Possible solutions for a Myriad of probs

[Priest]

First off Dragoon and some others were discussing Recon in CM in another post. The discussion encompassed whether recon was feasible realistically (gamey?) because in CM the recon should be done. That is to say that HQ has identified the area as a target. I think the difference is that of strategy and tactics. Some Generals in the rear somewhere were staring at a map and decided that this hill or town would fit into the overall plan so the BN commander or Coy commander is told to take the strategic objective by using tactics. The BN or COY commander might see a ridge or clump of trees as a strongpoint or see firelanes that the generals could care less about. Now if I am that BN commander or Coy commander then I am going to use a forward screen of some sort. My only other option is what? Line up and move forward neatly. That has been done before in combat...an example would be the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War. No thanks.

Okay that really wasn;t a solution but how about this. On other posts the idea of last minute crew rushes and autosurrender are being brought into question. And the fact that people will time the game due to the turns left or not left. My solution is to allow the OPTION to have unlimited turns. I said option because for scenarios and such the turn limit is needed. Also some people like turns so I am not proposing that we lose the turns altogether. I first thought about hidden turns where you didn't know how many turns were left but if you are attacking and all of a sudden the game ends...why? Did reinforcements come? What happened? I think that we go back to extrapolation and I think we want to avoid that. Again if it is incuded great. Also "NO LIMIT" rule would eliminate the last second charge because there is no last second. Also it would be difficult to have someone "steal" a flag on the last turn. Again I actually agree with the folks who say that if a beleagured force can take the flag it wasn't defended properly anyway but hey now that beleagured force has to hold that flag making it less likely that the beleagered force would ever try. Now tie this in with the auto-surrender feature so games do not go on and on and on and I think you have something.

About the auto-surrender (and this is less likely to fly) what if after one side has taken a beating the game "offers" a surrender to whoever is losing. This is because in the model proposed both players have to agree. In this scenario if the defender does not want to continue to defend the attacker wins if the attacker no longer wants to attack the Defender has nothing to defend against. Now you keep in place the global morale autosurrender as it is so people cannot drag on the game even more. This simulates a LT. coming up and saying "Sir we may want to think about surrender". If you answer "no" then the battle goes on. The AI would only ask the person who is assumed to be losing so the opposing player would not know. This would allow the learning curve to stay were it is in CM and allow for those rare inspired comebacks. To make everyone happy the autosurrender is gonna have to be after a beating has taken place so i think that it's use as a "reminder/option" is enough to make most of us happy. If I am getting blasted and the computer asks me to bow out gracefully I might just take it up on the offer and lose the frustration.

lastly how about a "hyper" Campaign as an option. I start to play a friend in a QB. The battle is interesting but a stalemate. After however many turns the attacker backs off. No if the "HyperCampaign" setting is on then the Attacker has the ability to attack again later in the day or night or whatever. The game can random the weather and same map used. You could also use the campaign's ability to provide resupply. Also something could be coded so that each side gets some small percentage of reinforcements to buy between battles. Seeing as each battle would be a QB but linked in logistics the battle could go on for awhile but since you can only reinforce with so many points per game the forces would attrit. The problem I see is that someone (the attacker) would just sit there and accumulate points so that would have to be worked out. Just an idea but one that could nbe interesting. Of course when asked to continue after the first or any battle the player or players could say no thus surrendering. This type of "fluid" campaign would be great but also seriously hamper the use of crews because the next battle is just a click away. I also realize that a player could retreat and call for another battle that he is losing and if the other player doesn't want to play then win when they should've lost but that is something that will have to be worked out.

mainly I hope this spawns ideas.

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

Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb

-Priest

[This message has been edited by Priest (edited 01-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Priest (edited 01-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Priest (edited 01-08-2001).]

[hnh3_cm]

anti-spam bump

[Priest]

bump

[Major Tom]

The removal of time limit, optional or not, just restricts engagements to be nothing more than totall annihilations. One side must destroy the other side to win. With timed operations, both sides might still have a lot of strength in them, but, one controlls the critical positions while the other one cannot get there in time.

Defending in a no-limit game will be very annoying and tiresome. You have to always eliminate your enemy, delay is out of the question. Attackers can spend as long as they want preparing an assault. There is no feeling of rush, no immediacey. All that this serves to do is to feed one person's need to not only win, but to hunt down every straggler.

There are many games as the defender I am counting down the clock to see if I can survive until the end of the game, and as the attacker counting down the clock to see if I am in correct positions to take the objectives by the end. I support variable time differences, but, removing the time alotment altogether is, well, ludicrous. Even if it is an option.

[Priest]

As the only way I completely agree that the idea of no time limit is unworkable. But as an option it is feasible. First off I play with a group who when an attacker is losing they surrender gracefully, sometimes even if there are 15-20 turns left of a 30 turn game if for no other reason than to start a new game. Same with the defender. Now is this true about all players? No. So there is the turn system as it stands. Honestly I would not play many non-turn limit battles prefering variable myself, but there are a lot of people critisizing that "you know when it is going to end!" so no turn limit would be an easy way to fix it (even if not perfect) as an OPTION!. Hope I get more responses. BTS?

Matt?

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

Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb

-Priest

[This message has been edited by Priest (edited 01-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Priest (edited 01-08-2001).]

[DraGoon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest:

.....mainly I hope this spawns ideas.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It did.

I agree with the comments about a completely random time limit being unworkable *edit* (unless optional) and no time limit becoming tiresome and unfair to the defender, however you both got me thinking.

How about a random additional time limit of say 0-5 turns, this would allow for the possibility of a counterattack on any last turn flag rush. It would lead to more reasoned planning and timing of the final assault.

Now that I've said this I think I'll go do a search as it has probably been suggested before.

DG

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

Remember:

Always end your lay in elevation.

[This message has been edited by DraGoon (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Priest]

That would be good also. Kinda an offshoot of the reinforcement rule. I like it. Cool anyothers?

[Juardis]

No turn limit = bad. No incentive to attack a well defended position. Game would never end.

Variable turn limit = good.

By variable, I mean 20 turns +/- 2 turns or 30 turns +/- 3 turns or 40+/-4... You get the idea. You have to have that uncertainty on the early end as well as the back end of the specified limit otherwise you'll still get the wait till turn 19 to rush the flag and hope that I can hold for 1-6 turns. BTW, this was not my original idea, but I like it anyway.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Humus B. Chittenbee]

Juardis said:

"By variable, I mean 20 turns +/- 2 turns or 30 turns +/- 3 turns or 40+/-4... You get the idea. You have to have that uncertainty on the early end as well as the back end of the specified limit otherwise you'll still get the wait till turn 19 to rush the flag and hope that I can hold for 1-6 turns. BTW, this was not my original idea, but I like it anyway."

I was going to make the same suggestion - re partial rather than total variability in turn number... but a '20 +/- 3 turn scenario' really is the same as a '17-23 (randomly assigned) turn scenario.' The only difference is in how one states the parameters. One's approach in the actual gameplay would be indistinguishable.

I do prefer a larger variable for longer games.

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

***Sôphrosunê***

[Basebal351]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DraGoon:

How about a random additional time limit of say 0-5 turns, this would allow for the possibility of a counterattack on any last turn flag rush. It would lead to more reasoned planning and timing of the final assault.

Now that I've said this I think I'll go do a search as it has probably been suggested before.

DG

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that IS an interesting idea but it's been discussed at length for quite awhile. I believe, but anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, but some people were suggesting that very SAME idea before the game even came out. And, again correct me if I'm wrong, but BTS *might* be looking into doing something like that, or at least allowing that option, in the next game. I don't really care if it makes it in or not, as I've never attempted a rush, or had a rush attempted on me. All of my games have ended in a surrender.

Thanks,

Jim