Objective Flags- fixes needed

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I think that Homba's amended idea -- that: (1) in attack/assault/defense actions (but not probes or any other battle types), that are (2) in QBs; the VLs should, by default, belong to the defender (rather than being neutral by default). However, once the status of one of these flags changes, it should behave like a normal VL, regardless of where the front line is.

There is one disadvantage to this approach, which is that the defender should not get credit for VLs that he is not actually defending (as in a situation where the defender concentrated his forces around one VL and left the other one undefended). That's why I don't think that probes should be included in the types of games to which this rule would apply.

But overall, I think that the lack of realism that this approach could have (with the one defended location) is still more realistic than the situation where a VL turns neutral just because the squad occupying the location goes up to make sure that there is no breakthrough, and the game ends with no enemy within 600m of the VL.

In practice, though, I think Maximus is generally right: the decisive element in my games tends to be the fact that one side or another has been soundly thrashed.

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

WOOT!

[FriendlyFire]

Homba, no offence taken: I was actually going to follow up to my own post saying that I was really enjoying this discussion and hoped everyone else was too.

Now, back to the flags! As I understand it, what you are arguing for is a significant change to the current flag modelling. Right now, if I see a flag as Axis or Allied, I know damn well that's accurate. I know that either I, or my opponent, has recently had enough forces near it to own it, and that the scoring engine reflects this (please correct me if I'm wrong here ). The only current source of doubt is a neutral flag - that represents a flag that either no-one holds, or a flag that my opponent holds, I just don't know it yet.

What you are arguing for is that if I'm a defender, and I see a flag as owned by me, it might in fact be owned by my opponent, I just don't know it yet.

So, here's my first fundamental objection to your scheme. Let's say that I'm the defender, and I want to know that I really own all my flags. So I move some troops near to each flag. But I don't move them quite near enough - the flags are in open ground, and I put my troops in cover nearby. Now, I can't tell that I haven't moved them close enough, because the flags are already shown as "owned" by me, correct? So my opponent sneaks up some forces to REALLY take the flags. The battle ends. I sit there, fat dumb and happy, thinking that I have troops close enough to every flag. In fact, I've missed every damn one by 1m. I lose, and I'm pissed. How was I to know? Under your proposal, the game interface gives me no way to tell how near is "close enough", unlike in the current system where the flag changes from neutral to owned-by-me.

I'm not sure what's unclear about my second objection. Under your scheme, a defender doesn't have to garrison his flags to hold them. Now let's say the attacker totally overwhelms the defender, and pushes him right back to the far edge of the map. Any flags that are now in the attacker's rear (i.e. flags that the front-line passed by much earlier in the battle) should "realistically" be owned by him. But under your scheme, the attacker would still have to garrison them to own them, correct? Otherwise you would say "nope, those are flags that were behind the defender's start line, and the attacker doesn't actually hold them, therefore the defender has successfully defended them and should own them". This is clearly wrong - the attacker has fought for and won those flags, and then moved on.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by FriendlyFire:

Homba, no offence taken: I was actually going to follow up to my own post saying that I was really enjoying this discussion and hoped everyone else was too.

Now, back to the flags! As I understand it, what you are arguing for is a significant change to the current flag modelling. Right now, if I see a flag as Axis or Allied, I know damn well that's accurate. I know that either I, or my opponent, has recently had enough forces near it to own it, and that the scoring engine reflects this (please correct me if I'm wrong here ).

I could be wrong BUT.

If a flag shows up indicated as yours, it "could" be a neutral flag, neutralized by unseen enemy forces hiding near by, which are unspotted by your local units.

I would suggest that the flag ownership determination "rules" are just fine the way they are.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-16-2001).]

[Homba]

Originally posted by Philistine:

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.

Good point Philistine. You have certainly identified a small chink in the armor of my proposal. The situation you describe above has an "odd" feeling. Admittedly a certain amount of abstraction is needed if you are going to accept that the sneaky attacker has obtained AND RETAINED the points for the VF after moving off it, all unknown to the defender (who still thinks the flag is his).

First I'll say that no flag scheme can be perfect, BUT we've got to make a choice- between the current rule and a new, amended rule. As I believe the illustrations and examples in this thread have shown, my proposed rule gives us a realistic result in 90% of the situations in which it is applied, whereas the current rule gives us a silly, unrealistic result in 90% of the situations. (Look at Seahawk's example, and all the others). Now which rule do we want? 90% right, or 90% wrong? I think the choice is simple- amend the rule.

Second, I'll say that I can give you a rational answer to your above situation. It is not the strongest argument I have made in this post, admittedly- but it is consistent with the theories and examples I have talked about. Also, and more importantly FriendlyFire's argument/example is addressed- we MUST let an attack pass through a VF and retain control of it when he moves on, or else we have an unrealistic situation of garrisoning useless (to the attacker) positions, and a consequent dilution of manpower for the final attack or destruction of the enemy, if one has the remaining resources to attempt this. (Sorry, I am about to get to my explanation.)

FriendlyFire, I understand your example now, and all I can say is- yes, those VFs should be yours, and all you have to do to take AND HOLD them, under my rule, would be to pass a unit through them and move on. Granted, you DO have to pass a unit through. Just because you "surround" an unoccupied VF, under my rule, its still the defenders. I would first say that the attacker wont know if it's unoccupied until he actually moves in, and shouldnt get the credit himself. Maybe the defender retains the points due to the hindering and worrisome effect a supposed strong-point has on the attackers plans. That is good enough for me- because dispite a chink or two, I want an amended rule that is 90% accurate, rather than what we have now, which is 90% bogus (in an attack/defense sitution).

So there is your answer, Philistine, best I can do. When those attackers sneak through, they LEARN that the position is harmless, and get all the attendant benefits of knowing that. For the attacker, who is just entering the territory, PERCEPTION plays a large role. And the defender is wholly deprived of the position, be it a radar site or depo that the staff was trying to evacuate, etc. It doesn't have to be a defended bunker to have value to the defender. And just because the defender still thinks they have control, doesn't mean they do in fact. For the defender, who knows the land, it is REALITY rather than perception which is important. I once read a story about a commander who had no barbed wire, but ordered his men to plant fence posts all along the front- the resultant delay and indecision caused to the enemy (who was too far off to suspect there was not wire between the posts) allowed reinforcements to reach the position before the enemy attacked. (Sorry, I don't remember the detail, when, where, and who, etc.)

So I thank Andrew Hedges for supporting the obvious choice: Let's choose the lesser of the two evils here! 90% right vs. 90% wrong.

FriendlyFire, I think aka_tom_w made the correct response to your first concern regarding the flags. I would add that with a new flag patch, BTS could just tell us what the distance is, so that you could draw a LOS from your men to the flag and KNOW you were close enough to have the flag UNLESS an enemy was hidden nearby (in which case the flag would be contested, but you wouldn't know it, as is the case now.)

Philistine continued: 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)?

I have stated this very clearly earlier, but I will say it again. If the defender counter-attacks the VF and takes it back, they are again free to move off and defend it from whereever they think they can best defend it- if that is not ON the VF, then that is the commanders choice. This is consistent with the realistic principles around which the whole idea for the patch is based.

Philistine continues: 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).

My off-the-cuff answer is no, I dont think anything needs to be adjusted. Maybe someone disagrees with this, but I don't think the impact is that great- you get a lot of added realism with little impact on game balance.

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).

No new flag types are needed. I have already covered this on page 2 of this thread.

I think we should continue to discuss the attack/defend flags, but I also think we should now open up discussion on flags in meetings. The goal of course is to present a unified flag theory for a proposed patch. This patch could be applied to CM1, CM2, etc, all at the same time. So I'm not worried that the patching days for CM1 are done- this flag issue spans the whole game engine, whereever you set the fighting. So please be sure to note which situation you are discussing- att/def or meeting.

Homba

(edited for bold/quotes)

[This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-16-2001).]

[FriendlyFire]

I have no point here, I just like saying "Unified Flag Theory"

[Homba]

Come on Colonel, I am waiting on your reply. Since it has taken you this long, it better be full of wit, grit, and literary allusion.

Or have I won you over?

H

[Col Deadmarsh]

Homba said:

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...

When I said the squad at the bridge, I meant the squad in town defending the bridge. I'm not gonna refute your argument as long as we are talking about a defense. I am somewhat in agreement with you on that and I wouldn't mind a change of that rule, giving the defender all flags in his zone until taken by the enemy.

FriendlyFire, I think aka_tom_w made the correct response to your first concern regarding the flags. I would add that with a new flag patch, BTS could just tell us what the distance is, so that you could draw a LOS from your men to the flag and KNOW you were close enough to have the flag UNLESS an enemy was hidden nearby (in which case the flag would be contested, but you wouldn't know it, as is the case now.)

Instead of you doing the calculating, why doesn't BTS introduce a new feature into the game which would allow you to see if you are within range of the vl to be considered defending it.

The way it would work would be similar to how we find out if our squads are in command range of headquarters. You simply click on a squad, mg team, etc. and you are shown a line drawn to each of the vls on the map. One color indicates "out of defense range" the other "in range". That way you wouldn't have to get out your LOS tool and measure.

So Homba, in regards to your argument about flag changing, I'm sitting on the fence now about the attack/defense thing. I don't really have a problem with the way things are now but you presented some good arguments too that might make the game better.

The one problem I have has to do with the attacker. I don't believe that they should gain control of a vl in the defender's zone if they take it and then leave it. It seems to me that this logic runs contradictary to your basic belief in why this should be changed. If the flag starts out in the defender's zone, it should only be given to the attacker if they take it and hold it. After all, they are in enemy territory.

No, I am in favor of the attacker having to garrison a vl, whether they are taking a neutral vl or a vl owned by the opponent on defense. If anything, this would probably equal out the points a little as it seems to me that the attacker enjoys a slight advantage with all the points they are granted compared to the defender.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Homba]

Colonel, I appreciate your post. You say three things.

1. You are somewhat in agreement with me on giving the defender all flags in his zone until taken by the enemy, and you wouldn’t mind a change of the rule. (But you have qualms with details- your #3, below.)

2. You suggest that BTS could give us a way to find the distance-to-flag with a click of the mouse, instead of measuring LOS ourselves.

3. You elaborate on your qualm with the proposed flag rule change, and I quote: “The one problem I have has to do with the attacker. I don't believe that they should gain control of a vl in the defender's zone if they take it and then leave it. It seems to me that this logic runs contradictary to your basic belief in why this should be changed. If the flag starts out in the defender's zone, it should only be given to the attacker if they take it and hold it. After all, they are in enemy territory.

No, I am in favor of the attacker having to garrison a vl, whether they are taking a neutral vl or a vl owned by the opponent on defense. If anything, this would probably equal out the points a little as it seems to me that the attacker enjoys a slight advantage with all the points they are granted compared to the defender.”

---

My responses:

1. Thanks for the “in principle” support.

2. I like your idea. However, I don’t want this fix to be any harder than necessary for BTS. The chief characteristic of the fix needs to be an elegant simplicity. Sure, if they had time, they could code the flag to act like a leader for the purpose of determining whether a squad was in “flag-control-confirmation distance.” They could assign an arbitrary distance, 40m or whatever, and you just click the flag. A red or black line emenates from the flag to your nearby squads, just like the command-link line from your leaders. This would be cool, but I think it is a bit much for a teeny-tiny sub-issue. I will be happy after the fix if they just TELL me what the range is. Anything more is icing on the cake, but just extra work in my mind.

3. Ok, here comes the biggie. Your argument is clearly stated, and it is an important point, on which a decision must be made- one way or the other- and in favor of the choice which provides more realism in most situations that the other choice (again, the 90% right vs 90% wrong idea). Because they’re so spread out, and this post is a good starting place for an earnest discussion and decision on this sub-rule, I’ve collected below all the points made previously on this topic that support my point of view (that the attacker should be able to hold the flag even after leaving the area of the flag). (I boil the points down at the end if you want to skip the quotes.) Then they can be refuted one by one in an organized fashion by anyone who objects.

From page 2 of the thread: (I have changed the main arguments to bold print)

----

(My first mention of the subject):

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" [or “no-attacker-garrison sub-rule” (not sure what to call it)] in the context of the attack/defend flag modification argument? (I can think of one palatable alternative.) [that once-palatable alternative was Colonel’s “required-attacker-garrison” method of course. I no longer find it palatable, having had a chance to think about it.]

--------

(Seahawk’s excellent supporting rationale):

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!

---

(My best statement of why my version of the “no-attacker-garrison” sub-rule is more realistic, and more fun):

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.

[The above bit about the realistic decision-making choices allowed by my proposal, is an especially important and desirable option.]

----

From page 3 of the thread:

(my response to Philistine):

Admittedly a certain amount of abstraction is needed if you are going to accept that the sneaky attacker has obtained AND RETAINED the points for the VF after moving off it, all unknown to the defender (who still thinks the flag is his).

…

we MUST let an attack pass through a VF and retain control of it when he moves on, or else we have an unrealistic situation of garrisoning useless (to the attacker) positions, and a consequent dilution of manpower for the final attack or destruction of the enemy, if one has the remaining resources to attempt this.

…

When those attackers sneak through, they LEARN that the position is harmless, and get all the attendant benefits of knowing that. For the attacker, who is just entering the territory, PERCEPTION plays a large role. And the defender is wholly deprived of the position, be it a radar site or depo that the staff was trying to evacuate, etc. It doesn't have to be a defended bunker to have value to the defender. And just because the defender still thinks they have control, doesn't mean they do in fact. For the defender, who knows the land, it is REALITY rather than perception which is important. I once read a story about a commander who had no barbed wire, but ordered his men to plant fence posts all along the front- the resultant delay and indecision caused to the enemy (who was too far off to suspect there was not wire between the posts) allowed reinforcements to reach the position before the enemy attacked.

[And I think that story is a great example of attacker’s perception vs. defender’s reality. Even had the defender secretly abandoned the position, the attacker is still intimidated by it, due to their lack of information. The knowledge that a position is ACTUALLY clear, should convey the points to the attacker, who is then free to move on if they choose.]

----

Boiled down to the basics, the 4 realistic points in favor of the “no-attacker-garrison” sub-rule include:

1. Upon taking an objective, the attacker (just as the defender before him) is free to choose to defend it from wherever, and by whatever method, he wants to, be it continuing to attack the retreating enemy, moving to more favorable defensive terrain near (but not ON) the flag, or sitting right on the flag if this is more favorable.

2. Defender cannot use the worst sort of Gamey tactics, hoping for an automatic “greying out” of the flag just because the defender is running away and the attacker pursues. (in reference to the Gamey withdraw tactics aiming exaclty at this: grey out flags because of luring the enemy into pursuit and escaping from the map, aiming to a achieve a draw thereby. With the “no-attacker-garrison” rule, it is instead a debacle- not a draw.

3. The attacker in most cases does not have any desire to sit on objectives (this is an attack, not a meeting!) when faced with the opportunity or necessity of advancing further. The no-attacker-garrison amendment gives the player-commander realistic choices to make about how to proceed, whereas the required-attacker-garrison rule FORCES the player to leave forces behind at the VL, for the Gamey reason (again, the worst variety of Gameyness) that he is worried about getting the points for the flag at the end in a close game.

4. The no-attacker-garrison rule accurately portrays the concept of “attacker’s perception vs. defender’s reality.” Even had the defender secretly abandoned the position, the attacker is still intimidated by it, due to their lack of information. The knowledge that a position is ACTUALLY clear, should convey the points to the attacker, who is then free to move on if he chooses.

Now obviously, once an attack overruns a flag, the original defender becomes the “attacker” of that flag, and all the above considerations apply with equal force to the “counter-attacker.”

I think everyone would agree with the “90% right is better” idea I was advocating earlier. I therefore think it is insignificant to point out a tiny chink, or a very rare situation, in which the “no-attacker-garrison” sub-rule is found lacking. If you want to effectively advocate the “required-attacker-garrison” position, you are compelled to begin by strongly refuting the above four points, on the grounds of realism. Finding one unique “chink in the armor” is not going to overcome the fundamental “90% right is better than 90% wrong” idea. If you don't address them I'll be telling you that you can't contradict their logic, etc...

So if you’ve got a strong, broad-based rebuttal, let’s hear it, point by point. If on the other hand, you support a change in the flag rules as I’ve stated them, lets hear that too. And then lets really open up on the issue of how to handle flags in meetings, and solidify the patch proposal. Unified flag theory!

Homba

[Col Deadmarsh]

I'd like to hear what some other people have to say on this subject...

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Skorpion]

Okay then, here's my take on the Defend mission problem:

1) All flags in the defending sides setup area should start under the control of the defender.

2) They should remain under the control of the defender until the attacker has occupied them.

[so far so good]

3) If an attacker leaves a flag it should become neutral. From now on it acts as a normal flag - occupy or lose.

My reasoning is this - (taking Seahawk's bridge example) the objective is to capture the bridge, presumably so the enemy can't destroy it or bring up reserves. Standing on the bridge for ten seconds then leaving does not mean that the attacker is able to prevent this Any objective in an assault mission should be occupied by the attacker or the objective simply hasn't been met.

However, if you use the Colonel's abstraction theory, and say that the objective is, say, a POL depot, then the attacker could easily occupy it, destroy it, and then move on having achieved it's objective.

That is the problem. Are the objectives terrain to secure or installations to destroy? I come down on the side of terrain, although it would be interesting to have an objective that simply stated "destroy bunker x" or "neutralise enemy anti-tank assets". I think we may have to wait for CMII for that one though.

-----------

Skorpion

[Col Deadmarsh]

Skorpian,

It seems as though we are on the same wavelength here. As far as assuming the vls to be terrain to secure or installations that need to be destroyed, I think if you're only gonna have one type of flag, you have to assume that everything on the map needs to be secured and make it a necessity for the attacker to garrison it.

Now, as far as implementing this in CM2, if BTS wanted to have a couple of different types of flags, one that needs to be taken and garrisoned and another that only needs to be taken, that would work fine too.

I hope though that if this new flag rule is changed in the next installment, that it be backward compatible with CM1. It would royally suck if the rules in CM2 were different than this game. This is a pretty big change and one that would have to be installed into both versions. Otherwise, you almost have two different games.

I'd just like to say that I really, really hope that BTS makes EVERYTHING backward-compatible so us guys who love the Western Front can upgrade to the new technology of CM2.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Homba]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Now, as far as implementing this in CM2, if BTS wanted to have a couple of different types of flags, one that needs to be taken and garrisoned and another that only needs to be taken, that would work fine too.

That is a fine idea and innovative thinking. It could be as simple as a triangular-shaped pendant flag for "take-only" (or "overrun") VFs, and a rectangular flag (exactly as used now) for "required-garrison" flags that must be garrisoned to be held. We could still have 300 (big) and 100 (small) point versions of both. and be able to set how many of each we wanted on a random QB (or let computer decide), and place them as appropriate when designing scenarios. Now that would be very very cool, because it cuts through the "flag abstraction," and identifies which "type" of objective each is- one that needs only be overrun, or one that needs to be "held at all costs."

As for backwards compatibility, I wholly agree.

If, however, BTS can't give us the above-described flag options, I still strenuously maintain that you dont need to be ON a VF to maintain it against an enemy, and in many situations, it may be more advantageous to defend it from nearby terrain that offers much better defensive benefits- a choice the commander of the capturing force would be faced with in real life. This holds just as true for the attacker as the defender- when he has taken the objective, he may want to move to more favorable defensive terrain to protect the objective from an impending enemy counter-attack.

So I disagree with you, Skorpion, when you say that just by standing on the bridge for 10 seconds, the attackers could not prevent the enemy from destroying it/ bringing up reserves. Exactly the opposite is true. The attackers take 10 seconds running across the bridge, and take up defensive positions on the other side. If the flag is ON the bridge, they are FORCED under the current rules, to sit out on the bridge with no cover in order to keep the flag. If I were designing a scenario, I would put a flag at each end of the bridge, instead of on it, and this wouldnt be such a problem, but that is irrelevant to the argument about the principles at work.

Saying that, I would leap at having the option of the two types of VFs described by Colonel. Admittedly this would add additional realism, both in meetings, and defenses.

And that just might be the simple, elegant answer we're looking for:

1. The "new flag rule": Any flag that starts in your side's deployment zone starts as your color, and stays that way until taken. Any flag that starts in neutral ground begins the game "neutral" until either side takes it.

2. The "garrison vs. overrun sub-rule": There are two possible types of flags, as described above. In meetings, more "required-garrison" flags (rectangular) could be present. In defenses, most of the flags could be "overrun" (triangluar) flags. These would be the default settings for QBs. If the players agreed, they could change the number of each. Scenario designers would have new options. Everyone would be happy, and the game would take a leap forward in realism.

What does everyone think about that? Have we stumbled upon a flower in the thorn bush!?

Homba

[Skorpion]

Originally posted by Homba:

So I disagree with you, Skorpion, when you say that just by standing on the bridge for 10 seconds, the attackers could not prevent the enemy from destroying it/ bringing up reserves. Exactly the opposite is true. The attackers take 10 seconds running across the bridge, and take up defensive positions on the other side. If the flag is ON the bridge, they are FORCED under the current rules, to sit out on the bridge with no cover in order to keep the flag. If I were designing a scenario, I would put a flag at each end of the bridge, instead of on it, and this wouldnt be such a problem, but that is irrelevant to the argument about the principles at work.

Well, in that case they are still in control of the bridge, but I was referring to the earlier mentioned case where a unit would infiltrate your lines, touch the flag to turn it to them, and then run off.

I personally think that a flag should remain under the control of the last side to occupy it *as long as they have a valid LOS to the flag*, until it is *physically* occupied by the enemy.

Oh, and I'm glad you liked my 'capture and hold' and 'destroy' flag ideas. I've always wanted to play missions like this instead of the simple 'move your troops here' missions.

Skorpion

[Homba]

Yeh Skorpion- it is a great idea!

I'm thinking the flag coding is sort of an independent, isolated section of the code? I'm hoping it could be fixed in all editions of CM at the same time, essentially with one patch.

I wish some others would offer their opinion on the idea of two types of flags as part of the "two points" of the unified flag theory set out in my last post, above. And I'd like to hear what Steve and Charles have to say about the discussion and proposal represented in this thread. What is the best way to draw their attention?

Homba

[Skorpion]

Edit. Pls ignore

[This message has been edited by Skorpion (edited 03-19-2001).]

[Homba]

If "flag fixes needed" fails to get their attention, I doubt a broader title will... Of course they may have been reading this thread all along (but I doubt it). Maybe an email referencing this thread is the best way?

I'd like to hear what some of the experienced "Members" think about this.

(edit- hopefully your post will draw some more attention to the issue, tho im skeptical about the wisdom of dividing up the threads. I hope your link to this thread is sufficient. I can just see a lot of half-baked opinions (uninformed by this discussion) coming in.)

H

[This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-19-2001).]

[Skorpion]

Sorry about that, got a bit carried away there. I've deleted my post above advertising it so hopefully the other thread will just die a death of its own.

In the meantime, if we keep posting to this one people will read it as its at the top of the list

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

Skorpion

Think you've got me?

Watch out for the sting in my tail!

[Homba]

Rescuing this once-hot thread from the doldrums of page 5!

I wish some of you veteran posters who spend endless brain power and screen time on this bb would share your opinions on this fundamental CM issue- how flags should be handled in the game (either CM1, or future editions!). The accumulated knowledge of this thread is summarized here on page 3, but a read of the entire thread is, as always, advisable.

Homba

[Holien]

Hi

I would add what weight I have to getting the flags changed as discussed above.

It would add to the game and if it could be done for both CM2 and CM then excellent.

Maybe posting an e-mail proposal to Charles will help?

H

[Sten]

Homba said:

If "flag fixes needed" fails to get their attention, I doubt a broader title will... Of course they may have been reading this thread all along (but I doubt it).

Have no fears, most of the betatesters are most definitely reading this thread.

The system for determining the ownership of a VL could surely use some improvement, but I'm afraid that so could a lot of other issues. I'll make sure the other testers are aware of this thread, and we'll see how it flies.

What is possible to change for CM2 remains to be seen, but your arguments will be taken into consideration. (How's that for a non-commitment? )

Sten

[This message has been edited by Sten (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Homba]

Thanks Sten, I am encouraged by your reply. At least the issue is being looked into.

Homba

[Abbott]

Well done Homba.

[Wreck]

I am with you, Homba. It is a small thing typically, but OTOH should also be very easy to improve.

[Lt. Fuzz]

I am not necessarily saying the current flag algorithm is wrong, but here's another possibility (forgive me if it's been stated):

Secretly sticky flags.

Attacker overruns flags in middle of map, continues his assault without leaving garrisons to defend. By golly, he's sure that the enemy can't retake 'em. The flags *will* grey out as usual, *however* as the attacker was last owner, he will get their points at the end of game *if these flags were not retaken by defender*.

But what if defender *does* sneak a unit around to take those undefended flag(s)? The attacker might be in for a nasty surprise at the end of the game, because he didn't bother to leave anyone behind to verify that those flags are still in his control.

Advantages: minimal coding for BTS, no "here I am" factor.

Disadvantages: anyone?

[Col Deadmarsh]

Yes Fuzz, this is what was proposed. The attacker knows beforehand that he only needs to "clear the area" on the hill to obtain the vl and then he can move on. Headquarters says this position doesn't need to be garrisoned.

But...if the defender sneaks back to claim the vl, the vl points go back to the defender. This would make the attacker think twice about leaving the vl, even though he's been given the freedom to do just that.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.