Meeting Engagement QB Objective Flag Tweak

[-Havermeyer-]

This thread builds on that started by Pillar in Tips and Techniques, but approaches the topic of meeting engagement (ME) QBs from a different perspective. The ME usually consists of a an array of flags near midfield. This often results in a race to the middle and then a pitched battle against a combatant in a pseudo-defensive posture. This tends to limit the role of maneuvering when promulgating an attack in an ME QB.

Pillar's proposition of a more methodical probe/attack is how I would rather play meeting engagements (good thread, check it out).

How do you perceive ME QB strategy changing if a significant (high point value) objective flag was placed within or near each combatants' setup regions? Would this reintroduce the opportunity to maneuver?

I see it providing opportunity to reward those who husband forces for counter-strikes, or who can setup a pivot/thrust, or some other offensive approach. If neither side wishes to capture the rear flag, it becomes a wash with both sides getting the same allotment of points. Likewise, terrain may dictate the rear flag as unachievable. This may result in some fairness imbalance as one player may have a better line of attack on the rear flag. But war ain't fair.

I think adding the rear objective would change the way both parties align their forces by introducing a free variable. This should cause a player to unbalance forces in the setup. Judging poorly will require quick response and maneuver. Anyone see how it would be otherwise? I like the idea of an ME-- but as it stands now, I have yet to play one that doesn't devolve into a pitched attack against a hasty defensive position.

[securityguard]

damn, is it just me or can any one else read these type of posts with out going mentally insane

[Guest Madmatt]

You know what is funny about all this is the the Flags being located generally in the middle was added in v1.05 due to customer demand.

People complained that the way the flags used to be placed gave an unfair advantage to one side or the other.

Be careful what you wish for people.

Madmatt

[-Havermeyer-]

If the rear flags are balanced this shouldn't give an upfront advantage to any one party. However, the terrain may dictate that one party can't reasonably grab the other's flag...

Securityguard, my apologies for driving you insane-- I guess mentally insane is better than physically?

[Juardis]

I like it. Keep the middle flags, add rear flags - one per side. The only way to achieve total victory is to capture all the flags. Would definitely give each side something to think about. Do I rush every asset forward to fight it out for the middle flags or do I keep a platoon or two back to protect the rear flag? Do I commit my reserve at the expense of exposing the rear flag? Maybe I leave the rear flag open to set up an encirclement action.

But basically, I like that each side is approximately equidistant from the middle flags. Adding just one more flag in your setup zone would add tremendously IMHO.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Croda]

I think that while your suggestion can make for more of a tactical game, it also has the potential for games where one side rallies 'round it's flag and plays defense (not much different than charging the center and playing defense). If both sides were to adopt this strategy, that particular engagement would remove the combat from Combat Mission.

My personal opinion for Meeting Engagements is that they would be much more entertaining without the flags at all. Currently, all activity centers around the location of the VLs. While this does simulate specific tactical objectives, is this the goal of a "Meeting Engagement?" It seems to me that holding the field (regardless of where on the field you are) should be of prime importance in an ME, and not so much holding a predefined tactical objective.

I know that I've seen it discussed that an ME the way that it is modelled would never occur in 'Real Life.' If indeed 2 forces would be approaching each other in the woods, there is most likely very little value to securing Clump of Trees A as opposed to Clump of Trees B. In games with a town/Village, the capturing and holding of the town (and thus a VL) makes more sense, but in a large number of MEs, the VLs strike me as pointless objectives, and often serve as such.

I think it would improve the strategic level of MEs if terrain and force composition alone were to decide the tactics taken in an ME, as opposed to the current setup where holding flagged areas is the prime directive. Units would use more of the maps, and look for the best places to place defenses and mask assaults, instead of throwing their men in the houses and treelines closest to a flag.

Any comments on this?

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

"Nuts!"

[Guest Pillar]

I think the mistake you guys are making, and one that I have made myself, is to assume that the flags are so important.

They aren't.

The key terrain is what is important. Key terrain is that which overlooks the battlefield, offers good cover and concealment, and can serve as a jumping off point for counterattack.

Forget the flags.

[jdmorse]

Best to consolidate these threads..... posted else where

There has been a bit of chat from time to time on the nature of Meeting Engagements, dash

to flags, not realism, disguised attack/defense etc. I have been playing a pbem that by the nature of the set up seems to have created a more true chance encounter rather than the standard CM style.

In a bit of fancy the board is set at around 2-3000 pts, and we chose a large map. What

this did was make a LARGE map. The net result is that as we moved our forces, a series of

firefights, flanking movements and general uncertainity have prevailed, esp as it unfolds. As the game progresses forces then start to coalesce and become more coherent in having an objective.

The fun of this is that due to the size you cannot just grab the flag. Due to the size you

have to keep your forces relatively whole, yet spread out enough to avoid flanking actions. It has been a most enjoyable battle of movement and scattered contact. Just a thought if you want to give it a try and see if it works for you

JD

And further....Good thoughts but there does need to be some sort of goal to point forces in the right direction. Like instructions to proceed east until contact, or proceed to general middle of map to set up defensive positions .....otherwise you might need a number of extra turns just to find each other. Something a little more definite than just meandering and less clear than that flag

[This message has been edited by jdmorse (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Croda]

posted in reply to JD's last comments:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, but doesn't that bring the stratefic necessity of High Ground, back into play? As well as the absolute certain need for recon, and not committing your forces until you know where the enemy is. Makes Jeeps and trucks more necessary too. Assuming that the 'Head East Until Contact' order is already in place, you take control of your forces in the field looking to find an enemy that you know is close by, but you're not certain where. Find him, then dispatch him. Personally, I like the challenge of it, and considering the great LOS offered on many maps, I don't think it would take terribly long to find each other. Is this too American Civil War?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

"Nuts!"

[Guest wwb_99]

Better yet, why not add an option for a flagless, exit-zone based ME. The goal of this engagment would be to exit your forces while preventing the enemy from exiting.

WWB

[Mark IV]

Might be simpler to have no flags, no complicated terrain assessments, and just assess victory based on destruction of enemy forces.

Find Them and Kill Them. Cleanse the whole map of the enemy or die trying. Terrain is valuable only to the extent that it contributes to the destruction of the enemy or prevents your own.

[Echo]

You may keep your puny flag kind sir. I will stand afar on my craggy mountain top and rain hellfire and brimstone on you.

My boresighted guns will exterminate those of you who are lucky enough to go mad and flee, and my S2 officer will come down to pry your torn, burnt flag out of your shredded, amputated fist.

You can place your victory flags anywhere you like sir.

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

As I walk through the Valley of Death, I will fear nothing, for I am the meanest mother*#*#** in the valley. (George S. Patton)

[Guest Pillar]

Mark IV,

Surely you realise that the key to the destruction of any enemy force is in the terrain.

You seem to acknowledge this in the second half of your post, so why no "complicated" terrain analysis?

Terrain analysis is the key to victory, along with a few other points such as using the right forces and using the right amount.

If you hold the key terrain, you need not be offensive. That is one error which I myself committed. Key terrain in itself should give you options for dealing with enemy artillery and flanking manouvres, otherwise, it's NOT key terrain.

[Hiram Sedai]

I agree with Mark IV. I don't like flags either. Once again I have to cite my experience with Myth I and II. They have something called BC (Body count) where you have a certain amount of time (turns in CM) where you just go at it and the person with the most left wins. Using this idea in CM would make you more careful with things that cost more because you would be penalized those points when you lose it.

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

Did someone compare this to the Peng thread? I've apologized for less.

-Anonymous

[Croda]

I see how this bunch is...I suggest no flags, and MarkIV gets all the credit. Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!!!

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

"Nuts!"

[Guest Pillar]

Croda,

You made a good point, but I kind of like having the flags -- they distract the poor players

[Guy w/gun]

Is it just me or are flags kinda haphazardly placed in QBs?

I mean sometimes the Flags are in really odd places, places that where obviously randomly generated. Sometimes i don't even bother to get them, just mow down the enemy when he tries.

What determines where the comp places the Flags?

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by Pillar:

Surely you realise that the key to the destruction of any enemy force is in the terrain.

One of them, anyway.

You seem to acknowledge this in the second half of your post, so why no "complicated" terrain analysis?

I mean no complicated analysis by the AI for victory assessment purposes. I don't want Charles sitting around writing algorithms that evaluate each clump of trees or rise in the ground for its victory value, nor would I enjoy the squeals of anguish on this board if someone lost because a mound was assessed as a hillock rather than a height, or was deemed non-critical by some analysis software.

Of course the player is expected to analyze and use terrain. The AI should just count up the bodies.

If you hold the key terrain, you need not be offensive.

[ScoutPL]

Want a flag to your rear? Fight an attack, assault or probe, not a meeting engagement. Want to play a scenario without flags? Design one. The answers are in the game guys.

[Dschugaschwili]

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

Want a flag to your rear? Fight an attack, assault or probe, not a meeting engagement. Want to play a scenario without flags? Design one. The answers are in the game guys. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, this doesn't make any sense.

1. The probe, attack and assault QBs have flags to the rear of only one player, not both of them.

2. You can't design a map that allows both players to buy their forces in QB style except through having a third person generate the map with the forces both players want.

Another comment to the previous posts: I think having only flags in the rear of the players or having no flags at all might turn into a very boring meeting engagement if both players decide to try to ambush the other player if he tries to get to their own flags.

On the other hand, having about half of the flags' point values in the middle of the map and a quarter each at both rear areas might make an interesting battle by forcing the players to advance, but not in an all-or-nothing race to the center.

Dschugaschwili

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

I think having only flags in the rear of the players or having no flags at all might turn into a very boring meeting engagement if both players decide to try to ambush the other player if he tries to get to their own flags.

That's where the clock comes in. If both players give an ambush and nobody comes, pretty soon they'll have to get moving before the time runs out. This might lead to an even more violent clash.

In some ways the advantage might be with he who strikes first- inflicting some quick damage and retiring would force the now numerically-weakened enemy to go after him.

On the other hand, having about half of the flags' point values in the middle of the map and a quarter each at both rear areas might make an interesting battle by forcing the players to advance, but not in an all-or-nothing race to the center.

Yes, but the rear flags are kind of a wash, so it's back to grabbing the middle for the decisive edge. The incentive to press on is nice, but most battles for the middle leave both sides pretty beaten up, and he who has the middle flag has pretty much cinched it.

I haven't tried making one with no flags at all, but perhaps I'll try... the whole map is the VL.

[-Havermeyer-]

I change my opinion and opt for the no flag decision. I like the idea of map exit as adding to victory, but there are numerous abuses to that as well. I hadn't thought of a game without flags, but when setting up MEs I often wish there were no flags. It would be fun to recon and respond to the enemy, rather than having an inkling as to which way they would be going.

This is actually how the operation works out-- and I have found the stress involved in fighting an operation greater. In addition to asset preservation, not knowing where, how, or when you will engage the enemy adds to the excitement.

[Guest Pillar]

"It would be fun to recon and respond to the enemy, rather than having an inkling as to which way they would be going."

Why don't you try doing the unexpected then? Ignore the flags, let the opponent grab them. You concentrate on advantageous terrain and pound the hell out of him.

Think of what it would be like for you if the enemy did something unexpected like this... don't you think he may be able to get into your rear, where the terrain you've chosen is disoriented to his attack?

The flags really aren't that important, you'll get them eventually if you have the key terrain.

You can have a lot of fun with the flags the way they are now, especially if your opponent is fixated on them

Best of luck

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Banshee]

How about instead of one flag smack dab in the middle have 2 (or more depending on the map size, i play smaller battles) located on the flanks and NOT in the middle. It would add spice since you could try for one, or the other, or both, instead of just on sitting in the middle, just a thought.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki