Guest Captain Foobar Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 I REEEALLLY dont want to restart the whole auto surrender topic again, but it made me think of something. I would like someone familiar with the current build, and/or the scenario editor to comment on this, if you please. Have you tried to create any scenarios that are based on a retreating action? A situation where an outnumbered force tries to delay and hold up an assault force, while the main body escapes? This may have NO tie in to the auto-surrender feature, but I was trying to think of any possible situation where "weenie stuff" would e historically accurate. For the record, I dont care at all about ladders, tourneys, and the like, and I would appreciate it if the conversation can stay on the course of Outnumbered Situations; Where they are accurate, and if the current global morale calcs, and scenario design allow this sort of situation to be simulated. (It may be that these delaying tactics I am thinking of are beyond the scale of CM, but probably NOT beyond the scale of CMMC, which is the REAL reason that I care about the answer to this question.) OB&G, SSPL, play nice here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 I would like to hear steves take onthis myself as inthe scale of making an op it would seem that Delaying type scenarios wouldn't be an option. knowing BTS tho they probably have a way around this ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 Good question Captain Foobar. I would say that as long as the out-numbered, defending/retreating force puts up a good defense and causes a significant amount of damage on the attacking side without taking the same amount or worse pounding than they're giving, the scenario would continue. But if they start to get overwhelmed, then of course, they would either retreat or surrender. This example is very similar to WWI trench battles. A small group of MGs and riflemen could hold off a huge ratio difference of attacking men and win the day. Of course, if the attacking side "breaks-thru" then the defending side is either going to run like hell or surrender. Simple as that. But very good question. Editted to correct a few grammar mistakes. ------------------ "Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." --Jedi Master Yoda [This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-21-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARCHANGEL Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 Hopefully I am not missing something here,not having read the locked thread, but I use "delaying" and minor retrograde movements in LD whenever I play it as the US. I also use them as the Germans in CE and R-burg. They aren't very hard to do in the beta, so I expect that the final, with all its wonderful improvements, will make them evan better. (Archangel now dons Nomax flight suit in the event of flame filled attacks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 Yes,good thread Captain Foobar! I now understand why this feature is in the game a agree it should be in the game (even though I don't personally like it and wish it could be optional). But upon reflection and reading of the other thread I too am somewhat puzzled on how the game will handle a 'fighting withdraw' situation, especially in an 'operation' covering seveal battles. Do units that 'auto-surrender' have ANY chance of being available for the next battle or are the really "captured"? Do 'exited' units count as losses or such in the auto-surrender calculation? How are the starting positions for the NEXT 'battle' decided when your entire force auto-surrendered in the last 'battle'? ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 Scott- The way I always understood it, if your unit retreats off the map board they get to fight another day and if they are captured they go off to some Stalag #something and get to eat dinner with Col. Klink and make fun of Sgt. Shultz and make the non-coms dig tunnels. As far as the morale issue would go with retreating units they would effect your global morale when they exit the map board. FooFoo- Maybe this would work with a delaying action: LONG map (instead of wide map or square map) with VL all at one end and units set up areas spread out far enough from each other so that it would be impractical to have them meet up somewhere on the map to create a larger force. Global morale would only become a factor once the enemy has gotten DEEP into the area you are protecting or if you do something very silly like try to have them meet up somewhere and they take a pounding doing so. ------------------ "Tryin to be so so bad is bad enough, don't make me laugh by talkin tough" EC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 I agree with Elvis here- If the map is large and the VLS are at the far end it most likely will be easier to play a delaying action type scenario, that is providing VLs have an effect on GLobal morale If the VLs do NOT have a major impact on the stability of Morale then I would see it as difficult to play this type of scenario. Point in case if I have several small bands of men against a MUCH larger force, if the VLS do not stablalize morale then no matter what I do (except inflict Tremendous casualties), as soon as I start losing my units GM is gonna sink . Moon, Krazy Dog can ya help out here ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 My understanding, SS_Hammerhead, is the VLs have nothing to do with global morale they only effect the score. But it would still work as I discribed and here is how: Think of you total forces as broken up into say 5 different set up areas. If the forward most area is completly wiped out that would put your global morale at 80%. If the next pocket of resistence is completly knocked out then you are at 60% and so on. If you have not delayed the advance enough so that your enemy is picking apart your last 20% you have really lost anyway. Also, as stated in another, not to be mentioned thread, the autosurrender should certainly not kick in when you are at 20% and probably not even if your morale goes into single digits if you put enough of a hurting on the advancing troops. ------------------ "Tryin to be so so bad is bad enough, don't make me laugh by talkin tough" EC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 Elvis if this is in fact the case why did you suggest they all be at one end? ELVIS SAID: FooFoo- Maybe this would work with a delaying action: LONG map (instead of wide map or square map) with VL all at one end and units set up areas spread out far enough from each other so that it would be impractical to have them meet up somewhere on the map to create a larger force. Global morale would only become a factor once the enemy has gotten DEEP into the area you are protecting or if you do something very silly like try to have them meet up somewhere and they take a pounding doing so. That kinda doesnt support what ya just said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 The game is won or lost on a combination of casualties and victory locations. If you have taken acceptable loses and control the victory locations you would win the game. So whichever side is in the best shape AND has the VLs would be the victor. By definition a delaying action is not protecting your forward positions but protect some area in the rear. ------------------ "Tryin to be so so bad is bad enough, don't make me laugh by talkin tough" EC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 I'm fully aware of what a delayin action is And I see what you are talking about and that particualr set up appears to probably work although I'm not entirely sure taht is what Capt Foobar meant as he mentione this CApt Foobar: This may have NO tie in to the auto-surrender feature, but I was trying to think of any possible situation where "weenie stuff" would e historically accurate. by "weenie stuff " im interpreting that as fighting to the death Foobar can u clarify this plz actually now I think about it that should be able to be accomplished by giving fanatic troops in the situation Elvis describes [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-22-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 Delaying actions are easy to do. The Auto Surrender feature does look at Victory levels as well as Global Morale. Granted the more important of the two is Global Morale, but if the defender holds a significant number of Victory Points then Auto Surrender will most likely not kick in unless the defender basically has so few units left that the delaying action has been wiped out. To help keep Auto Surrender from being kicked in there is a setting in the Parameters for the scenario. It is labled "Axis Bonus" and can be a positive or negative number. This escentially gives or takes away Victory Points from the Axis side BEFORE the game begins, never to be altered during game play. Think of this as a Victory Location that either the Germans can either never lose or never take. The former makes it easier for the Germans to take higher ratio of casualties and the latter less. This is *NOT* just for Auto Surrender, but also for the overall victory rating for the scenario. Auto Surrender is just an extreme reaction to the current victory level. The above is valid for Battles only. Operations work under a different set of rules. Campaigns do not have Auto Surrender during individual battles. Instead, the battle will just end without surrendering one side or the other. Front lines are then adjusted based on the ending conditions and then the next battle is started up. There is, IIRC, an Operational Auto Surrender which is based on the sum of all units available throughout the whole Operation. So if you are at Battle 3 out of 7 and you have only 10% of your total force left vs. the enemy's 80%, I am pretty sure the game calls it quits for you. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 Thanks for the clarification Steve ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted April 23, 2000 Share Posted April 23, 2000 Yeah, I was refering to "weenie stuff", as it was used in Thread Never To Be Spoke Of; annoying, frustrating defenses, where the defender only delays the inevtable. In ladder play, this is motivated by point fixations In Europe, this was motivated by escaping troop fixations The depth of scenario designing sounds more promising, every time I hear about it. Thanks Guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted April 23, 2000 Share Posted April 23, 2000 Is it my imagination, but during a Delaying Action, wouldn't the VLs be very close to and at the rear of the defending side anyway? The whole idea of a Delaying Action is to slowly pull back while inflicting the most damage possible on the attacking force. As for what Elvis was saying about losing a same percentage of morale based on losing a percentage of VLs, I don't think that's totally correct. **Whoops** (misread his post, but anyway) You're gonna lose a percentage of Victory points, based on the Value of that Flag. (Remember that in the final version, you can assign values to those Victory flags). You may lose some morale, based on losings VLs, but I think morale is based more on casualties. Is it not? So if you're playing a Delaying Action and you continue to dish out a good deal of punishment as you slowly pull back, losing VLs, but keeping your force in good shape, your morale shouldn't drop that much I would think. Your morale is based on the ratio in which you inflict or receive casualties. Hell, you may even get to point to where you can counter-attack! NOW, SS_CabbageLeader, go ahead a pick apart that explanation. ------------------ "Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." --Jedi Master Yoda [This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted April 24, 2000 Share Posted April 24, 2000 OB&G, from what Ive read here, most people are in relative agreement on how this is going to work, or are at least willing to wait and see how it plays out. If you want to throw down the gauntlet, and start a big old argument again, open your own thread entitled "SS_PL is a jerk" or something If this issue isnt resolved, it's at least at an amiable stopping point. Let's try to leave it at that. Peace, my brothers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 24, 2000 Share Posted April 24, 2000 Once again OB&G I ask you to cut out the crap. Enough already. As for the placement of Victory Locations, that is entirely up to the person designing the scenario. In fact, there could be NO Victory Locations at all. This would turn the Battle into a pure fight between units instead of between units and terrain. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted April 24, 2000 Share Posted April 24, 2000 I like the idea of a huge free for all where the winner is dictated by pure carnage. Glad to hear my planned "bigger tank battle than Kursk" will not be sullied by silly VP locations. Boy, I just realized that this game is going to be out soon. I am getting all excited. Ray ------------------ MantaRays 5 Pages Hardcore Gamers Daily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Seimerst Posted April 24, 2000 Share Posted April 24, 2000 <digging in pocket for my two cents> With regard to scenario design for delaying actions and retrograde ops, I think the important element should be how long you can delay the enemy. The assignment of victory locations seems artificial in this regard. As the commander giving the order to my subordinate to delay the enemy until I can get the rest of my command across the river, I really don't care how he does it-- from a reverse slope defense or on the military crest or lauches a counter attack-- the issue is can he buy me enough time-- not what terrain he holds or gives up. Can the scenario design element permit "victory for the defender" to be "no more than 10% of the attackers starting combat strength from exiting off the east map edge"? In desperate situations, commanders must be willing to expend a unit to attain a higher operational imperative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 24, 2000 Share Posted April 24, 2000 Yes, as you say the victory locations are largely irrelevant in a fighting withdrawal situation. This is why we have the flexibility to have no victory locations on the map, or have them be of minimal point value. As for your question, no you can not specify percentages like that. We thought about it but felt that this wasn't really necessary. If a Battle's mission is to delay, then you simply make the delaying action happen on map and adjust the number of turns to reflect the length of time the defender is supposed to put up a fight on that particular map. So... a 20 turn battle means that the defender has to delay the attacker for 20 minutes. The degree of victory will depend on casualties more than anything, especially if VLs and tehir values are kept to a minimum. One thing I would do is put several small point VLs around the map's depth (say, three "lines" of small flags). These would be there to reward each side for progress (attacker) or the lack there of (defender), rather than the end goal. This will help make the victory condition a little more weighted towards how much ground was lost/gained within the small scope of the delaying action. Operations are different. Withdrawing units off the map means that they will be available for the next battle. So there is a natural situation for deciding to keep fighting, slowly withdraw, or high tail it out of there. We think the tools available to the player are enough that with some creative thought pretty much any situation can be simulated to a good degree. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts