A thought on objectives... and wish list...

[Polar]

How hard would it be to impliment the following:

1) Remove the ability of tank crews to hold objectives

2) Have objective flags show as neutral as long as your forces can't see anyone holding it.

3) Require some set amount of force to occupy any given objective (ie. a rifle squad at 10% can't hold an objective... or probably, an squad that is anything less than good morale can't hold an objective).

It seems most fears of playing ahistorical missions may be reduced buy adding these rules.. even as optional.

No more last turn rushes to the objectives, no more redirecting resources soley because you see a distant flag switch from neutral to the opposition (before you ever see anyone).

Now the stuff that is probably tougher:

1) Fog of war that:

a) lets you see your troops, but doesn't let you control them unless they are within eyesight of a commander, or someone with HQ contact.. have this effect changed by smoke, and unit stance (ie. if HQ and unit are hiding, you have no control).

Doesn't let you see enemy troops unless "a)" above has been established with spotter.

2) Offensive AI.. and not just fire direction, but real mobility AI... ie. if a rifle squad is out of contact, and can't be controled, they can still manage to assault the house across the street with the sniper.

Is all this too much to ask?

Joe

[Jarmo]

1) As the game doesn't have a real concept of a frontline, you have

to leave men holding a position, you know can't be reached by the enemy.

Crews solve this "problem" nicely. And they still can't prevent

a force of any strength from capturing the objective.

So I don't see a problem here.

2) They already do? At least if you play with FFOW.

3) Same as (1)

Fow suggestions I just don't like.

Offensive AI might be good, but would create a ton of problems.

Was I a bit negative? Sorry.

[Polar]

No... my folly was pointed out in another thread.

On the offense AI thing, you really can't achieve realistic depiction of commanding forces without it.

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Guest wwb_99]

While your suggestions would add much to realism, they would destroy the fun factor. Very few want to play a game where they often have no control over their units, which would be the natural result of the c & c rules you propose. While I am all for realism, there has to be some attention paid to playability. If you wanted it to be totally realistic, you should plot the paths of your platoons on turn 1 and not have any control other than a 'fall back' command thereafter. Who would want to play that way tho?

WWB

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

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

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[L.Tankersley]

Hmmm, maybe crews should be able to control victory locations, but not contest them? (That way, you can garrison a flag with a crew, but they are insufficient to keep a flag contested against any kind of last-turn non-crew advance. That way the "gameyness" of guarding flags with crews offsets the "gameyness" of having to guard the flag in the first place, while still forcing you to keep the enemy away from the flag if you want to deny him its points.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

Hmmm, maybe crews should be able to control victory locations, but not contest them? /B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought about this while making my answer.

If you are odered to capture a hill, and it turns out there's no-one

defending it, then it really shouldn't require more than having someone

go out there and confirm the objective is empty.