Questionable Result

[goodwood]

Victory points should be revised. Played an attack/defence QB game,as the the attacker. The map had 3 flags. At the end of the scenario i controlled 2 flags with in dispute, lost the game 36/50. With control of most of the ground the least you would expect is a draw. The only explanation I have for this result is the fact I lost all my armour in the attack and more infantry than my opponent. However one would expect the attacker to lose more of his forces than the defender. I think the victory points system should revised to reflect the success of an attacker taking his objective, and reduce the penaltly of the loss of forces. has anyone else support me on this point.

[Simon Fox]

were all three flags of identical worth?

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

"Stand to your glasses steady,

This world is a world of lies,

Here's a toast to the dead already,

And here's to the next man to die."

-hymn of the "Double Reds"

[Moriarty]

Big flags are 300 pts; little ones are 100.

VLs are not the only factors the AI considers when calculating victory points. It also will take into consideration how many men, vehicles you lost or saved, how many crews were lost or saved, etc. Highly trained crews (armor crews, mortar crews, FOs, etc.) are given more value by the AI than grunts.

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

"Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change." -- Oddball

"Crap." -- Moriarty

[goodwood]

No, 1 biggie and 2 small ones I owned the biggie and a small one, my only explaination is my losses, but as mentioned heavier losses should be expected when on the attack.

[Forever Babra]

Do the words "Pyhrric Victory" mean anything to ya?

[Firefly]

In a recent PBEM I only mangaged a draw despite controlling all the flags. As others have said this was due to losses - I lost 4 tanks, my opponent lost none.

[Tiger]

Another example of why not to obsess with the VLs and instead work on defeating your opponent's troops first. A lesson I'm still learning.

`Tiger

[goodwood]

Accept what everyone is saying ( dipolmacy at its best) but anything short of having your attacking force decimated an attacker should have the better side of the victory he controls the flags

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by goodwood:

...but anything short of having your attacking force decimated an attacker should have the better side of the victory he controls the flags

Glad I'm not in YOUR army

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by goodwood:

Accept what everyone is saying ( dipolmacy at its best) but anything short of having your attacking force decimated an attacker should have the better side of the victory he controls the flags

Ever heard of counter-attacks? If your force is seriously weakened, you won't be able to hold them off. That is why human wave attacks are rarely a good idea. CMBO is taking this into account when racking up the points. I have quibbled with Matt about a couple of my results, but he has always shown me the light (or some stars flying, at least ) I think this is good, because it means that you think more realistically about the fight.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[goodwood]

My point is my casulties were not much worse than my opponents. The objectives in an attack are premium not the cost of taking it. Many historic attacks in history have cost excessive casulties, don't have to go much further than D-Day and beyond.

[Atlas]

Goodwood,

You make a very good point, but I think you are placing too much emphasis on the flags. Do not think of them as operational or strategic objectives (e.g. Bastone, Utah Beach, etc.) Think of them as one of thousands of local, tactical objectives that confronted the German/Allied armies during the war. (e.g. "Major, take that line of low hills and hold it!")

As such, value of the land was not usually as important as the value of the soldiers and material that was needed for the next local, tactical objective. Of course, scenario designers may stack a bunch of 300 point flags together on a hill to create the type of scenario you desire; but I have rarely seen such scenarios in a QB. Good luck.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

No, I do not support you on this point. Losing all of your armor to take a dinky flag 400 yards away is a formula for losing the whole war.

You've got 500 miles to go, you so get to do that 2000 times - and then you get to do it along perhaps 100 miles of front (out of way more than that total). Think you can afford to lose a platoon of tanks, or even a pair of them, 200,000 times? The USA, UK, and USSR combined made about 250,000 AFVs for the whole war.

A small flag is small to reflect its value. It is worth, not all your armor, but *1* tank, or *1* platoon of infantry (about). A large flag is worth 2.5 of these things, but not three.

If your losses *equal* your opponent's, then having a little more of the important real estate can break the tie - slightly. With attacker odds, you should be able to crush the smaller defending force, or lever it off of the objective to stay alive, and either of these things without getting killed. I

Incidentally, I also suggest you play your next 3 games as a defender, at 2 vs 3 odds. Then you can pretend, if you still want to, that the attacker losing more than the defender and not taking all the flags is not a defensive success.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

On the example of D-Day, BTW, I think you have a rather clouded picture and it isn't much of an example. First, it was the single most important "objective" in the war for the Allies, because their wouldn't be a war if they didn't get ashore. There is always another way with most land-based objectives.

Second, the highest losses reached about 1/3rd of the attacking unit, worse in parts of the first wave of course. And these losses were considered so bad they almost called it off at Omaha. The units that did reach the bluff were those that hadn't taken losses too high. The places that took 2/3rd and 3/4th losses in the first wave, were stopped at the water's edge.

Third, the defending German force, the 352 Infantry division, was practically destroyed on D-Day. It was left with no more than 2 battalions of effectives. More of the U.S. losses were KIA, and more of the German losses were PWs, which of course makes a huge difference in human terms. But the reduction in military strength on both sides, was about even, even at Omaha, which was the worst of the 6 beaches. That is what attacker's odds and all the support was supposed to do, and it did.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

On the example of D-Day, BTW, I think you have a rather clouded picture and it isn't much of an example. First, it was the single most important "objective" in the war for the Allies, because their wouldn't be a war if they didn't get ashore. There is always another way with most land-based objectives.

Second, the highest losses reached about 1/3rd of the attacking unit, worse in parts of the first wave of course. And these losses were considered so bad they almost called it off at Omaha. The units that did reach the bluff were those that hadn't taken losses too high. The places that took 2/3rd and 3/4th losses in the first wave, were stopped at the water's edge.

Third, the defending German force, the 352 Infantry division, was practically destroyed on D-Day. It was left with no more than 2 battalions of effectives. More of the U.S. losses were KIA, and more of the German losses were PWs, which of course makes a huge difference in human terms. But the reduction in military strength on both sides, was about even, even at Omaha, which was the worst of the 6 beaches. That is what attacker's odds and all the support was supposed to do, and it did.

How do you define "unit"? Many infantry companies lost between 50 and 90 percent of their men on D-Day. If you look at a Division, with all its rear area elements who never came ashore under direct fire, then perhaps your 33 percent figure is closer to truth.

[Moriarty]

Originally posted by Tiger:

Another example of why not to obsess with the VLs and instead work on defeating your opponent's troops first. A lesson I'm still learning.

`Tiger

Very good point. The flags are useful only in that it's a pretty good bet that's were your opponent is headed (in a meeting engagement, anyway).

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

"Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change." -- Oddball

"Crap." -- Moriarty

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by goodwood:

The only explanation I have for this result is the fact I lost all my armour in the attack and more infantry than my opponent.

Tanks are Worth ALOT

Never forget that

The actual points they cost are weighed in the final victory points count.

While a major VL is worth only 300 points if you loose two cheap tanks or one expensive tank to take that VL you have really ONLY broke even. Loss of ONE tank worth three hundred points is equal to the control of one major VL at the end of the game. To win I have found it is VERY important to kill more enemy points than they kill of mine. It means winning the infantry battle and winning the armour battle.

The Loss of even ONE more tank than your opponent has a significant impact on the victory points.

I agree with those here that say it is far better to play the game with the intention of destroying enemy units than it is to just try to hold the VL's. A shrewd player may "give up" the VL's for an opporunity to "punish" you heavily for trying to hold them, meaning that if you place all your units on the VL's too early your opponent can use arty or stand off with tanks and and mortars and destroy those units occupying the VLs' without ever risking his own units.

I would suggest that you should be very wary of this tactic and focus your efforts on locating and elimating as many enemy units as possible, THEN take the VLs if it is not too costly to do so.

-tom w