Tanaka Posted August 28, 2000 Share Posted August 28, 2000 Race and mad charge to the flags, yes I will lose 1/2 or more of my pre-last turn surviving troops just to get that flag ! Put here your best and worst toughts. What do you think of the score system ? Do you love the "flags" ? What do u think... João Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 28, 2000 Share Posted August 28, 2000 It is a simple way for the game to check for control of the battle area. It might be better if they were invisible though. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted August 28, 2000 Author Share Posted August 28, 2000 Yes ... I like that idea... they (the flags)would be invisible , and we will only know they would be some where arround the center area.This acccompaned with a reduction of their points compared to the KIA... it could work, it could. João Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 28, 2000 Share Posted August 28, 2000 The big problem is, without flags, how do you know WHAT part of the map is the part you have been tasked to defend/attack? Maybe (in CM2?) flags could be shown in a pre-mision breifing screen or only shown during the setup phase (and end of game)? ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb [This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 08-28-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted August 28, 2000 Share Posted August 28, 2000 Perhaps a shaded region, showing the mission objective(s)? Then no single exact point becomes magic. AI could still use flags underneath to assess points if necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 28, 2000 Share Posted August 28, 2000 Babra, you goldfish, but they ARE invisible, they are only symbolic...just hit...uhm...CTRL-F ??...hehe..of course I know that you know that, but your post would imply that they are really there in the game, big 200ft flagpoles with flags darkening the sun for whole village districts... I completely agree with IntelWeenie, and this whole thread is pretty pointless, as the way the game handles them it is not a control over the flag, but a control over the vicinity in which the flag stands that is deciding for the game / winning conditions. There is nothing wrong with the flags. leave them alone. [This message has been edited by Formerly Babra (edited 08-28-2000).] dammit Babra what do you think you're doing messing around with my message? get your filthy hands off of my post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted August 28, 2000 Author Share Posted August 28, 2000 Ok, maybe invisibility is not the solution... "There is nothing wrong with the flags. leave them alone." I think this isn´t the correct approach to the matter. There is a real limitation because of turn limit and control area ( Flag ). "the way the game handles them it is not a control over the flag, but a control over the vicinity in which the flag stands that is deciding for the game / winning" Yes, CM handles it well... but that doesn´t mean it can´t be improved. If for instance you got a "flag" defended by 200 points and at the last turn the enemy charges an infantry to the flag and some how 4 men make it to 40 m of the flag alive. At the end of the turn, the result is,the objective (Flag) belongs to no one.Yes sir, you just lose a big chunk of your final score... How about a reduction in the points at stake for the "flags" ? João [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 08-28-2000).] [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 08-28-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Posted August 28, 2000 Share Posted August 28, 2000 I don't know why the flags have to be either owned by one of the sides, or not owned at all, it might be better for the gameplay that the situation "not owned at all" would be changed to owned 25% axis, 75% allied for example (the flag could be partly colored to the side owning that part) Sorry for my bad english, but I hope my point can be understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 Actually, I'm beginning to think that those flags really are there... I've had trouble selecting units when the flag is in the way, like the flags are opaque to clicks. And they also seem to mess up the LOS/movement line when you're trying to drag a point and there's a flag in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 I will let you guys in on a little trick. If you are force to retreat, just have an engineer squads remove the flag, and run like hell! They cant take the victory flag, if they can't catch it! Works great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 Foo's speaking from (frequent) experience here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 The computer needs the VLs to assess control of the play area at game's end. If, however, every tile had an intrisic value, and tiles of a higher elevation had a correspondingly higher value, and none were visible, that would work, wouldn't it? VLs could still be used for specific local objectives such as a bridge, &c. Just musing... ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted August 29, 2000 Author Share Posted August 29, 2000 "...and tiles of a higher elevation had a correspondingly higher value..." I don´t understand,why higher elevation ? How about same degree of random where actually at what turn the game ends ? João Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 but Babra that would mean that in order to have max points = victory you would have to spread out your men so that they would occupy one tile each. The flags are just there. They don't harm nobody. All they say is that the "area", ie several tiles, the hill, town center etc., are the important location that is targeted for capture. João is exactly right. To prevent something like a last-turn rush, the real culprit is the rigid turn system. I remember very well that this has been brought up here a loong time ago, repeatedly even methinks, that it would be better if we had a SP - like little randomization in which turn actually is the final turn. If the briefing says, turn 30, it might still go to, say, turn 35 or so, at a certain probability. Or it might even end on turn 29. This forces player to really take hold of these positions for good, not only do a game-end rush in what is totally predictable the last turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 What would you think about an option(!) for game length variance of, say 10%? This would result in a game from 27-33 turns (if designed for 30 turns). Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: "...and tiles of a higher elevation had a correspondingly higher value..." I don´t understand,why higher elevation ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because war is all about controlling the high ground. If you look down upon your enemy he is at your mercy. Just ask Bauhaus... I still think you need an indicatioat to go for/defend. A shaded area could work, but in essence it would be the same as we have now, because the flag just denotes the centre of an area that is important. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted August 30, 2000 Author Share Posted August 30, 2000 "Because war is all about controlling the high ground. If you look down upon your enemy he is at your mercy" hmmm... yes, and your hull at my mercy and mine probably in hull down situation for you up there. In other games that do not simulate the hull down situation you up there would heve an advantage of shoting on top armor (weaker armor) without the conterpoint of exposing your hull. "What would you think about an option(!) for game length variance of, say 10%? This would result in a game from 27-33 turns (if designed for 30 turns)." Yes, that should be great. João Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feuhrerguy Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred: What would you think about an option(!) for game length variance of, say 10%? This would result in a game from 27-33 turns (if designed for 30 turns). Fred <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that would make a great additional option to the senerio setup for battle/operation creation as well as QB. That way it would be up to the senerio designer(s) to allow the 10% randomizer or not. Some human created senerios may not play well without a strict time limit. It's always better to leave decisions like that in the designers hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 *Captain Foobar* wrote: I will let you guys in on a little trick. If you are force to retreat, just have an engineer squads remove the flag, and run like hell! They cant take the victory flag, if they can't catch it! I've posted this occurrence once before, but as they say, repetitio est mater studiorum. During July 1941 a Soviet border guard company defended a heavily fortified hill against Finnish attacks in the Rukajärvi sector. They threw two attacks back with heavy casualties and were forced to retreat only after Finnish advance in other sections threatened their supply route. When the border guards retreated, the last thing they did was to raise a Finnish flag in the summit of the hill. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: "Because war is all about controlling the high ground. If you look down upon your enemy he is at your mercy" hmmm... yes, and your hull at my mercy and mine probably in hull down situation for you up there. In other games that do not simulate the hull down situation you up there would heve an advantage of shoting on top armor (weaker armor) without the conterpoint of exposing your hull.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Joao, I like the suggestion about variable endings. As for the higher ground, I am not talking about a tank battle (mostly b/c I don't care for them), and this has not even entered my mind because it is irrelevant. If I sit on the higher ground above you, I will rain arty on your guys, while I move mine with impunity outside of your observation. Just did exactly that in a PBEM. When was the last time you heard somebody order: "We have to seize the low ground and the valley bottom at all costs, b/c it will mean our tanks can go hull-down!" ? If you don't believe me, we can PBEM, all I ask is that you keep your tanks and men in the depressions on the map, and I get the ridges surrounding them. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted August 30, 2000 Author Share Posted August 30, 2000 "we can PBEM, all I ask is that you keep your tanks and men in the depressions on the map, and I get the ridges surrounding them." hmmm... Did you just snape your glove in my face, sir ? I´m ready for a "normal" PBeM and I will instruct you in battlefield tatics ! BTS what do you tink of variable endings ? thz, João Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 High ground is important, yes, but what if the mission is to take/hold a town or crossroads? I could also see a problem on maps that have tall hills in a corner that are screened by other high ground from the main action. In such a case, the high ground is no longer so important (to THAT battle). If you feel a hill to be important, place a victory location there. I really like the idea of variable endings. Would make the last 3-4 turns even more tense. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Pike Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 I've found the AI does made rushes in the last turns of operation games as well. In XXXXX I setup a series of defensive lines. At each, the AI slowly approached and was baddly hit with HE (off board and mortar) & AT fire lossing lots of armour/Infantry. After this as it was running out of time (and men)the AI ran a couple of squads forward to within 200m of my main line. I had these squads caught in cross fire from multiple HMGs/squads but the game ended before a could unhid them and so my line was thrown back 500m+ for the next round. This happened three times, each time my defences were never really streached but each time I was thrown back to redeploy. So annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 I've just figured out that one way to avoid this gamey tactic in pre-arranged scenarios is to have a whole lot of dynamic victory flags. This way the defender doesn't know where to rush, and can possibly be fooled by the attacker. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted August 30, 2000 Share Posted August 30, 2000 Germanboy said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I still think you need an indicatioat to go for/defend. A shaded area could work, but in essence it would be the same as we have now, because the flag just denotes the centre of an area that is important.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suggested something like this before. Basically you could define a victory zone the same way you define a setup zone in the scenario editor. This way you could define a whole village as a zone, or a patch of woods or something. Now, not knowing the exact workings of the flags now, I'm not sure how much change this would be. I'm sure it would also be much more difficult for the computer to define areas in the quick battles. I agree that the dynamic ending might help the last minute rush for the flag thing... Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts