren't a natural evolution of our playing styles, regardless of how pretty the awesome mods are or the realism in the penetration tables. So, I guess the bottom line is.... It just doesn't matter. It's a game, I'm having fun the way I'm playing... hopefully you're all having fun the way you're playing, and SO WHAT if someone you play doesn't approve of your methods? I guess he/she (Hey, look, I'm PC!) just won't play you anymore... Guess what? There are PLENTY other opponents out there! With that rather length dissertation completed, I'll leave with an invitation for any and all of you to head on over to Johnno's new "CM Club" at his Dogs of War webpage.

http://persweb.direct.ca/johnnocm/

OOPS! forgot the link... added in edit

It has a small, but loyal group of CM addicts just getting it rolling. Come on in and get involved from the ground floor... Hope to see you there!

-Bob

[This message has been edited by bigmac@work (edited 11-10-2000).]

[Tom Callmeyer]

"He who defends everything defends nothing"

I'm pretty sure that's Sun Tzu, but I may be mistaken

Hmm. and I had always thought it was Napoleon. Is no one here certain of the identitgy of the author of this quote?

Anyway, I look at the terrain and my forces first. Defeat the enemy miliarily and you can sometimes walk into the victory flags later. Concentrate your forces in one area and you may be able to roll up the enemy and take the flags as you go. I do adjust my read of the terraion to be sure my attack/defence considers capturing/holding the best combination of flags, but only after considering terrain and force.

[Alexander]

Sure, it's easy, around turn 28, saunter onto the VLs and plant your flag if you've A:Played brilliantly, B:Been staggeringly lucky, or C: Overmatched your poor, inexperienced opponent.

Unfortunately, all too often, IMO, the battle peters out into a bloody ambiguity in which last minute rushes prove conclusive. Especially those wacky MEs. I cast my vote for variable game lengths.

[Basebal351]

These are some of the reasons why I *hate* flags...they can ruin, above all else, a good PBEM game. When someone just rushes the flags at the end, or the beginning of the game, CM becomes just another wargame where points become more important than good play and a good strategy.

Personally, I don't let the flags dictate my strategy. I form a plan of attack, or defense based on the lay of the terrain. When attacking, I find the enemy strong points and destroy them. When defending, I pick easily defensible positions to give myself the best chance. There's no point in just planting a platoon in the middle of a field JUST because there's a flag there.

It's my opinion that if you have a good plan of attack, and you take on the enemy in a smart fashion, you can beat him to the point where your men will naturally take the flag positions as they advance. I think it's up to the attacking commander to clear the ENTIRE map of the enemy, taking the flags as a course of his advance. If he can't take the entire map, or at least convincingly HOLD most of the flags, then he's failed in his attack, and becomes a good candidate

(if it was real life) for a counterattack as the defender still has strong points from which to launch one.

Actually, right now I'm playing a game where I had a third party go into the scenario set-up and take out the flags. My opponent knows he is to take the town, and I am supposed to hold on and defend the town. Flags don't take a part in the game, but good strategy and a convincing defeat of either him or myself is required to determine the outcome. So, the final point totals don't matter, we will go by the shape of our troops at the end of the battle to determine the winner. Of course, we're not playing on a ladder, but it's more fun because we're not playing for points, but to learn and to have fun.

Thanks,

Jim