Objective Flags- fixes needed

[Homba]

My complaint about objective flags:

You MUST have a squad or team on or near a Flag (and spotters/vehicle crew won't do), or else the Flag changes back to "neutral" '?' ...

This state of affairs is most ridiculous when I am defending a section of land in a defensive battle. The flags are inside my initial deployment zone (DZ) and also inside my defensive perimeter. But I dont get credit for possession of these flags if I dont have a squad/team ON the Flag. This is not realistic, because after stopping the attacker at my defensive line, I can stroll back and picnic on the flags- which, having started the battle inside my deployment zone, were safely in my possession inside my defensive perimeter the entire time.

This should really be fixed. For defensive battles, the flags in the defender's DZ should start the game as the defender's color, and remain that way until actually controlled/occupied by the attacker- regardless of whether or not the defender has men on the flag.

For a "meeting engagement," obviously the flags start neutral if they are in the neutral zone. In a meeting, I was at first able to rationalize the flag changing back to neutral if I left the flag, my assumption being that I actually have to occupy these objectives "for some strategic reason know only to HQ." If I move in, and then leave, I have not accomplished the mission, and the flag goes back to neutral.

I can no longer rationalize this. It is no better in meetings than it is in defenses. For example- what if you overrun the objetives and establish a defensive line in more favorable positions 100m beyond the flags. They are now within your defensive perimeter. You should not be denied the benefit of these flags simply because you aren't willing to leave teams behind to sit on them- ridiculous when the objectives (flags) are safely within your perimeter, meeting or not.

BTS got one thing right with the flags- they dont act as an "I'm HERE" signal, they way they do in Close Combat. If my opponent doesnt know my men are hiding on it, or have just moved in, all my opponent sees is a neutral flag.

But please fix the problem I am addressing above. I wonder how other people feel about this?

Homba

[AbramsGunner]

I'm reading that people say that crews or empty mortars can't hold a VL. I'm running 1.12 and very often I use crews or empty mortars to hold a rear VL. I've experimented a little and found that trucks wouldn't hold a VL (the flag stays neutral), but crews and empty mortars are no problem. Haven't experimented with a spotter yet though.

[AbramsGunner]

I agree that rear VL's in defense should show the defenders flag.

[FriendlyFire]

Pretty much anything that might conceivably shoot appears able to hold a VL - broken crews, shot-up infantry half-squads with LOW ammo, empty mortars (because if anyone attacks them they'll abandon their mortar and then, hey, they've got pistols!), you name it.

If you don't have anything from that list that you can send to a flag behind your lines at the end of a battle, then either you've achieved a stunning victory and can afford to send a full half-team to each location, or you've had an incredibly boring static battle with no significant casualties, and a little game feature like this is the least of your worries.

Plus, there's the obvious question: if your men are so far forward from a flag that it's neutral, how do you know that your opponent hasn't got someone through your lines (a sneaky sniper, for example), and captured it? Answer: you don't. So send someone there to make sure.

[aka_tom_w]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the ownership of the VL flag only counts at the end of the game.

IT has no bearing on the global moral so if they are safely within your defensive perimeter and they are neutral this is not important until the last turn of the game.

This has never been an issue for me as by that time I ALWAYS have at least as many crews (WITH pistols) running around in inside my defensive perimeter as I do have VLs to claim.

If as you say your VLs are SAFELY behind your lines, SURELY you can find a few guys with pistols handy to go and sit on them at the end of the battle. I have found that ANYONE with a even pistol (bailed crews for example) can sit on a neutral VL and claim it.

I don't think this is really all that big a deal.

I say this because how can we expect the AI to know where your Lines or defensive perimeter is? this is A HUGE issue and is the reason some of us don't play operations because when the AI draws the battle lines we are unhappy with the result sometimes. It is not realistic to expect he AI to sense or know that "your" VL's are behind "your" lines, it needs something more clearly defined and objective, like the presence or absence of your units or enemy units to make the determination of ownership.

And yes, Friendly fire is correct, if you don't detect the presense on the enemy, say sniper hiding in your back field undetected by any of your units up front on the line, back sitting on a VL, that VL will Appear netral to you but it will appear claimed to your opponent, so you must have one of your units sitting on it to claim it and make sure no enemy units are lurking undected trying to claim it. This state of affairs is not unreasonable.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-13-2001).]

[jKMkIII]

I believe that even they show up as neutral they are under your control (when points are counted) unless enemy has taken control of them.

So flags that are behind your troops are still under control even when they show up as neutral because you can't be sure there is no enemy there.

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

jK.MkIII

[jgdpzr]

jK.MkIII,

Actually, that's not the case. If a flag is neutral, neither side gets any points for it.

[Homba]

Sorry guys, I did some testing before I made my first post, and realized that vehicle crew CAN hold flags. I believe it is only the oddly pistoless arty spotters who can't hold a flag. I edited out a section of my post regarding vehicle crews, and forgot to edit the top bit (it was 2am).

But that wasn't really my main gripe, as a few of you have picked up on.

FriendlyFire & aka_tom_w: Not good enough! Two issues- (1) should flags behind your lines have to be manned? .. and (2) what about that sneaky sniper?

(1) The point is NOT that "you can send SOMEBODY back there and its not that big of an issue"-- that is a cop-out answer. It is an issue for me RIGHT NOW in a pbem game I have going. It is going to be very down-to-the-wire in the final turns, with nearly every flag at issue, and I need every armed man at the point of contact, not manning a rear-area flag that I know my opp won't reach in time. I am forced to send armed men crawling back to the rear, just so I can secure the points for that flag- which may be the difference between winning and losing.

(2) What if a sniper had infiltrated my lines and was sitting on the flag? This is a better argument, but still fails. Let's say the sniper does secretly take the flag, and I have no-one manning it. I wouldnt know that the sniper was there, and under my proposed modifications (combined with the current code which eliminates the "HELLO HERE I AM" flag of Close Combat fame), I would still see the flag as belonging to me, but I wouldnt get the points for it at the end- my opponent would see the flag as belonging to him, and would get the points. Great, fine, I totally agree with this.

Here is the problem- just because I don't know FOR SURE that a sniper hasn't infiltrated secretly to take my flag, doesn't mean that I shouldn't get the points for the flag AT THE END, IF my defensive line was not breached, or if the breach was contained. YES, I don't know FOR SURE if I still control the flag, but, in reality, if I still do (if it is still behind my perimeter, in my set-up zone, and my opponents attach has not carried that objective) THEN i have done my job, defended the objective for the required time, and I should get the points.

jkMrkIII: If it worked like you suggest it does, this would be perfect. I don't know for a fact if you or jgdpzr is correct, but I assume jgdpzr knows, or he wouldnt contradict you.

Based on the above, my complaint still stands. It is silly to say that I dont get credit for the flags within my defensive perimeter at game's end. I should not have to send men back to picnic there. If my opp hasn't taken the flag, I have defended the objective, and should get credit.

A meeting is no different.

Homba

[Pak40]

Homba, I agree with you to a small degree but you seem to think that front lines are very linear and well defined, when, in reality they weren't always like that. Many many times in history the front lines are more like groups of many units constantly probing the enemy for weaknesses and information. A lot of these probes and attacks actually get "behind" enemy units, either on purpose or accident. I've read about many incidents where units retreat to safety only to find that "safe area" occupied by enemy troops.

My point is, just because that Flag is "behind" a wall of your troops doesn't mean that the enemy hasn't gotten through and occupied your "safe area". There are always other battles happening around your localized battle and it is quite possible that enemy units from that battle have broken through and occupied your rear which you thought was safe.

Maybe if you try thinking of the front lines as more of groups of enemy and friendly units mixed together and less of well defined lines you might get a better picture of my point.

[Homba]

Originally posted by Pak40:

Homba, I agree with you to a small degree but you seem to think that front lines are very linear and well defined, when, in reality they weren't always like that.

Pak40, I consider the CM battlefield to essentially BE the front line (though on big enough maps, there are certainly "rear areas"). Whether the lines are well defined, or jumbled is determined by the actions of the players in the game, and where they setup/move their units.

Many many times in history the front lines are more like groups of many units constantly probing the enemy for weaknesses and information.

Last time I checked, this can be done in the game as well.

A lot of these probes and attacks actually get "behind" enemy units, either on purpose or accident. I've read about many incidents where units retreat to safety only to find that "safe area" occupied by enemy troops.

I do the above in my games. I make it a point to test my enemy's flanks and envelope them if possible. It wreaks havock and hurts the enemy commander's morale- he doesn't know where to turn his tanks. I can also capture rear area flags that my opponent has left unguarded or lightly held.

My point is, just because that Flag is "behind" a wall of your troops doesn't mean that the enemy hasn't gotten through and occupied your "safe area".

Note that "the enemy" in the above passage defined as follows, and the above statement is premised on the following assumption:

There are always other battles happening around your localized battle and it is quite possible that enemy units from that battle have broken through and occupied your rear which you thought was safe.

Is that so!? How many times has this happened to you in a CM game? Units from "another adjacent battle" breaking through into your battle? Really? This is pure fantasy, and therefore not a valid argument. NEVER in a game of CM has a flag been captured by a unit *from another battle* breaking into a back area and taking a flag. Units from THIS battle- yes, from ANOTHER battle- no.

Maybe if you try thinking of the front lines as more of groups of enemy and friendly units mixed together and less of well defined lines you might get a better picture of my point.

I will think of the front lines exactly how they appear in the game, when I play it.

The last few quotes of Pak40's make clear how he understands, or imagines the game. According to Pak40, it is a slice of a larger battle, with the units in adjacent battles able to play an active role in your battle, and thus influencing things like the flag rules (that I am attempting to get changed to comply with my first post in this thread.)

Let me ask you a question Pak: When was the last time you left a platoon or a tank out on your flank to guard against this potential attack from the imaginary adjacent map? I venture to say NEVER.

Here is how I think of a CM battle. Yes, it can be a slice of a larger battle (or it can stand on its own- which is enough for me!). If part of a larger, then the forces involved on MY map all have objectives on MY map. Same holds true for the imaginary "adjacent maps" - within the time constraints of a CM game, none of those forces on adjacent maps are going to have time to seize their objectives in detail, and come to the aid of forces on MY map.

Why is my idea of a CM game "better" than Pak40's? Lets not use "better" (too subjective) - let's use "more practical, workable, and accurate." Why? Simply because my view is CONSISTENT with the way a player plays in the game (assuming he plays to win!). Pak may keep his view, but he won't leave his forces on the map edge to guard against potential off-board attackers. (If off-board attackers were possible, you'd have to guard against them- but they arent, and you dont!) Pak40 may keep his view, his abstraction of a CM game, but guess what? He and anyone else like him PLAYS according to the principles of MY idea of a CM game. For that reason alone, his arguments counter to my flag proposition (which he bases on his "abstraction" of a CM game) are meritless.

I stand by my previous statement: If my opponent cannot take the objective flag(which started the game in my DZ) within the time allowed by the mission, then I have successfully defended that objective, and I should get credit for the flag (whether or not I have a scared 2 man vehicle crew on it at the end).

I have yet to hear a valid argument (grounded in reality) as to why this should not be changed. Changed in order to add realism and thereby make the game more fun.

Homba

[Maximus]

OK, let me weigh in here with my age ol' phrase concerning flags in CM.

"Destroy the enemy and then all the flags will be yours in the end anyway."

Homba, I see you made comparison of CM to CC in regards to VF occupation. Well that's your first mistake. The age ol' saying with CM is that "you must unlearn what you have learned from other wargames when playing CM".

I look at VFs in CM as "OK, those are the areas of which I can expect action or are somewhat of an importance in relation to scenario objectives." However if you totally rout the enemy from the field, then you have no one left to worry about occupying those "rear" flags.

On the attack, if you stop and leave "garrisons" at every flag, you're eventually going to run out of resources to push and route the enemy off the map. In other words, I never worry about occupying flags in the rear, because the main objective is to, as General Patton used to say, "is to kill the enemy." "We're not going to hold onto anything...we'll let the hun do that." "We're going to run through the enemy like crap through a goose." If you get my meaning.

If one plays a game of CM (on the attack) just to hold onto the flags at the end, then you're really not accomplishing your mission. Destroy the enemy and then all the flags will be yours in the end anyway. If you play for VFs, then you're just playing for points, which in itself is very gamey to say the least.

Now, you may say that this explanation really doesn't address your complaint, well no, it really doesn't, because really your point in kinda irrelevent in the game known as CM. Besides, there's really no indication in Battle AARs where it says anything about points being earned from VFs. The ending points are weighed heavily by the ratio of kills on each side.

See for yourself. Set up a test scenario where you have several 14" Naval Gun spotters up on a hill overlooking a single VF somewhere out in the flat ground. Set up a Battalion of German Infantry at the VF. Bombard the VF location with 14" Artillery and wipe out the Battalion. The game ends with a 100-0 score and the artillery spotters never moved from their position. ie the VF was never taken by the spotters. And as discussed above, spotters are incapable of taking VFs anyway. So there you go. Your issue is really not an issue.

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

For your dream car click here.

For a Close Encounter click here.

Hey look! I can see my house!

And for all you Hamster Lovers out there, check this out! Kitty, this one's for you!

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 03-13-2001).]

[Pak40]

Homba,

I am offering a realistic explanation of mabybe why BTS chose to model the VL flags the way they did. One of their goals, I believe, was to make CM as realistic as possible while making it a playable game.

As I have stated previously, I believe the way they modeled the VLs is more historically and realistically correct.

Let me try to put it another way. Each one of those VL flags represents a some sort of military goal. For instance, let's say one of the flags is a fuel or ammo depot. If there were any enemy forces anywhere near the area, wouldn't you have at least one unit gaurding it so you knew that it was in your control? The more realistic and historic answer is "YES". The gaming answer is "not necessarily" - but, as I stated before, BTS is striving for realism and playability combined; and with their current method you get a little of both.

BTW, the operation system in CM acts exactly the way you want: everything behind your MLR is under your control, even if none of your units are in the area or ever came near the area. BTS has caught a little bit of flak for modeling operations like this but maybe you'd be more happy with it.

[Homba]

And the resistance thickens... I really thought more people would be agreeing with me. I appreciate both of your comments, though I still disagree- but the question of how the flags are actually scored is raised- and I would like more info on this- and on how the game itself is scored at the end. Has anyone come out and actually given us the formula on how the game is scored? In scenario creation, the flags are described as 100pt (small) and 300pt (large) flags.

Can anyone help with the scoring info? As for your posts, I will try to get a reply together.

Homba

[Holien]

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum7/HTML/000476.html

Hi Homba,

Nice to see you here as we never crossed swords with another game that the mere mention raises some peoples heckles...

The link above might help?

For my two pennies...

I accept the Flags as they are. It has caught me out, but now I know...

The use of pistols to hold VL's seems a tad gamey but it is a game and one has to accept some limitations. The flag are a limitation in the first place, so I live with that as I can see no easy way with a computer program to achieve anything else which would not also have limtations.

If you fancy a PBEM one day I would love to meet you on the battlefield.

Cheers

H

[Homba]

Holien, thanks for that great post-link. Just the info I needed, and it confirms the way I hoped flags were handled. Maximus, I am afraid this contradicts your statement that flags are not important/not an issue in CM. (Thankfully so, for the sake of the game, IMHO). Apparently the flags HAVE been given the weight and importance of the objectives they purport to represent.

I am posting the most important text below, but the whole thread is valuable reading on this topic.

Quote from Graaf Spee:

You get full points for killing an obeserver regardless if he has any rounds left.

Regarding killing units or holding flags, it depends (like everything else) . You can try counting the unit points and then compare them to the flag (100/300). But remember that the game is decided on the pointRATIO. Sometimes its worth it sometimes not. But its usually more satisfying to kill all your opponents troops, so thats what I usually do. Or at least try to do

An example : 1000 ME with one 300point flag. Lets say you have lost one whole platoon which costed 100 ponits to purchase. That means your opponent have exactly 100 points. How many points you have is usually almost impssible to tell but lets say you have destroyed one whole platoon (150 points) and one tank with crew (150 points) for a total of 300 ponts. If there were no flag you would now be the winner (you 300, opponent 100) which means you get a scoore of 75 and your opponent 25, a 3:1 ratio. Which would mean a tactical (?).

Lets count with the flag. Lets say its contested. You still have 300 points and your opponent has 100. BUT the 300 points for the flag belongs to noone. So there is 700 points, and 'the computer' gets 300 that means that in the endgamescreen your scoore plus your opponents wont add up to 100. You will get a scoore of 43 and your opponent gets 14. 3:1 ratio

If the flag is in your opponents possession, then you still get 300 points while your opponent gets 400. Your scoore 43 and your opponents 57. A draw (?)

If its in your possession, you now have 600 points while your opponent still has 100. Your scoore is 86 and opponents 14. A total vicory! Or maybe a major, I cant remember the exact ratios (age do that to you)

So if you have the flag do you leave it to kill more units? The answer is of course a big NOOOOO! (that is,if you oly are interested in winning) You would have to kill units worth 300 points without loosing any yourself just to get even. But you just have to leave one little halfsquad behind to remain in possession of the flag. Then you can go and kill him. Especially the FOs. I hate them almost as much as I hate dwarfs in Myth!

Does all this make any sense? I hope so. Otherwise you can try a few hotseats with yourself.

/Kristian

Ah... a resupply of ammo to shoot at you and Pak40 with, Maximus... INCOMING!!!

Good lord, are my empty FOs all about to head to the back or what!? Can I actually retreat them off the map!?

And Holien, between my 5 pbem games and organizing the tourneys at Tournamenthouse.com, i am strapped for time, but I will remember your offer and look forward to crossing swords eventually!

(Edited for spelling and message to Holien)

Homba

[This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-14-2001).]

[FriendlyFire]

I have some sympathy with Homba's view that if at the end of a battle a flag is revealed to be neutral but is also significantly behind his "front line", then it should be counted as belonging to him.

However, if BTS were to try to implement this for CM2, it would open two new cans of worms:

1. How do you determine the front line? One option is to use exactly the algorithm used in operations, complete with the jagged lines and possible "holes" that it provides.

2. How far behind the front line does a neutral flag have to be for it to be declared "safely" held? 0m? 100m? 500m? But then what about really big maps? 1/4 of the map length? But then what if the front line is closer to the back of the map than that?

So let's say BTS implements this, and chooses some combination of fudges for can-o-worms #1 and can-o-worms #2. Do you really think that they're going to satisfy everyone? Hell no! We're going to have posts from people saying "that flag was only 99m behind my front line, so it wasn't classed as safe because !£%^$ BTS said 100m is the limit - that's an artificial limit and it stinks, CHANGE IT", and others from people saying "no *&%!$ way should the game engine have set the front line to that shape. I clearly held that line of woods with the flag 110m behind it. The front-line algorithm stinks, CHANGE IT".

And what will we say to these people? "Well, you should have sent a crew there to defend it with their pistols so that on the last turn you KNEW you owned it". Just like we do now.

In other words, BTS will add a new feature that will cause more arguments, and the solution to which will be the same as the one we have to adopt now.

So why is it in their interests to do this?

[Michael Dorosh]

Once again, everybody is talking out of their butt - I would like to see a definitive breakdown of how points are scored; the question has been raised several times. If someone can let me in on a search keyword to use that will answer the question of how victory points are actually awarded, I would love to read about it.

Bearing in mind, however, that I emailed Madmatt about exit VPs and he wasn't able to provide an answer for me, I would say the subject is quite murky and has not been explained fully, here or elsewhere.

Knowing with precision how victory points are awarded would encourage "gamey" play, but would also be a Godsend to battle/operation designers who would be able to provide better balance and more realistic victory conditions.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Once again, everybody is talking out of their butt - I would like to see a definitive breakdown of how points are scored; the question has been raised several times. If someone can let me in on a search keyword to use that will answer the question of how victory points are actually awarded, I would love to read about it.

Bearing in mind, however, that I emailed Madmatt about exit VPs and he wasn't able to provide an answer for me, I would say the subject is quite murky and has not been explained fully, here or elsewhere.

Knowing with precision how victory points are awarded would encourage "gamey" play, but would also be a Godsend to battle/operation designers who would be able to provide better balance and more realistic victory conditions.

Hi

If this is a correct and accurate quote this a pretty good start?

But Admittedly it does not address the answer of exit point for units that must exit the map at specific exit zones?

"

quote:

You get full points for killing an obeserver regardless if he has any rounds left.

Regarding killing units or holding flags, it depends (like everything else) . You can try

counting the unit points and then compare them to the flag (100/300). But remember

that the game is decided on the pointRATIO. Sometimes its worth it sometimes not.

But its usually more satisfying to kill all your opponents troops, so thats what I

usually do. Or at least try to do

An example : 1000 ME with one 300point flag. Lets say you have lost one whole

platoon which costed 100 ponits to purchase. That means your opponent have exactly

100 points. How many points you have is usually almost impssible to tell but lets say

you have destroyed one whole platoon (150 points) and one tank with crew (150

points) for a total of 300 ponts. If there were no flag you would now be the winner

(you 300, opponent 100) which means you get a scoore of 75 and your opponent 25,

a 3:1 ratio. Which would mean a tactical (?).

Lets count with the flag. Lets say its contested. You still have 300 points and your

opponent has 100. BUT the 300 points for the flag belongs to noone. So there is 700

points, and 'the computer' gets 300 that means that in the endgamescreen your

scoore plus your opponents wont add up to 100. You will get a scoore of 43 and your

opponent gets 14. 3:1 ratio

If the flag is in your opponents possession, then you still get 300 points while your

opponent gets 400. Your scoore 43 and your opponents 57. A draw (?)

If its in your possession, you now have 600 points while your opponent still has 100.

Your scoore is 86 and opponents 14. A total vicory! Or maybe a major, I cant

remember the exact ratios (age do that to you)

So if you have the flag do you leave it to kill more units? The answer is of course a big

NOOOOO! (that is,if you oly are interested in winning) You would have to kill units

worth 300 points without loosing any yourself just to get even. But you just have to

leave one little halfsquad behind to remain in possession of the flag. Then you can go

and kill him. Especially the FOs. I hate them almost as much as I hate dwarfs in Myth!

Does all this make any sense? I hope so. Otherwise you can try a few hotseats with

yourself.

/Kristian"

[Swede]

Originally posted by FriendlyFire:

I have some sympathy with Homba's view that if at the end of a battle a flag is revealed to be neutral but is also significantly behind his "front line", then it should be counted as belonging to him.

I don't see why a determination of the "front line" should have to come into the equation. The onus is on the attacker to capture certain objectives, abstractly represented by VF's, with acceptably low losses; the defender's goal is to keep the attacker from seizing those objectives, or to make him pay dearly for them. If the attacker is never able to occupy the VF's, the defender should get the points for them, IMO, without having to actually occupy them himself. It would still behoove the defender to occupy the objectives just to make sure that the attacker has not snuck a small force to that location.

However, there are usually enough crews, etc. running around behind the mainline troops that can be used to occupy those VF's later in the game, so I don't feel like the current system is too flawed. Occasionally it might be a problem, such as the tightly-contested battle mentioned previously where no troops can be spared for garrison duty, but I would think that would be rare. I am just advocating the minor improvement of giving uncontested flag points to the defender--or maybe to the last side to occupy them, which defaults to the defender if neither side has ever been there.

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

Swede

Rommell, you magnificant bastard! I read your book!

-- GCS as GSP

[Pak40]

From my experience playing CM, the scoring seems to be equally divided between capturing the flags and killing your opponent. But it is also possible to design a scenario without flags. Also, operations are scored entirely differently.

I don't have the manual with me today (I'm at work right now), but I seem to recall the scoring formula in the manual. Can someone take a look?

[Guest wwb_99]

I think the way CM handles flags is by far the most realistic way that VLs have been handled by any tactical wargame. One rule of warfare that applied as much to Alexander as to Patton was that you did not own a piece of ground until your infantryman was standing upon it with his own two feet. If there ain't no one standing on it, well you don't own it and CM reflects that.

Also, in WW II front lines were not solid, but more like a series of company strong points with several hundred meters of dead ground in between. The Germans were notorious for slipping platoons between these strong points at night. And as I said earlier, the only way to be sure that the enemy is not there is to be there yourself.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Michael Dorosh]

Where does it say that casualty points are tied exactly to the unit values?

The rulebook says that PWs (I think) are worth

2 or 3

times their normal value. Two OR 3!!!! Not very precise!

Why do we think casualty points are awarded with any more precision?

Until someone is able to state for a fact that casualty points are indeed identical to the purchase value, (or even just says that there is some fuzzy logic involved here, too), any other commentary is pointless.

Why does the AAR list guns, mortars and vehicles destroyed? That would lead me to think they are may be worth more points than their purchase value. The use of the phrase "2 or 3" leads me to believe some fuzzy logic may be in use as well. How does this work?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Pak40:

From my experience playing CM, the scoring seems to be equally divided between capturing the flags and killing your opponent. But it is also possible to design a scenario without flags. Also, operations are scored entirely differently.

I don't have the manual with me today (I'm at work right now), but I seem to recall the scoring formula in the manual. Can someone take a look?

WHAT ?!!

You don't carry the CMBO Disk AND Manual EVERYWHERE you go?!

You should be banished from posting here! And you are an old Timer to Boot! (ok, I mean Seasoned veteran poster)

(posted in the best of humour, of course)

I have mine with me always, it is the most important document in by brief case (shows you how importmat MY job is HA!)

page 102

gives some hints:

Victory points are awarded for the following:

-Control of Victory flags (100 or 300 points)

-Casualties caused to the enemy

-Captured enemy (counts DOUBLE that of casualties)

-Exited units generally worth 2-3 times the units purchase value. (note: units eligible for exit that do not exit score points for the enemy) (??How many points? unspecified)

-Any "bonus" set by the scenario Designer

(what the hell is that?)

Victory level

Each Side scores points which generally add up to 100. The ratio determines the victory level displayed below, as follows:

< 1.25 to 1 = draw (so to win you need a MORE than 1.25 to 1 ratio of kills to losses)

<1.75 to 1 = Minor Victory

<2.50 to 1 = Tactical Victory

<5.0 to 1 = major Victory

The above < should be Less than or EQUAL to but the symbol lookes like this when it comes up *

> 5.00 to 1 = Total Victory

that's about all the manual says on it

page 102 of the ORIGINAL Mannual V1.0

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-14-2001).]

[CavScout]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

I think the way CM handles flags is by far the most realistic way that VLs have been handled by any tactical wargame. One rule of warfare that applied as much to Alexander as to Patton was that you did not own a piece of ground until your infantryman was standing upon it with his own two feet. If there ain't no one standing on it, well you don't own it and CM reflects that.

You don't need to be on something to own it. You just need to have effective influence on it, be it nearby hills or other terrain.

[Homba]

Originally posted by Swede:

I don't see why a determination of the "front line" should have to come into the equation. The onus is on the attacker to capture certain objectives, abstractly represented by VF's, with acceptably low losses; the defender's goal is to keep the attacker from seizing those objectives, or to make him pay dearly for them. If the attacker is never able to occupy the VF's, the defender should get the points for them, IMO, without having to actually occupy them himself.

Thank you, Swede, this is my point exactly. Sticking to an attack/defend situation for now, if the flags are in my DZ, it is my job as the defender to prevent the attacking side from seizing/overrunning these objectives, within the time allowed for the battle. If I succeed, I should get the points- regardless of whether I have men there.

Take this simple example. I am defending a crossroads (upon which sits the flag), which lies in an open field. 200m to the west of the crossroads/flag is a belt of woods on a ridge. The crossroads, and ridgeline are all in my initial DZ. My opponent is attacking from west of that ridgeline, and must cross the ridge to secure the crossroads.

My opponent is going to attack with infantry and heavy support. I have mainly infantry, and dig my foxholes on the reverse slope of the ridge, in the woods- sheltered from the enemy support- the best defensive location. (Note I do not dig a foxhole on the crossroads itself! My nearest troops are 200m away on the ridge!)

The battle unfolds, and my plan works. I take heavy losses, but stop the enemy- they cannot cross the ridge and fail to capture the vital crossroads.

I argue that I should get the points for the flag, having successfully defended the objective of the attacker's assault. What difference does it make if I have some lowly squad remnant down there at the crossroads flag or not!? No difference at all! It is silly, unrealistic, and yes, GAMEY, for me to have to send a squad down to the flag to get credit for it. I think this is something that can be easily fixed, and a great fix it would be!

As for the “kill em all and get the flags afterwards” crowd, this is again a cop-out answer. That's great if you rout your opponent off the field- this will be rare against a well-led defense. Taking objectives (flags) wins wars. To win a war you have to defeat your enemy’s ability to fight effectively. You do this by taking objectives which inhibit his ability to supply and move his forces. You can quote Patton all you want- people who are playing a winning hand can talk crap. Germany was already in collapse when he was driving around in 1944, the fact that they could resist so well is a testament to the martial skill of their soldiers, but they could not hope to prevail. I will quote a (IMHO) more respectable authority, Sun Tzu, who said- “winning 100 battles does not make a general great: winning without fighting- that is what makes a general great.” In war, cannot kill every one of your opponent’s soldiers. You have to take away their ability to fight you. You do this by taking important “objectives”-- and you should attempt to do this as efficiently as possible. The enemy, if well led, will try at all costs to prevent you from taking them. Objectives are a VITAL part of CM, and its realism, and they should be handled correctly for the good of the game- and therefore, I propose my changes.