VLs and scoring, why only at the end?

[GenSplatton]

I saw the thread concerning the Random End Game program. This was developed to combat the flag rush at the end of a game. My question is, why did BTS decide to only give points for the VLs at the end of the game? Seems to me, being a newbie, that many of us just learning have a tendency to rush the flag, sit and get pounded, hold the flag for 29 turns and then have it rushed so that it goes uncommitted on the turn 30. We then lose due to heavier overall losses. Now, what I don't get is, why aren't a small amount of points given per turn for each VL instead of giving them in one big block at the end? This would render the VL rush totally mute since those who rush the flag the last turn or two wouldn't be gaining that much if they let the other fella hold it the other 28 in extreme cases, maybe 10 or 15 in others. Both sides would be forced to defend and/or take the VLs throughout the entire game. Just wondering....

[Michael Dorosh]

What would be your real-life rationale for doling out VPs in this manner?

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

What would be your real-life rationale for doling out VPs in this manner?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I imagine it would be about the same for awarding points for VL's at all.......

[GenSplatton]

Real life? Not sure what real life has to do with the topic of flag rushing. I'm talking strictly about game balance in a QB. I see no real life situation were an enemy would take heavy casualties because the clock was about to run out and they wanted to outscore the other army.

[Panzer_Meyer]

Gen,

I know what you mean, it sound like a good idea. This would solve the problem all together. At least it seems that way.

But that means a defense QB the defender would get more point before the opponent would even reach him.

But I guess this option would only work in ME QBs, sounds good!

[aka_tom_w]

This is Largely an issue for the Meeting Engagement that mostly everyone favours because it is considered most fair for both sides. But the other result of this might be the then BOTH sides would RUSH the flag right off the opening turn and the 'last man standing' would get the lion's share of the victory points by sitting on the flag until the end. I think is it an issue to be looked at, but in terms of game balance and how this might or might not effect attack and defend scenarios it may not be an ideal solution and may be too simplistic, or too difficult to implement fairly.

As has already been suggested here I think a better way to deal with this issue is the variable ending turn like in the CAL Wine tourney for example 25 turns +/- 4 turns so the game could end on turn 21 or turn 29.

-tom w

[ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Louie the Toad]

Oh yes this really makes sense:

"Ok lads, we've got to hold the crossroads for exactly 16 minutes."

(Maybe in the warmovie world of Telly Savalas,Clint Eastwood or Donald Sutherland)

I agree that the flagrush is a problem, but the solution presented in posts above is worse. Isn't it more sensible to say: "We have to take and hold the crossroads by 1300 hours, and be ready for whatever the enemy throws at us."

The problem is that the VLs are out of context due to the fact that CM is a tactical game. If there were an operational or strategic context, tactical commanders would be given orders such as: probe the enemy; maintain contact with the enemy; take that hill at all costs; fall back fighting to position X; or hold that hill to the last

man.

In a strategic or operational context, any of the orders above could be the best thing to do. But, for example, 'falling back fighting', in CM it would cost you the game.

Randomizing the end in a tactical game may not be the best solution, but it is the best so far.

[GenSplatton]

Will that be built in to CM2? I agree it would be a fine solution.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

I agree that the flagrush is a problem, but the solution presented in posts above is worse. Isn't it more sensible to say: "We have to take and hold the crossroads by 1300 hours, and be ready for whatever the enemy throws at us." .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Real life rationale. Thank you.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

I imagine it would be about the same for awarding points for VL's at all.......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?

I can understand the rationale for awarding VL's as it stands now. Perhaps you are not aware of that rationale.

So what would the rationale be for doing it the alternate way suggested?

If you are proposing a change, there needs to be a reason. CM is part game, part simulation. If it wasn't intended to be a simulation, then why bother with the detailed armour penetration specs?

[dmart]

Perhaps one solution has been overlooked (at least in this thread): take flags out of MEs altogether. As it is CM MEs are more Hasty Assaults than MEs. A few scenario designers have made such scenarios and they are very interesting to play. If such an option were available (no victory flags), it might make for more exciting MEs.

[GenSplatton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree that the flagrush is a problem, but the solution presented in posts above is worse. Isn't it more sensible to say: "We have to take and hold the crossroads by 1300 hours, and be ready for whatever the enemy throws at us."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, I would agree with you 100% if this were viable in an ME, but it isn't under the current engine. What I mean is, back to the game I sighted before. It WAS an intersection actually, and I had it surrounded with 5 infantry squads. On the last turn, the opponent rushed in a single armored car, contested the flag, and won a minor victory by 2 points rather than the draw that should have occured. Now, as far as I am concerned, I did control the intersection. Had the game gone one more turn, I guarentee the armored car would have been destroyed. But the opponent took advantage of a well known flaw in the AI. It isn't realism in any sense of the word, and that is what I am addressing.

Michael, I am not trying to start a pissing contest, really! I understand your wanting realism in the game and I agree with that 100%. However, I think the VL/End turn mechanism in place totally ruins the realism of meeting engagements. Hence this post.

Dmart, excellent idea and hopefully CM2 will incorporate scenarios like you are describing. Maybe it will even be a game type!?!

If not, what I really would like to see is the random end turn. It's been used before in other games, and I think it would go a long way in elimination the rush. In my example above, had the opponent rushed that AC in, only to have the game go another three turns or so, not only would he not have won, but odds were good that the AC would have been lost, the flag would have remained in my control and that maneuver would have quite possibly pushed him in to a minor loss due to the point shift. It would make flag rushing manuevers much more risky and therefore less popular.

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: GenSplatton ]