Objective Flags- fixes needed

[Pak40]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

WHAT ?!!

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

Actually, I'm in the process of getting the entire manual tatooed on my body but Im only up to page 42.

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

The 1.25 to 1 ratio is determined by adding VL points, casualties caused, and captures, not just kills.

[FriendlyFire]

I think this is something that can be easily fixed, and a great fix it would be!

Homba, I have argued that it is NOT easily fixed - see my previous post. If you can come up with an algorithm that will work for all situations in all maps and cause less arguments than the current situation, I'm all ears. To reiterate, the problems are:

1. How do you decide what the front line is?

2. How do you decide how far away a neutral flag has to be from the front line for it to be safely held?

3. How do you respond to the arguments of all the people who think that your choices of #1 and #2 are "obviously" wrong?

[Col Deadmarsh]

Welcome to the forum Homba.

This is how I see this thing...You can view CM just like other games where points are given for simply taking arbitrary positions with no real importance or you can view CM as a game based on reality where points are awarded for holding positions that in real life would be guarded due to their importance.

So, I have to disagree with you because if I approach this game with the latter method, I am viewing these vls' (important positions--fuel depots, overlooks, etc) as positions that need to be guarded. In real life, a squad would not abandon an important objective like that, even if those men could be used elsewhere. To claim that piece of land, you must be reasonbly near to it, if not on it.

I agree with you that if you have that vl in your field of fire, then the vl should be yours and it will be awarded to you in CM if you're close enough to it. But expecting to be given ownership of a piece of property that you're guarding with a mg team from on top of a hill from 600m away is not grounded in reality and this is how most of us approach this game.

When I first came here, I based everything on what I learned in CC2. After ducking all the rotten vegetables thrown my way, I soon realized that my idea of reality had been distorted by what I saw in Close Combat. I no longer expected houses to be titanium-reinforced strongholds and all the other things in CM that seemed so different and somehow wrong to me suddenly made sense.

You see a vl that was yours at the beginning of the game and if it's not touched by the enemy, it should remain yours. Others who view this game like I do see a valuable fortification, an abstracted value of something else not known to you, and and are told that you must defend that fortification from inside or nearby to assure its safety. Even though the actual value of that vl doesn't come into play, one must view it as so and when you do, CM becomes much more enjoyable to play.

It all comes down to how you view the game. I think with a little time, you will see things in a new light like the rest of us. It took me months to convert and to "unlearn what I learned from other war games."

Anyways, that's my opinion on this. Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta get back to our game and do something about that invincible Puma of yours in my rear area.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Mark IV]

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000464.html

One thing to note is that CM judges "ownership" of objectives in a much more detailed way than most wargames do. For starters, we dispense with the "last man to move through this here town has control". That's a bunch of BS! I'd like to hear a conversation from the actual war that went as follows:

Major: "Sergeant, have you taken control of the village?"

Sergeant: "Yes, sir."

Major: "Excellent. Tell your men to hold on and resupply will arrive soon."

Sergeant: "Men, sir? My men took control of the village hex on turn 5, but have since moved to the other side of the map. But don't worry. There's still a big American flag icon there, so I'm sure it's a friendly hex even though we've got no one there to verify."

Major: (veins bulging in forehead) "Sergeant! I mean... BUCK-ASS PRIVATE!! You #%#@!!!%^*@!!*!!!!!"

CM judges control of an objective by measuring the current strengths, numbers, proximity, and lines of sight of units nearby. Running two guys armed with a canteen and a spoon through an objective isn't going to make any difference. You've got to have a combat-capable force there (although it can be small). Second, even a small enemy force in the local area will cause the objective to return to neutral status. It doesn't matter if you outnumber the enemy by a whole bunch - if he has a combat-capable force able to project decent firepower at (relatively) short range onto the objective, then the objective goes "neutral" and no one gets points for it. You've really got to clear the objective and the nearby area to get credit for control.

We also do not "telegraph" the loss of an objective unless the enemy units causing loss of control are spotted. This avoids the problem of objectives acting as "radar beacons" indicating enemy progress.

We also have two types of objectives (marked by flags): major and minor. You can have as many of each as you wish, depending on what kind of map you want and how important various map features are intended to be.

CM also supports "surprise" objectives. Up to four (IIRC) flags are on the map, but only one is "real" and only the attacker knows which one it is. The defender has to guess, and be smart enough not to let the attacker fake him out with a feint in the wrong direction. The "real" objective is randomly chosen (or, optionally, by the attacker) each time you play the scenario.

Campaigns are yet another thing entirely. Victory there is judged by the amount of progress your force makes over the "overall" map by the end of the campaign. There are no explicit objectives: just progress, progress, progress!

[Col Deadmarsh]

Major: "Sergeant, have you taken control of the village?"

Sergeant: "Yes, sir."

Major: "Excellent. Tell your men to hold on and resupply will arrive soon."

Sergeant: "Men, sir? My men took control of the village hex on turn 5, but have since moved to the other side of the map. But don't worry. There's still a big American flag icon there, so I'm sure it's a friendly hex even though we've got no one there to verify."

Major: (veins bulging in forehead) "Sergeant! I mean... BUCK-ASS PRIVATE!! You #%#@!!!%^*@!!*!!!!!"

ROTFL!!!!! Exactly what I'm saying!

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Pak40]

... And that's exactly what I was trying to say earlier in this thread.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by Mark IV:

[

I feel I have to intervene on that. CM proved to myself that is not true. I believe from experience that CM just counts heads, not fighting ability. If it was as you said it would be muche better but it is NOT.

I had on a PBEM of mine a VF going neutral because my opponent got two mortars with no ammo units and a sharpshooter with no ammo unit close to the VF near a wood. My suqad of fully armed, no LOW ammo, still fighting capability was counted as equal by CM. Result? I lost the VF (not the battle though) which turned grey because some uncapable zombies reached the flag through the woods and there was no time left for my units to notice them, react, eim and shoot and kill those zombies: BANG the world has ended in the last 60 secs of the last turn and the flag was neutral.

Silly and I wished CM would have computed instead FIGHTING POWER not mere presence of soon dead unarmed people.

Unless this is a bug I believe CM should compute fighting power instead.

[Homba]

Let me first back up. Let's limit the discussion *only* to how flags should be handle in attack/defense situations: when the flags start the game in the defender's DZ. After we has through that, we can deal with meetings- which is a more complex topic and may or may not require different handling.

FriendlyFire: you are stuck on the "front-line" thing- which was merely an illustration on my part, not the heart of the flag amendment I want enacted. Your quote:

Homba, I have argued that it is NOT easily fixed - see my previous post. If you can come up with an algorithm that will work for all situations in all maps and cause less arguments than the current situation, I'm all ears. To reiterate, the problems are:

1. How do you decide what the front line is?

2. How do you decide how far away a neutral flag has to be from the front line for it to be safely held?

3. How do you respond to the arguments of all the people who think that your choices of #1 and #2 are "obviously" wrong?

As I and others have already stated in this thread, we dont need an algorithim to determine where the front line is in order to make this amendment work. (My proposed amendment: "A flag starting the game in my DZ when i am defending should remain mine regardless of whether or not I have a squad occupying it- unless and until taken by the attacker.)

If the attacker fights through to the flag and wins it in the allowed time, he gets the flag points. If he doesn't make it to the flag, I have defended it successfully REGARDLESS OF WHERE MY DEFENSE WAS BASED, and I therefore get the points. We dont need to define the front line to enact this amendment. The only question is: did the attacker take the objective? If not, the defender gets the points for a succesful defense of it. I hope that answers your questions 1, 2 & 3.

Colonel: you (and everyone else) totally fail to address my "crossroads flag/ridgeline defense" example above! You don't address it because you can't argue with the logic. The heart of my argument is: it doesnt matter where i base my defense, as long as the objective is defended successfully.

Lets look at a few of Colonel's quotes:

This is how I see this thing...You can view CM just like other games where points are given for simply taking arbitrary positions with no real importance or you can view CM as a game based on reality where points are awarded for holding positions that in real life would be guarded due to their importance.

I view the game the same as you do! Yes the positions will be guarded/defended, just like in real life. Where we part ways is HOW this defense is conducted! Am I look one level deeper into the realism that we're striving for? The best place to defend an objective is NOT ALWAYS AT THE OBJECTIVE. You fail to address my "ridgeline defense/ crossroads objective" example above. Do you think it is realistic, Colonel, for my men to lay in the ditches at the crossroads while the enemy tanks take the ridge and blast me to hell with HE? Hell no! You set up your defense at the ridge, on the reverse slope, so the enemy infantry has to try to root you out of your holes without support. If the tanks top the ridge, you hit them with schrecks. Why are you doing this?? TO GUARD THE VITAL CROSSROADS. I don't care if the crossroads is a mile behind my defensive line- if I stop the enemy from taking it, I have successfully defended and should get the points! This is as real as it gets! Men in the ditch at the crossroads is as GAMEY as it gets.

Now i am weary of being patronized by those telling me I need to "unlearn" my old ways, etc etc etc... Address my points if you want to argue with me. I hold every wargame I play up to the light of reality and try to determine what works and what doesnt. If a simple fix can be made to increase realism, then by all means I am going to suggest it.

I have already stated that the CM flags are superior to the CC flags because of the elimination of "the beacon effect." So, MarkIV, please read what I have previously written before instructing me (if that was your intent). CM is superior to CC in a great many ways, except perhaps for the "atmosphere" of the 1-1 infantry representation.

But don't let me get off topic. If you will limit your responses to the topic of flags in attack/defense situations as I outlined above (and to which my whole post was directed) then we will make some progress. I want someone to refute on the basis of realism my 'crossroads objective/ridgeline defense' example for starters.

The story about the troops moving through the town above is more apt to a meeting engagement (nor does it address my ridgeline example), and I suggest we reserve that discussion for after we sort out the defense/attack flags.

Homba

(edited for grammar)

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

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by Mark IV:

[

The actual discussion was (as CM computes the VF presence is:

Major: "Sergeant, have you taken control of the village?"

Sergeant: "Afraid not, sir."

Major: (veins bulging in forehead) "Sergeant! I mean... BUCK-ASS PRIVATE!! You #%#@!!!%^*@!!*!!!!!"

Sergeant err Private:

"Well Major, fact is I have a full squad of 8 full armed men there but the enemy has been able to run in the last 10 seconds two wounded squads of mortar guys without shells and a sharpshooted with no more bullets. We tried to kill those zombies but the war ended all of a sudden and out bullets stopped mid-air. Now we are 8 against 8. The area is neutral, Sir. Jeez, we should have had just 15 seconds more and they were all dead now. I still have to see again the movie to believe it really happened"

[Maximus]

That nice long quote from another thread really doesn't answer a thing. As I said in my example, several artillery spotters can defeat a battalion of troops and score a 100-0 vicotry without taking the flag.

Let's take a semi-real example. Lets's say that the radarsite MG nest in SPR is a 100-point victory flag. The squad's mission in SPR was not to bother with anything else other than finding Pvt. Ryan. But they decided to take out this MG nest as in what Cpt. Miller said as to, "our objective is to win the war." The squad knocked out the MG nest and then went about their business. They did not leave anybody there. The objective of war is to eliminate resistance as you go. And I go back to what I quoted from Patton, "We're not going to hold onto anything." Destroy the enemy and you won't need to "secure" the lonely MG nest at the end of the game. Because in real war, the battle doesn't end at a given amount of time like a scenario does.

NOTE: This theory holds true to when on the attack. Of course if you are defending, then it is an entirely different story.

But if you are to ask me if I go scurrying around to occupy VFs around the 28th turn of a 30-turn scenario, I'll answer with a resounding "NO!" Because why should I do that when I can drive off the enemy and get a Total Vicotry anyway. Who gives a **** about points. IMHO, this is what makes the very essence of VFs to be very GAMEY to say the least. You see what I'm saying, "real battles" just don't automatically and magically end after 30 minutes.

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

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!

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Homba,

for attack/defend battles with VF within defender area it looks like they should be counted from the very beginning as defender's flags.

That is, if the attacker is not capable to contest those flags they should remain assigned to the defender as he succeded in not letting the attacker getting close to those areas.

Fact is CM does not have multiple ways of flag assignements so it treats them as meeting engagements: if nobody is there nobody controls the area which - I agree - is quite a limiting.

I think arguing against that is purely an intellectual ***turbation. The objective of the attacker is to conquer the flag. He fails, flags REMAIN assigned (notice the *remain*) to defender side which should not be forced by the flag assignement algorithm to back off and send units in retreat.

If the attacker has been able instead to sneak through flanks and establish a presence there with the defender not noticing the maneuver THEN the flag is assigned to the attacker and the defender should blaim himself for being overconfident.

I would say the problem would be easily solved if flags in defend/attack battles were by default assigned to the defender and switched off to neutral or to the other side ONLY and ONLY IF the attacker has been able to push forward enough toward those objectives.

Otherwise it is - AS IT IS NOW - just a meeting engagement wich happens to have initial position biased in favor of the defender. The defender is now forced to back off in retreat if he wants CM to assign control of he flag area to his forces: nonsense. Flags in this case should all ab initio be assigned to the defender side!

And I do not believe that a pre-assignment should cause ANY reaction saying: hey that is not fair!

Your assignment as attacker is clear: break through and get to the flags. If not you HAVE FAILED PAL and CM should give the defender a Major Victory and KEEP the flag assigned to the defender.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Maximus: Exactly. Battles do not end after 20 minutes.

But that does NOT play in favor of your argument.

Personally I'd play without flags and would just have textual directives. Capture the bridge or seize the town. But it would arise other technical problems as the flags allow for situation where holding an objective at a specified time (end of the battle) is the goal.

For attack/defend I do not see much of a trouble in Homba's view. Objective of the defender is to keep the attacker from getting close to the target for the duration of the battle: he succeeds if he does that, not if he does that AND puts units on the area.

The objective of the attacker is NOT to kill the defender. The objective is to seize control of the target. If he kills all defender's men and still he is not at the objective in time HE FAILS. The HQ plans for the defender is to KEEP the attacker OFF at all costs, even to the lives of all your men. The objective for the defender is to make so as not having enemy presence in the area. That happened many times in real situations and brave men all gave their lives to reach that goal and treated afterward as Heroes not Losers. CM is treating the same simulated situation as if they were instead all Losers. Who cares if you kept the objective clear of enemy for the time required: you should have been there too.

Again, to defend or maintaining an objective clear you do not have to be physically there.

Pre-assignment of flags would make that situation possible and CM would then treat the situation the right way.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Homba, I see your point. I've come to accept though that I need to be near a vl in order to hold it. I don't have a big problem with that but I can see why others like yourself would. After all, you start off with that vl, why shouldn't it be yours at the end?

I guess it all comes down to how you look at it. If you accept the abstractions, then this kind of thing wouldn't be much of an issue. If you look at CM as a game with absolute values instead of seeing the big picture and what the area in CM is supposed to represent in relation to that big picture, then yes, you have a good argument for a change here.

If BTS should change this in the future, I wouldn't oppose it. All I'm saying is, I've come to appreciate the abstraction of what these vl's stand for and don't have a big problem with the way things are right now.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Homba]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Homba, I see your point. I've come to accept though that I need to be near a vl in order to hold it. I don't have a big problem with that but I can see why others like yourself would. After all, you start off with that vl, why shouldn't it be yours at the end?

Right. You agree that, as my example proves, the best place to defend a VL flag is not (always) ON THE FLAG.

I guess it all comes down to how you look at it. If you accept the abstractions, then this kind of thing wouldn't be much of an issue. If you look at CM as a game with absolute values instead of seeing the big picture and what the area in CM is supposed to represent in relation to that big picture, then yes, you have a good argument for a change here.

I'm not sure I understand what abstractions you're talking about. Unless it is the imaginary adjacent battles whos imaginary attackers rout the imaginary defenders so thoroughly, quickly and consistently, that they are always a threat to come over onto your map and take your VL (which they never do in the game, and no one EVER plays as if there is a threat that they will). I dismissed this argument a long way above in the thread. I can have an abstract view of my battle being a slice of a larger one (or not), and I still vastly prefer the flag rule change im suggesting as being the much more realistic than the current rule (and I am still limiting my argument to defense/attack situations, as I requested above).

I dont think there's anything abstract about, for example, a vital crossroads being the objective of an attack, as in my example. No abstraction there. Real as life.

If BTS should change this in the future, I wouldn't oppose it. All I'm saying is, I've come to appreciate the abstraction of what these vl's stand for and don't have a big problem with the way things are right now.

So I'd like to know specifically what you mean by appreciating abstraction with regard to the flags, and why this abstraction justifies the current treatment of flags in attack/defend scenarios?

Maximus: You must be one of those people who always ask for a "last man standing" game! Who needs objectives? Lets rumble! Do you lose a lot when wise people sit back with an equal force in a meeting and let you drive into their guns? Your 100-0 example confirms what Graaf Spee posted on how the scoring works- so I'm not sure why you keep trumpeting your test in the same breath as you criticizing his (which I think is obviously accurate and well tested).

And I won't leave your SPR example without commenting. I will assume for the sake of argument that the MG nest is a 100pt objective. You say that after destroying the nest, the attackers move on without manning the nest- they don't need to man it. I'm glad you're coming around to my point of view. If my flag rule change suggestion gets implemented, you will get the 100pts for that MG nest at the end of the game even though you left no units on it. ONLY IF enemy forces IN FACT re-occupy the MG pit would they get the points for the flag.

And the above is how I would handle the re-capture by the once-ousted defender of flags in an attack/defense situation. This is the logical next step in the discussion of the attack/defend flag rules: what happens once the flag is overrun by the attacker, and the defender attempts to re-capture it? I say it should be handled as stated in the MG pit example above. The attack can move on and retain possession of the flag without leaving anyone on it, and unless the enemy physically re-captures it, the attacker gets the points for it in the end. In essence, the attacker, having taken the Flag, now becomes the defender of that vital objective, and is free to defend it however he sees fit- be it throwing caution to the wind and charging the shaken enemy remnants, or finding a safer location to defend the flag against any attempt by the original defender to re-capture it.

What does everyone think about the above "re-capture sub-rule" in the context of the attack/defend flag modification argument? (I can think of one palatable alternative.)

Thank you Seahawk for you lucid supporting statements. I sense that a few people are starting to change their minds. At least we are having some constructive discussion.

Homba

(edited for quote designation problems)

[This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-15-2001).]

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Actually I start to think that a sticky-flag would certainly be a better and the same arguments apply to the attacker if successful. he should not be required to stay put in part to maintain control: he has kicked the defender out and should be able to pursue him.

THEN, if the defender is able to sneak some units back and regain control all the better and all the better from a realistic point of view as well. But if he does not than he cannot hope for an automatic greying out of the VF just because he is running away and pursued. (in reference to the withdraw tactics aiming exaclty at this: grey out flags because of luring the enemy into pursuit and escaping from the map aiming to a draw. It is instead a debacle not a draw!

[Knaust]

Make WAR...not WORDS!

just kidding...I appreciate this long debate very much!

[Col Deadmarsh]

I'm not sure I understand what abstractions you're talking about. Unless it is the imaginary adjacent battles whos imaginary attackers rout the imaginary defenders so thoroughly, quickly and consistently, that they are always a threat to come over onto your map and take your VL (which they never do in the game, and no one EVER plays as if there is a threat that they will)

No, this is not the abstraction I'm talking about. I'm speaking in terms of holding an important victory location. To hold a location, I beleive you have to be within a certain distance of it, otherwise it is not held by you.

You are asking to be awarded control of a victory location even though you may be 300m out. Correct? Well, what if you were 600m out and had mg's trained on a valley below which the enemy had to cross to get to the flag? Should you still be awarded that vl?

Now, if that vl is behind you, that's one thing. I agree that it should still be in your control and this can be considered a location in your back lines. But what if the vl is off to your side and on the front line? In other words, it is in front of the attacker and to the side of you, the defender. You are covering it with your mg team but it's not in your rear area. Should you still be awarded it now?

This plan you bring forth has many grey areas like this. You have somewhat convinced me that anything behind you should be yours if on defense until someone takes it. This point is up for debate, I agree. But when the vl is on the front line and your mg is guarding the vl from 300m to the East, I am skeptical about whether or not you should be given that flag or not.

So I'd like to know specifically what you mean by appreciating abstraction with regard to the flags, and why this abstraction justifies the current treatment of flags in attack/defend scenarios?

I think of the flags as important locations that are to be guarded. Staying with your SPR example, when our heroes joined the other squad at the bridge, why do you think that squad was at the bridge? They were defending it of course. Did they just walk through and claim it to be theirs? No, of course not. They had to stay there to make sure the enemy didn't take it. If they had walked through and left, and marched 20 miles to join up with another company, should that bridge be considered theirs now? Ridiculous!

The vl's in CM are important locations. If you have a vl on the front line, it needs to be guarded. You are bringing that CC2 mentality into this game and that doesn't fly. CM was made to mirror real war. You can't take those CC rules and apply them here. (God, I feel like such a traitor now)

And I won't leave your SPR example without commenting. I will assume for the sake of argument that the MG nest is a 100pt objective. You say that after destroying the nest, the attackers move on without manning the nest- they don't need to man it. I'm glad you're coming around to my point of view. If my flag rule change suggestion gets implemented, you will get the 100pts for that MG nest at the end of the game even though you left no units on it. ONLY IF enemy forces IN FACT re-occupy the MG pit would they get the points for the flag.

Listen to what you're saying here and think about whether this makes sense. They are in neutral territory when they come upon this enemy mg nest. They take the position and then leave. If they were to come back, would they stroll in, guns on their backs, thinking the whole time that since they killed a few Germans in the area awhile ago, that it's safe to return? This land now belongs to the USA! Sheesh. They're not guarding the vl. They are nowhere near the vl, so how can it be theirs?

And the above is how I would handle the re-capture by the once-ousted defender of flags in an attack/defense situation. This is the logical next step in the discussion of the attack/defend flag rules: what happens once the flag is overrun by the attacker, and the defender attempts to re-capture it? I say it should be handled as stated in the MG pit example above. The attack can move on and retain possession of the flag without leaving anyone on it, and unless the enemy physically re-captures it, the attacker gets the points for it in the end. In essence, the attacker, having taken the Flag, now becomes the defender of that vital objective, and is free to defend it however he sees fit- be it throwing caution to the wind and charging the shaken enemy remnants, or finding a safer location to defend the flag against any attempt by the original defender to re-capture it.

Surely you jest. This is the same scenario as the mg nest example. The attacker is not there to defend the land, so what makes it theirs? Because they last passed through it? How can a piece of land be owned if you are not there to guard it? You can't just plant your country's flag and expect it to be yours.

Like I said in the beginning, I will back you up on having flags in your rear area belong to the defender until taken by the attacker, but the other changes you propose are not realistic in my opinion.

Don't worry, this CC mentality will not last forever. I think you will come to realize why things in this game were done the way they were. It just makes for a more realistic game.

Sorry for the sarcasm but I just got back from a bar and I'm a little bit buzzed. Kwazydog, aren't you glad I didn't choose women as the subject for tonight...

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[FriendlyFire]

In Homba's proposed mod, all flags in the defender's zone are counted as belonging to the defender unless the attacker owns them. One problem is that this can only be enforced at the end of the game, otherwise we either have to give away information via the beaconing effect, or we have to add more possible states to the flags.

Here's why. Imagine that I've got six flags to defend, spaced along my front line, and one on a big hill at the very back. They all start off assigned to me, even though I have no troops near six of them. Because I've decided to sit on the hill at the back with my AT guns and my mortars and my FOs, and I'll pound the heck out of anything that I see crossing the front line. Quite possibly a smart tactic, quite realistic. But what if my opponent successfully sneaks forces into all six front-line flags without me seeing him? Either the game engine has to show the flags changing to him (in which case I use the beaconing effect to charge down with a counterattack), or it has to lie to me and tell me that they're still mine - this is the extra state we would have to add to the flags. "You think it's yours, but because you have no people near it you can't tell, and actually your opponent owns it". Can you imagine trying to explain this to newbies? Can you imagine the complaints on this board? How far away do your people have to be to change from "thinking" that a flag is theirs to "knowing" that a flag is theirs? In fog? In darkness?

So, the only way out is to do Homba's check at the end of the game - any neutral flag behind the defender's initial start line is change to being owned by the defender at the end of the very last turn. Now, what if I'm the attacker, and I've pushed the defender wayyyy back, crunched his front lines, he's got a few men hovering on the hill at the back huddled around that last flag. I've routed him from all the other flags at his front line. They're now behind the fighting front. So clearly, there is no way he has successfully defended them. I should own them. By Homba's arguments, I should be able to concentrate all my forces on that last hill, and not have to garrison the six flags that are now in MY rear with beat-up tank crews. Yet if we use his algorithm, if I don't do that, my opponent will WIN!.

So this would create a situation that is both unrealistic AND unfair, this time to the attacker. Doesn't seem like much of an improvement.

[Holien]

Knaust get a job and lets see you type something longer....

Homba I agree that if the game could be changed for CM1 and CM2 then it would be nice.

These discussions provide the designers with alternative views and often some very solid arguments for changing their decisions.

What we have to remember is that they have done a sterling job, they have limited time in their lives and I can not now see CM1 being changed to deal with the suggestions.

I hate this game for the last minute rush to flags. It seems "gamey" and it IS (in my book) when you have controlled something for the whole game and then on the last turn the enemy does a suicide run with Mort Crews or Tanks driving them out into the open to deny a VL.

In reality the enemy commander would not do something like that, but as it is a game and you know you will not be accountable for your actions you do these last minute things, to win the "Game".

I agree with your suggestions for Attack / Defence games and I would also suggest a variable game length that would randomize the last turn, say plus or minus 5 turns. (Or a time agreed by both players)

I.e. Set Turn length to 25 and the game could finish between turn 20 to 30. This would help stop silly last rushes. I also think it would add to the adrelin rush...

I think you have won the attack defense issue.

H

[Knaust]

Holien, I HAVE a job….CM playing!

Well it seems that there are different opinions on this flag topic….and nobody is inclined to move himself a tiny step from his own position.

I think that all of us could reason better about this topic if we could know the victory point formula…I asked several times to know this formula, but it seems that it is more secret than CocaCola!

As to my experience I think that unit losses points are far more important than victory flag points, so control of some flags may be a secondary objective.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Seahawk-vfa201:

I feel I have to intervene on that. CM proved to myself that is not true. I believe from experience that CM just counts heads, not fighting ability. If it was as you said it would be muche better but it is NOT.

I had on a PBEM of mine a VF going neutral because my opponent got two mortars with no ammo units and a sharpshooter with no ammo unit close to the VF near a wood. My suqad of fully armed, no LOW ammo, still fighting capability was counted as equal by CM. Result? I lost the VF (not the battle though) which turned grey because some uncapable zombies reached the flag through the woods and there was no time left for my units to notice them, react, eim and shoot and kill those zombies: BANG the world has ended in the last 60 secs of the last turn and the flag was neutral.

Silly and I wished CM would have computed instead FIGHTING POWER not mere presence of soon dead unarmed people.

Unless this is a bug I believe CM should compute fighting power instead.

How would the enemy know if you have a 60mm mortar or a heavy machine gun? This doesn't seem to be a bug at all. If the enemy mortar teams were pushovers, you should have attacked them.

The issue here may be the unrealistic time constraints - and the need for a random game length.

[JoePrivate]

Homba wrote:

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.

You are making assumptions about your area of influence that may not always be true. BTS has abstracted the VL as being an important military objective that requires the close physical presence of a force in order for it to be under their control, IIRC that 'vicinity of influence' has a radius of 75-80m in CM. Is that in error? I'm not an historical grog but I recall examples during the Bulge where that held true. The advance of Peiper's spearhead was nominally behind the US lines. There were instances where the Germans passed through villages *held* by nearby weak US forces unable to stop them, yet a few hours later stronger US forces entered said village and prevented the 'tail' of Peiper's spearhead from proceeding. So it seems to me the physical occupation of important objectives is realistic.

A problem with VLs in QBs is they are placed in an arbitrary fashion, making little sense as important objectives. A player designed scenario will have the objectives placed in a more sensible manner, maintaining the illusion they are the 'vital areas' that need to be physically controlled. However even in QBs, the abstraction of VLs is fine and workable as is. As others have pointed out, there are always crews or spent squads that can be sent to a 'safe' VL if necessary to ensure its control at games end.

Your crossroads example brings up an interesting point. What if your opponent had a couple of guns 1000m away sighted on the crossroads, who would *control* it then? I agree there is room for improvement with VLs and what constitutes control, but the way they are modelled now is fine IMO. I'm sure BTS has many things are their list for improvements in CM2 so who knows.

As an aside regarding victory conditions, the flags may play a larger role in small battles, I don't know for sure having never played one, but from my experience in larger battles the ratio of losses suffered versus losses inflicted is much more significant than control of flags.

[Homba]

Colonel, I hope this quote is an adequate condensed version of the first part of your latest post:

Now, if that vl is behind you, that's one thing. I agree that it should still be in your control and this can be considered a location in your back lines. But what if the vl is off to your side and on the front line? ... This plan you bring forth has many grey areas like this. You have somewhat convinced me that anything behind you should be yours if on defense until someone takes it. This point is up for debate, I agree. But when the vl is on the front line and your mg is guarding the vl from 300m to the East, I am skeptical about whether or not you should be given that flag or not.

Yes, as the defender, you should retain control over the flag until the attack takes it from you. How you choose, from where you choose, and whether or not you choose to defend any given objective flag is up to you. To explain why this is realistic and should be the rule, lets first answer this question: What is the nature of an objective flag in a CM attack/defense scenario (either QB or created scenario)? Colonel, I agree with you. The flag represents and/or identifies an area/item of great importance and benefit to the defender’s strategic and tactical aims both in the area of the battle map, and in the larger war, such as an ammo/fuel/supply dump, a command post, radar/radio station, defensive terrain (hill, town, fortification, bridge, etc), supply routes, roads, crossroads, rail junctions, airfields, politically important targets, factories, field repair shops and on and on... The worth of these items is represented by marking/representing them with the 300 point or 100 pt flag (or two or more flags for a relatively more important objective).

The attacker is attacking the area in order to deprive the defender of the important benefits of these areas/items/objectives- with the goal of destroying the defender’s ability to effectively resist both at the local battlefield, and in the larger context of the war. (The proposed rule change is compatible with both views of a CM battle.) For this reason the attacker aims to take these points in some way during the attack (though frontal assault is not always best- the attacking commander gets to decide). The defender also has choices to make- do I leave one flag unguarded to protect the other 3 more heavily? How do I balance defense of the flags with attrition of the attackers if the flags do not lay on good defensive ground? Should I suck in the attacker, give up the flag, then hit his flanks? etc... The bottom line is: if by battles end, the attacker has deprived the defender of the flag and its attendant benefits to the defender’s war effort, then the attack gets the points. If re-captured in a counter-attack, or if the attacker doesn’t take the flags in time, the defender retains the points. If contested at the end, no one gets the points. (I agree that the oft-proposed variable turn limit is a great idea and discourages the gamey end-game flag rush.) How and where you choose to defend (or not defend) the flags is your choice, but until overrun IN FACT by the attacker, you retain the benefits (the points) of these flags which began the game within your defensive set-up zone, whether in front, middle or back. of that zone.

Colonel continues: Staying with your SPR example, when our heroes joined the other squad at the bridge, why do you think that squad was at the bridge? They were defending it of course. Did they just walk through and claim it to be theirs? No, of course not. They had to stay there to make sure the enemy didn't take it. If they had walked through and left, and marched 20 miles to join up with another company, should that bridge be considered theirs now? Ridiculous!

First- I don’t remember another “squad” at the bridge. I saw the movie two nights ago, and I remember everyone defending in the town, and retreating to the bridge at the end. There may have been a man or two there already but I think you mis-characterize the event. Second- Whether or not you or I am right, it doesn’t matter- the allies were defending and the bridge was in their defensive zone. Until the Germans reached it and took it, the allies retained the benefit of its use, WHETHER OR NOT “A SQUAD” WAS “GUARDING” IT WHILE THEIR COMRADES DIED IN THE TOWN. Still not satisfied? Well, what if no allies were at the bridge and those allied Shermans had rolled up earlier, could they have crossed? Yep... Why? because the Germans hadnt taken the bridge yet? Yep... Is this realistic? Ummm... real as life! You see how your example reinforces my position and undermines yours...

Your whole 20 mile march rant is way off base. We are talking about periods of 10-15 minutes/turns in a CM game. A twenty mile march is not even relevant. You have to make your arguments applicable to the time-frame in which a CM game takes place. The flag rule has to be realistic in the context of battle’s time limit. So don’t talk to me about taking a village and marching a day away and then wondering if the village is still yours. We aren’t dealing with that amount of time, or that large of an area of terrain.

Colonel continues: If you have a vl on the front line, it needs to be guarded. You are bringing that CC2 mentality into this game and that doesn't fly. CM was made to mirror real war. You can't take those CC rules and apply them here. (God, I feel like such a traitor now)

Traitor to what? How often in either a designed scenario or a attack/defend QB have you seen a flag RIGHT ON THE FRONT LINE? I would venture to say that *most* are not. The point of these attacking games seems to be to fight through some amount of defended territory in order to reach the objectives. And I asked you nicely not to patronize me with the CC crap. Was CM made to mirror real war? of course! Was CC? of course! Does CM do a better job in many many respects? Of course.

Colonel’s next argument is a response to my following quote from earlier in which I wrote:

And I won't leave your [Maximus’s] SPR example without commenting. I will assume for the sake of argument that the MG nest is a 100pt objective. You say that after destroying the nest, the attackers move on without manning the nest- they don't need to man it. I'm glad you're coming around to my point of view. If my flag rule change suggestion gets implemented, you will get the 100pts for that MG nest at the end of the game even though you left no units on it. ONLY IF enemy forces IN FACT re-occupy the MG pit would they get the points for the flag.

Colonel responds as follows:

Listen to what you're saying here and think about whether this makes sense. They are in neutral territory when they come upon this enemy mg nest. They take the position and then leave. If they were to come back, would they stroll in, guns on their backs, thinking the whole time that since they killed a few Germans in the area awhile ago, that it's safe to return? This land now belongs to the USA! Sheesh. They're not guarding the vl. They are nowhere near the vl, so how can it be theirs? ... [and following an explanation of the above by me, Colonel continues:] Surely you jest. This is the same scenario as the mg nest example. The attacker is not there to defend the land, so what makes it theirs? Because they last passed through it? How can a piece of land be owned if you are not there to guard it? You can't just plant your country's flag and expect it to be yours.

Let me elaborate. First, you are treating the MG nest incident as a meeting engagement, because you say “it is in neutral territory.” We are limiting the discussion to attack/defend flags. So lets just assume this is an attack/defend situation (which indeed fit the actual event) and go on- I doubt it changes your argument much. YOU ARE THE ATTCKER. You don’t need to squat in an MG nest! You cleared it- you deprived the enemy of its value, and therefore of the points. You have gained the points due to your success in this mission to take the MG nest. Now- in the scant minutes or hour that remains in the battle, under my proposed rule, you have to make the same real-life decisions the commander in the field makes: are their some germans over in those trees that might try to re-take this gun-pit and regain its benefits? Should I therefore garrison the pit? Should I leave the pit behind and hope that the enemy has no plans to re-take it? If I garrison the pit I may not be able to defeat that squad of the enemy hiding in the house over that hill, but I have to take it also, as it is the enemy command post... Being in command is what makes the game fun. Having realistic decisions to make adds to the fun (if you like realism!) As the flag rule now stands, you can’t make these decisions. You are FORCED to leave men in the pit to get credit for depriving the enemy of the use of the pit- when in fact, the enemy isn’t going to be able to counter attack anyway. If they do manage it, then the regain the use and benefit of the gun-pit, and get the points back that you earlier took from them. Which rule is better? Better= More Realistic! My rule is better because it reflects life more accurately.

Don't worry, this CC mentality will not last forever. I think you will come to realize why things in this game were done the way they were. It just makes for a more realistic game.

My god! I asked you not to patronize me. I think I’ll let the community be the judge of who’s view is more realistic. If the public are all clones of you however, I will be out of luck- not wrong, but out of luck. Look, what you are doing is setting up “a straw man”- ME, as a CC goon, who doesnt know what the hell im talking about, and then saying that because I am a CC goon as you say, I must “not understand,” I must be an idiot who doesn’t know enough to blindly defend the CM status quo. This is one of the classic fallacies of the art of argument- the “straw man.” All it does is show that you feel your arguments by themselves arent good enough, so you essentially attack my character to make up for it. And this from a man who was instrumental in the change which allowed infantry to run on their own from a building that was about to destroyed. So please, stay on target (the issue, not me). I would be making the same argument if I had never played a day of CC in my life!!!

(No hard feelings bud, just a friendly war of words- touche’! But I do think you’re wrong of course.)

FriendlyFire: No, we don’t need new flag types with my proposed rule- I don’t know why you are trying to make things more complicated than they are. BTS models the flags perfectly NOW in the respect you are talking about. No beacon, etc. Here’s how it works now: I have a flag that starts in my defensive zone. If I don’t put any men near it, it doenst belong to me (it’s this I want to change.) If the enemy creeps up unseen and takes the flag, all I see is a question mark- as the rules stand now. If the rules were modified as I suggest, I would possess the flag at the beginning, even tho I chose not to guard it. If the enemy crept up unseen and took it, the flag obviously wouldn’t change to a question mark, I would continue to see it as my flag. Only if I got confirmation visually that there were enemies there, would I see the flag change. If the enemies snuck well away before I spotted them, I would still think the flag was mine, but of course my opponent would see the truth- the flag is his- having overrun it secretly and deprived me of its strategic value. Fog and darkness would only make it harder to spot the enemy. As far as I know this simple illustration would suffice to explain in the book. I find it funny that you worry about explaining it to newbies when even we people here discussing it took a while to get ourselves straight on how flags work RIGHT NOW. It is going to take newbies a while to learn anything in this game. That is not an excuse for not making the flags more realistic. ... Your example is very unclear to me, especially the last two sentences, and I don’t think you understand where I’m coming from, though I have been as clear as I know how to be.

PrivatJoe: Well, you talk about the Battle of the Bulge, weeks, etc... as above, I am only talking about the context of a few minutes time- one CM battle. I sympathize with your example of the attacking guns covering the crossroads (assuming they could see them - I put a ridge in the way of mine) but if they could “control” the intersection from that range (which they could in many respects), then we’d have to re-write the whole code. Your guns would raise the same question with how flags are treated now, and though it’s a valid point, it isn’t relevant to my argument that we can give flags a much more realistic treatment by just changing a few lines of code (I hope it’s that easy!).

Knaust- I promise to stop fighting.. uh.. writing and get back to our game! (Knaust’s increasingly dramatic attack against my stalwart defenders with every flag at issue is what inspired this thread!)

Homba

P.S. I too am sorry for any sarcasm I let slip- it doesn’t strengthen an argument and I try to avoid it, but sometimes can’t help it. I think it will pass among all you gentlemen who seem to give as good as you get.

(edited for bold stuff)

(edited to remove the outrageous quote by me: "When you are right you are a majority of one." Im not right unless the community agrees, and it doesnt matter unless BTS makes a patch!)

[This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-15-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-15-2001).]

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Homba:

{snip}

If the rules were modified as I suggest, I would possess the flag at the beginning, even tho I chose not to guard it. If the enemy crept up unseen and took it, the flag obviously wouldn’t change to a question mark, I would continue to see it as my flag. Only if I got confirmation visually that there were enemies there, would I see the flag change. If the enemies snuck well away before I spotted them, I would still think the flag was mine, but of course my opponent would see the truth- the flag is his- having overrun it secretly and deprived me of its strategic value.

{snip} {bolding added}

Interesting idea. I'm not necessarily opposed to it (depending on how difficult it would be to implement). However, it raises a few issues which I think may be difficult to form a consensus on:

Why should an enemy unit who has captured, but then left your VL (unbeknownst to you) give the VL to the enemy. I can see arguments for either giving the VL back to you once the enemy leaves it or making it contested, but I don't see why the enemy should get the benefit.

On the same tack, how do you propose retaking it? And if you do, does it now act like the new "defense" VL or like the old VL's (i.e. do you need to "garrison" it to maintain the points)?

Assuming the "new" style of defense VL's don't you now have to rebalance point values for attacks (& probes & assaults) to account for the increased difficulty in actually taking the VL's? (I'm not sure if you do or not, but it seems that reasonable minds could say that you do have to, for legitimate reasons).

Also, in making scenarios (not QB), would the editor have to distinguish between the two types of flags? I can see some potential issues (although it also would provide some flexibility for interesting situations).

Just some thoughts.

--Philistine

[Seahawk-vfa201]

I happen to be playing a scenario that really shows what the problem is:

I am Axis, 2 VF are way back to the Axis end of the map, a hill and a bridge. I have forces spread and controlling route access, forces on the hill, forces on a crest guarding the bridge. forces north of the bridge and of the hill, forces in town way in front of both flags.

My opponent is trying to break through this defense apparatus (he described it as onion defense as I have multiple layers of forces between him and the targets) and he practically is still fighting in his own SETUP ZONE.

One flag I see it as mine (forces are close enough for CM) one flag not (forces are guarding but far away fort CM so it has it a grey flag. Far away means no more than 40 meters in this case.

He has NO WAY to sneak to the grey flag (bridge) which is on a corner of the map and all around (well in front) are my units and terrain does not offer cover (no woods, no crests, just approach via the road and in the open.

I happened to have troops movements in the rear and each time some were passing close or crossing the bridge in one sense or the other the flag was changing from grey to my side and my score jumped up and down. Simplistic at least.

I know that even if the enemy can't make any closer to the flag I have to physically RUSH in the last turn those 30~40 meters where my defense layers are in front of the bridge and from the access road or down from the nearby hill to let CM attribute those flag points to my side?!

Realistic? No way. Do I have control of the bridge: totally: the closest units is a wreck of an M8 at some 300 meters away from the bridge.

Do I HAVE to retreat on the last turn toward the bridge to assume control? Ridiculous. It actually would diminish the control of the area for example if I end up withdrawing the units protecting the only road access to the bridge.

VF has a fixed limit to assign control, like 20 meters or so and it counts heads, not fighting power. If my units are all around at 21 meters and the enemy is at 3 miles CM assumes the area is neutral. And this with a flag DEEP into my defense setup and territory?

Again, think of time constraints of a CM battle: the attacker goal is to reach and contest that strategic point in 30 minutes for his HQ only knows the reasons. If not the attacker has failed his mission and the defender has succeded his mission. CM flag algorithm - right now - denies this simple realistic fact, the defender has succeded to defend the position.

Again, this is not meeting engagement, this is attack scenario. The flag control now in CM is not wrong, it is too simplistic to cover a more realistic situation and it is appropriate ONLY for a meeting engagement most probably.