How does moving units off the map affect QB score?

[Lawyer]

One of my QB opponents has voluntarily moved his remaining troops and an HT off the map to escape destruction. How does this affect the single QB scoring by the AI when the game is over?

I always fight till the last pixel dies, so I have not encountered this approach before.

Thanks,

Jake

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

You're never alone with a schizophrenic.

[Leeo]

I've also had a recent opponent withdraw off the map, and would like to know how that affects the victory points. Anyone?

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Leeo:

I've also had a recent opponent withdraw off the map, and would like to know how that affects the victory points. Anyone?

You won't get points for the units he moved off-map. He won't lose points for them. They are still around and can fight another day. This can be a very sensible course to take in certain circumstances.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Wilhammer]

Do you earn points for units you rout off of the map?

[Juardis]

If you surrender (voluntarily or otherwise), you lose points for each unit captured.

If you have units captured, your opponent gains more points than if they were just killed. So moving them off the map to avoid capture ensures your opponent won't get credit.

If you have units get killed, that gives your opponent points. No sense in keeping a mortar team without ammo on the map if there is a chance they would die/get captured.

IIRC, crews are worth additional points, so getting them out of harms way helps with the scoring.

And finally, it's a cleaner battlefield to manage if you take off the dead wood.

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

Jeff Abbott

[The_Capt]

More importantly,

Do troops who go off-board lower the sides moral?

The problem is that withdrawing can trigger auto surrender, leaving troops who can still act trapped.

[JoePrivate]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

More importantly,

Do troops who go off-board lower the sides moral?

The problem is that withdrawing can trigger auto surrender, leaving troops who can still act trapped.

Yes, that's the main reason for having all those 'ineffectives' hang around, they count towards your global morale.

[Forever Babra]

When the battle is lost and surrender is inevitable anyway, the loss of global morale no longer matters. Sauve qui peut.

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

"Za Rodentia!"

[Juardis]

Originally posted by JoePrivate:

Yes, that's the main reason for having all those 'ineffectives' hang around, they count towards your global morale.

You sure about that? What if they've been routed but recovered so that they have a ! after their condition. Seems to me that getting them off the board would increase global morale. Also seems to me that getting them off the board would mean that they are safe and hence global morale should improve, but I'm speculating.

[John Hough]

Originally posted by Juardis:

If you have units captured, your opponent gains more points than if they were just killed. So moving them off the map to avoid capture ensures your opponent won't get credit.

No, actually, your opponent gains more points for killed guys than for surrendered guys, which I found out during my artillery testing. The allies pounded a less expensive axis force, then I surrendered 'em, and the allies got a minor victory.

Which I like a lot. Gives you incentive to surrender a hopeless situation, rather than fight it out and kill more little polygon dudes for no gain. Or rather, to move eveyone you can off the map, to deny even the capture points for those, then surrender the rest.

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

so you can stay cool behind your window

and choose the view you want to see

but as long as there's others held captive

do not consider yourself free

-EMBRACE, "DO NOT CONSIDER YOURSELF FREE"

[JoePrivate]

Originally posted by Forever Babra:

When the battle is lost and surrender is inevitable anyway, the loss of global morale no longer matters. Sauve qui peut.

Sure if it's come to that point, having those troops around won't stave off the inevitable. However before it gets to that point, having those able-bodied men around to keep the global morale up has an effect on the behaviour of your overall force, whether they are more likely to panic, get pinned or rout etc. Troops will be more on top of a situation when global morale is say 90% versus 40% when they are more likely to turn tail.

Juardis, AFAIK global morale only looks at the number of troops 'alive'(their point value) compared to your losses, on the map. Units that are exited don't enter that equation.

[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 03-09-2001).]

[Mr. Clark]

I ALWAYS retreat crews and empty mortars teams off the map (unless I DESPERATELY need them to watch over a victory location for me) and have never had my "team" auto surrender in a game... so it really should not sway it so much that you need to worry over it.

I say retreat them and save yourself the points!

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

"Fear is for the enemy... Fear and Bullets."

"They didn't want to come... but I told em, by jeepers, it was an order."

[Bruno Weiss]

I might be wrong, but I had read in one of the threads that in version 1.12, crews and units that are out of ammo, cannot hold a VL, which if true then would mean that other than for potential spotting purposes, it would be more beneficial to retreat them off the map as Mr. Clark states than to maintain them on the field I would think.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

More importantly,

Do troops who go off-board lower the sides moral?

In my HD is a scenario that depicts a column of retreating amis trying to get off the map with the Germans in hot pursuit. While a small task force held the Germans back the long columns of trucks, HTs and men filtered off the map, yet my global morale would drop a little each time another group exited. You would think the reverse would be true, as more men exited to safety my morale should have risen.

[Mr. Clark]

Whoah!

Thanks for that bit of info Bruno! I do occasionally use Crews to watch over rear force VL's...

I guess I will ALWAYS retreat them off the field from now on.

In a way, it kind of makes sense that they should not be able to hold a VL... but then in a way it does not...

I've often read of Kitchen crews, etc., being used as last defense in WWII battles, so I used that reasoning for occasionally gaurding a rear VL with crews.

Hope this makes sense... my mind is fragmented... quitting smoking is a B!@tch!!!

[Forever Babra]

If I'm attacking (and making progress), I'll use any useless fluff to "control" VLs that I have passed by. If I'm losing, or see no way to win, I withdraw off the map. It's a tricky procedure -- it has to be timed so that the majority of the units exit on the same turn or one runs the risk of losing too many men to an auto-surrender. Two of my opponents have expressed outright astonishment at this, including the cry of "gamey". Their argument, such as it is, seems to be: If you can't win then you should surrender; retreat is gamey because it denies them points.

My argument is very simple: If you want me to surrender, cut off my retreat.

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

"Za Rodentia!"

[Mr. Clark]

I totally agree Babra!

Your playing style in this circumstance seems to match my own.

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

Your playing style in this circumstance seems to match my own.

You suck too?

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

"Za Rodentia!"

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by Forever Babra:

Two of my opponents have expressed outright astonishment at this, including the cry of "gamey". Their argument, such as it is, seems to be: If you can't win then you should surrender; retreat is gamey because it denies them points.

My argument is very simple: If you want me to surrender, cut off my retreat.

Actually, I don't see it as an argument so much as a different philosophical approach to playing CM.

I don't share Babra's view that his opponent should fight an encirclement battle to keep him on the map. Unlike real war, we choose to be on the map fighting each other for the sole purpose of using tactics and blowing things up. We do it for fun. If you don't want to do that, why play CM at all?

I play to fight until the bitter end, never knowing what will happen, and experiencing some very creative ways of fighting as the forces diminish. Some of the most intense gameplay happens near the end when winning the game depends upon making the most out of very little. Usually, your opponent is in the same position. Fighting with pistols and knives can heighten the experience and make the victory sweeter. If you lose, you can at least know that you tried your damnedest to win.

I think I will start a new thread to see how much people play CM for the main purpose of winning, as opposed to playing the game in all facets, good and bad.

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

You're never alone with a schizophrenic.

[Lawyer]

Double post due to server stuff...

[This message has been edited by Lawyer (edited 03-09-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Forever Babra:

If I'm attacking (and making progress), I'll use any useless fluff to "control" VLs that I have passed by. If I'm losing, or see no way to win, I withdraw off the map. It's a tricky procedure -- it has to be timed so that the majority of the units exit on the same turn or one runs the risk of losing too many men to an auto-surrender. Two of my opponents have expressed outright astonishment at this, including the cry of "gamey". Their argument, such as it is, seems to be: If you can't win then you should surrender; retreat is gamey because it denies them points.

My argument is very simple: If you want me to surrender, cut off my retreat.

I was one of Babra's victims and was ready to tear a strip off of him for wasting my time. After being calmed down by another regular opponent of mine, it was explained to me, and I agree, that this is a realistic approach. Babra beat up on me at first - badly. I was proud that I was able to disengage and then mount a flanking attack with reinforcements - but my joy at seemingly rolling up his line came to naught when I saw him withdrawing.

It's a legitimate tactic - and mirrors real life. If you beat the other guy up bad enough, then withdraw, you can even pull a win out of it. Babra and I had a draw, but it was close.

Not many real armies fight to the last man - the Japanese not withstanding - and can be an effective tool. Had Babra killed one or two more units, he could have even had a win.

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Had Babra killed one or two more units, he could have even had a win.

If you hadn't blown up your own M7, YOU would have had the win... *disappears still laughing... *

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

"Za Rodentia!"

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Forever Babra:

If you hadn't blown up your own M7, YOU would have had the win... *disappears still laughing... *

Well, Treeburst155, my sensei, advises me I only missed a loss by 1 point, so I know you're right...but should have known you wouldn't have been diplomatic enough not to mention it **grumble**

[Bruno Weiss]

I don't disagree with Babra on this, just never really thought of it quite like that myself. Personally, the "gamey" hollering is comical to me. I figure it was gamey that the Allies used airpower at the Falise Gap.

But this idea is something close to what I proposed before, as a "withdrawal" command, to enhance and as an addition to the "surrender" and "ceasefire" command options.

The withdrawal command as such, would allow for the withdrawal of troops off the map via a safe route to the friendly rear area, and not suppress global morale, fixing a time limit upon which units could be withdrawn, and upon accomplishment the AI would then calculate a game completion score based upon its usual factors, but allowing for the possession of points for those units that were successfully retreated off the map, providing all other requirements (i.e., exiting via predesignated safe areas), were met. This would assist in avoiding the games where the surrender command which only provides for a total loss (what exactly was the point there?), and thus those pesky games where someone hides, plays tag, or runs around the map for the final turns. It would also be different than the ceasefire in that it would not require an agreement by the opponent, but would notify the opponent and possibly even show the opponent where the safe exits were, providing for their option to either attempt to prevent the withdrawal, or allow it to happen while securing the VL's and harassing the withdrawal to gain additional points.

There are a good many ways to implement such an idea, but basically I was looking for a way to avoid the total bore games where someone just refuses to surrender, and the ceasefire command where it has to be agreed to.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 03-09-2001).]

[John Kelly]

Wow, I never heard of such a thing. You mean it is possible to win or draw without holding the victory locations? If I know I'm beaten, heck, I lay my sword at my opponent's feet and say good game. Are you talking about meeting engagements or scenarios? Perhaps I have learned something valuable here tonight. John