Ideas how to solve the VL 'problem' in CM2?

[Scipio]

We've already seen it all, in the last minute the opponent starts a storm on the VLs to 'steal' you the points. Okay, I've already done it, too. Nevertheless, it sucks, and I guess it's a bit unhistoric.

Ideas?

My favorite : from a random point in the last 3-5 rounds, the VLs can't change to '?'. They can only taken abolutly, this means, the attacking side must REALLY take them and destroy/drive away all enemy. Routed/Paniced etc units doesn't count.

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

Keine Gefangenen!

Visit my Combat Mission Sound Mods site!

Scipiobase

Join the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club

[Vanir]

This has been discussed quite a lot.

I think the best solution anyone come up with was varying what turn the game ended on so if you are playing a 30 turn game it may actually last 31,32 or 33 turns.

That's probably the easiest to implememt as well.

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

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[Lt Bull]

Spring 1944, Western Europe.

A jeep scrambles furiously up a windy dirt to track carrying an irrate colonel who has specially driven out to meet one of his frontline company commanders.

Col: "Captain, can you please explain what the hell happened on that hill you had only minutes ago told me you had well secured?"

Capt: "Well sir, we were fortunate enough to have been able to make it to the hill before the enemy did as their LOS was blocked by a ridge several hundred metres in front of us. Once we got there we set up a defensive perimeter and employed units in ambush positions around the hill. We waited and waited but when the enemy suddenly attacked from the woods just over the ridge sir, with armoured infantry, tank support and a smoke screen..I..I don't know...in just a few short minutes, they manged to contest the hill right when we didn't want them to."

Col: "You set up a defense around the hill you say. What kind of defense Captain?"

Capt: "Well sir, we basically deployed a few squads and AT infantry in the woods maybe 50m forward of the hill but kept most of our force hidden in cover several 100m away on the flanks to nail the enemy if they advanced on the hill."

Col: "I see, you call that a defence of a hill Captain? How the hell are you expecting to defend a damn hill if a damn defensive line of a few squads is only a few goddamn metres forward of the hill you say you were "defending"? You KNEW you had to hold the hill until 1500hrs to screen the deploymnent of the main TF that was moving up the road north for a surprise attack on the enemy flank."

Capt: "But sir, besides that small patch of woods just forward of the hill, there was no other cover about. There was an orchard several hundred meters forward and to the right of the hill and a small village to the left but I though it too risky to deploy that far forward of the objective."

Col: "Too risky hey? Not enough cover? You think I don't expect you to take risks Captain? I don't give a jacks ass even if you didnt have any cover at all. Your orders were simple. Advance to the objective and defend it from the enemy until 1500hrs at which time you would report in your current situation to me. I had to cancel the whole attack at the last minute after hearing that the enemy had made it to the hill. How the hell are we supposed to win this war when officers leave their work undone?"

Capt: "We held the hill for most of the day sir. It was just those last few minutes that they managed to make it close enough to the hill to contest it."

Col: "Damn it Captain, if I didnt want you to have control of the hill at 1500hrs I wouldn't have asked you to hold it at 1500hrs! You were given specific orders and you failed. Why the hell you didn't adjust your defence accordingly to prevent the enemy from contesting the hill in the last few minutes is beyond me. If it meant taking the fight to the enemy, well, so be it! At least they would'nt have been anywhere where near the objective. Didn't reconn report that the enemy opposite you were of a similar size and force anyway"?

Capt: "I believe that to be correct sir."

Col: "So why the hell didnt you take the fight to the enemy instead of letting them take the fight to you in those last few minutes? This was technically a meeting engagement was it not? You get just a little bit too cosy hiding in your ambush positions perhaps? It's not as if they had superior numbers. You though they were going to let you just have that hill without a fight?"

Capt: "Err, we thought we were set up well enough to hold the hill sir. I still can't believe they could do it."

Col: "Well start believing Captain. You prefered to deploy the minimum number of units just forward enough to be able to claim control of the hill. You sat back in your cosy little ambush positions while you let the advancing enemy casually group at will all around you for a last minute assualt on your position. Why did you let them do that? Didn't you ever play or watch football son? Ever seen the coaches modify their plays depending on the score, their field position, the personnel on the field and the game clock? Four points up, you don't set up a dime defense on the last play of the game when the other team sets up in Jumbo formation at the goaline.

Frankly Captain, I don't think you really know what it means to have control of an objective. I will give you a clue. If the enemy can contest the objective in the space of a few minutes, YOU AINT GOT CONTROL OF IT! Deal with it or get out of my battalion!"

Capt: "Yes sir. I will try not to fail you next time."

What is the problem here? Follow your goddam orders!!

Lt Bull

[SenorBeef]

Of course, on the german side:

"Sir, we have one minute left until the world magically stops, and so if we send all of our forces in a wild charge now, even though the enemy has a large reserve, he, of course, won't be able to use it, because the world magically stops in exactly 60 seconds. Lets go take that flag"

[Lt Bull]

As the good Colonel points out:

"I don't think you really know what it means to have control of an objective. I will give you a clue. If the enemy can contest the objective in the space of a few minutes, YOU AINT GOT CONTROL OF IT!"

Even if the world did magically end with one minute left, to make it anywhere near the VL in that short amount of time, by definition, means that the enemy got WAY TOO CLOSE to the VL in the first place.

By definition if you really had a well defended VL, it would take many turns for the enemy to even start thinking about turning it to ?........right? Perhaps everyone should start rethinking what they consider to be adequate control of a VL. Perhaps we need to rethink VLs as being more than just a small patch of dirt and more of a larger area that is more difficult to defend than we currently think it is. Its just a matter of scale.

Lt Bull

[Col Deadmarsh]

Excellent post Bull. I totally agree with you.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[iggi]

I don't think you really know what it means to have control of an objective. I will give you a clue. If the enemy can contest the objective in the space of a few minutes, YOU AINT GOT CONTROL OF IT!

That makes alot of sense. If you can't control a VL for three measly minutes, were you ever there for practical purposes?

[Lt Bull]

Thanks Deadmarsh and iggi, Im happy you can see my point.

I believe we can all be comfortable with the way VLs are currently modelled in CM without having to feel we need to impose "rules" on contesting/attacking VLs. Just think of a VL as being a much bigger area than what most of you may currently think it is (or should be) and the game (and the result) will look after itself.

Off to work now. Be good.

Lt Bull

[Brian Rock]

Interesting. Effectively what Bull is doing is turning the argument on its head - in other words, plonking a few guys on a flag and calling that control is gamey.

I think Lt Bull has a damn good point here, and I say that as someone who until about five minutes ago argued that the last minute flag grab was gamey.

(I would still like a variable end of game option though.)

[KiwiJoe]

It's gamey if you DELIBRATLY hold off till the last few turns, KNOWING that if you attacked on turn 20 you would get fried by turn 22-23, but if you attack on turn 30, after dropping smoke on turn 29, you will take light hits and turn the flag "?".

It's a fundamental difference in thinking between those who like to take and hold the flags early, and those that like to sit back, and attack at the end.

I can see what LT Bull is saying... If a smallish force can run towards the VL in 1 turn and shift it to "?" then you don't deserve to hold it. BUT the whole issue is WHEN they do it. Even with superior numbers and positioning its damn hard to kill a platoon of infantry in 40 or so secs if they use smoke and/or cover. So the defender of the VL could have 2 mgs, a vet platoon and a tank defending the VL in a small QB. Attacking that with 1 platoon of men and a little bit of smoke, nothing else, would be suicide. But doing it on turns 29-30 will mostly likley result in changing the flag to "?". THAT IS GAMEY. IT USES A KNOWN LIMITATION OF THE GAME - I.E. IT ENDS AT A CERTAIN TIME KNOWN TO BOTH PARTIES, AND EXPLOITS IT. In LT Bulls example of holding the hill till 1500 hours the enemy doesn't know that the battle will MAGICALLY end at 1500 hours and thus wouldn't launch an atttck on the location because they would likely fail. They would retreat or wait for reinforcements. But in CM they know at the end of turn 30 every1 lays down their guns and has a good ole chat about what happened and possably a rematch.

[This message has been edited by KiwiJoe (edited 02-18-2001).]

[russellmz]

everyone's right.

if you have a few squads holding the VL and the enemy plans a well or semi organized attack that throws off the defenders or changes the flag to ?, that is the defenders fault.

but if the attacker is using formerly routed crews, mortar men, mmg's and the single guy left from 9 or 12 man squads to attack the flag and your guys are burning through the ammo killing them but it takes 2 turns to wipe them out and only 1 turn is left, that is gamey, IMHO.

the defender could have charged but that may leave the flag open, and the enemy may still have some forces left.

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

russellmz,

Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ.

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Col Deadmarsh]

I still stand by what Lt. Bull said but KiwiJoe is right on the money in the fact that in both CM and in real life, you know how long you have to hold a position, but only in CM do both sides know.

Of course there are exceptions in real life which I think also back up Bull's theory. For instance, let's take the last scene in Private Ryan. The Allied squads are holding off the Germans in the last 5 minutes so they can get everyone to the other side of the bridge to blow it.

The Germans *know* this what they are doing. They also know they will be able to do it in the next few minutes so they must act now with the tank and the remaining infantry to put a stop to this plan before it goes into effect.

I think that there are arguments to be made for each theory, both Bull's and KiwiJoe's. Let's face it, there is no clear-cut answer here.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Well,

Lt Bull certainly is not wrong but I do not think he is right 1005. In CM control of flags allows for gamey tactict for sure.

I had small flags turned into '?' by enemy advancing mortars units and sharpshooter both with NO AMMO toward a squad of 9 men, with enough ammo. They sneaked close and hid nearby. Flag turned ? and I discovered the trick was effective to turn the flag ? on the AAR: till the last second the flag was shown as control in the movie.

Now you could well claim again that if I could not kill the sneacking enemy I really did not control the area but unarmed sharpshooters and mortars? How were they supposed to contest my armed 9 men squad in the small flag area?

[zgrose]

Whereas it does seem a little lacking that CM only takes into account the presence/number of troops in the vicinity of the flag versus the lethality of said troops (unarmed mortar v. rifle squad in example above), I believe Lt Bull has a very valid point. If *unarmed* troops can get so close to the flag as to cause it to switch control, you really don't have much of a claim to say you control the region.

As to the "world magically ending" point, I also agree that games should have a variable end point +/- a couple turns from stated. It reminds both sides to be decisive and deliberate rather than "play the clock".

[Firefly]

Steel Panther: World at War has introduced different types of VL in an attempt to get round this question (which is not limited to CM, but is probably as old as wargaming). In addition to VLs that score points at the end of the game, there are VLs that score points at the end of each turn and VLs that score points immediately one side takes control of them. If such an approach is added to a variable end of game it would give scenario designers a lot more latitude in setting goals for the player.

Whether such a system could easily be incorporated in QBs is more problematic.

[This message has been edited by Firefly (edited 02-19-2001).]

[KiwiJoe]

Don't think I like points for each turn you hold a VL. Kinda brings more problems into play.. like running a cheap volks smg platoon to the VL and just hiding it there to collect as many points as you can.

[Tiger]

Random ending for turns?, blah. This would suck especially if you have a real good game going and don't want it to end. What Lt Bull said.

john

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Tiger:

Random ending for turns?, blah. This would suck especially if you have a real good game going and don't want it to end. What Lt Bull said.

john

Bear in mind we're not talking totally random. It's not like the game will kick to the desktop on turn three. The idea is that instead of a game ending on turn 30 you might have the option of setting it to end between 28 and 32. It helps to fuzz up the time factor.

While I'm here I may as well prattle on about my way of looking at this whole issue...

[soapbox]There is a paradox for game designers. On the one hand the lack of fuzziness is a major problem in games.

If you set precise crystal clear victory conditions people will play in a way to maximise their chances of achieving these.

On the other hand you make things a bit fuzzy - say you randomised the value of a flag, and didn't know what it was until game end. Or maybe your enemy had completely different objectives and you had no way of being sure exactly what these were. It starts to become more realistic, but then gamers complain that it's not clear what they have to do to win.

Now I'm a minority, and personally I strongly favour the latter approach. But then much of the time I don't give a toss about winning or losing - that's not why I play. But for the majority that play CM - or any other game - as a game first and foremost, this fuzziness can be very annoying.

Nothing wrong with that, but it means gamey-ness is next to impossible to eliminate.

[/soapbox]

[Firefly]

Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

Don't think I like points for each turn you hold a VL. Kinda brings more problems into play.. like running a cheap volks smg platoon to the VL and just hiding it there to collect as many points as you can.

I think the idea of using this type is to reward the defender for each turn he/she defends the location. Obviously the scenario designer wouldn't use this type in a meeting enagagement, but more in the type of game where the objective is to delay the enemy advance.

[The Tanklord]

If you cant hold the VL you dont deserv getting the points for it.

[Lt Bull]

It's good to see that a new angle on this whole VL issue is being looked at. Good points being raised all over the place. I apologise to Scipio if I defelcted discussion too much away from what I think he originally set out to discuss (ie. alternate ways in which VLs/victory determination in CM2/CMII could be modelled), but it was the insinuation that "we all agree" that the current CM system has a "VL problem" where it "sucks" and has no merits when VLs can be "stolen" in "gamey last minute attacks" that I think needed to be addressed. I defended the current system to let people know that its not as "unfair/unfounded in reality" as this insinuation tries to suggest.

I'm never did say that the way CM currently handles VLs/victory point allocation is perfect or isn't worth discussing any further. I just wanted to point out that it is possible to play CM within its unbiased confines without the need for "external" rules on what you can/can't do (because we think some things are "gamey" and feel we have to do something about it).

What is it that the FINAL GAME RESULT in any CM battle is trying to simulate? As far as VLs go, it is SIMPLE: Who (if anyone) is able to "keep control of the VL" at the end of the last turn. This is absolute, unambiguous, unbiased, final, and automatic. It is NOT, by definition, who would've/could've had control of the VL if the game went on any longer or any shorter than specified by the scenario turn limit. Or even, whose ass warmed the VL the most throughout the battle.

Once this is whole-heartedly accepted and understood by BOTH players, there should be no problem in accepting whatever result is achieved and what led up to it.

Tanklord, you are spot on...as far as CM currently stands goes, its just as simple as that. "If you can't hold the VL, you don't deserve getting the points for it". Let me add....under any and all circumstances possible. They are your orders! No ifs or buts!

But we need to remember that we are dealing with several "controversial" issues here which have been around for some time.

1) the concept of a "last turn", which is absolute and of common knowledge to both sides.

2) the method in which CM allocates Victory Points with regards to occupation of geographical terrain, which is an all-or-nothing based on end game conditions ONLY.

The way CM handles both of these concepts isn't all together that bad (irrationally "unrealistic") such that we need to call it a "problem" and somehow feel we need a way to introduce a set of "external" third-party rules of our own to impose on our gaming experience to "take the pain away" until CM2/CMII comes out with a new system.

However, when we consider how CM2/CMII might handle victory point allocation/game duration (as per Scipio's original post), I'm sure we can think of novel creative ways to IMPROVE and build upon the way it is currently handled in CM. I hope it will be an interesting and workable blend of many of the ideas being discussed here (and also in other threads).

Lt Bull

[illo]

Tiger, it think he meant adding ramdom number of extra turns to end.

0-5 random turns would be great.

[Moon]

Three facts to add to the discussion:

- not all units are actually able to take control of a flag (or take it away from an enemy force). Crews are not able to do this, for example, neither are any routed units. Charles and Steve have mentioned this before, but it seems to not have been noticed generally.

- please do not forget that the "last minute rush" can revert a flag to "?" - but it rarely if ever will mean that the flag control will move from one player to the other. However, a neutral flag means that neither side is getting points for the VL. This again means that the win-loss calculation is based on casualties and any other VL's that might be around.

- I am not sure if people are sufficiently aware of the fact that each player sees the flags (and who controls them) from HIS very subjective perspecitve. I am saying this because in a few games I have been accused of the last minute rush myself, whereas my units were within the VL area quite some time but simply haven't been spotted. Keep in mind that if you do not see an enemy, the VL might show YOUR flag, although control is really neutral (or even belongs to the enemy without you knowing it). So when you look at your score in the next to last turn and then suddenly find yourself ending up with a draw or a loss, it might be because your subjective point of view didn't reflect the true VL control.

Anyway, personally I am supporting Lt. Bull's view. You have a task, an objective and time allocated for it. You make it or you don't. Camping right on the VL simply invites a sneaky move by the enemy, so live with it - or go out, find him and beat the snort out of him BEFORE you reach that critical last few turns (the game should be decided by then anyway - personally, I can't remember when I played a game really until the turn limit, one way or the other...)

Additionally, IF loss or victory depend on that one flag reverting to NEUTRAL (keep in mind - it's neutral, not to the other player's control!) then you have done something wrong all day long anyway.

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

"An hour has 60 minutes, each minute in action has a thousand dangers."

- Karl-Heinz Gauch, CO 1st Panzerspähkompanie, 12th SS Panzerdivision

[M Hofbauer]

Random end turns would be easy to implement and should appease everybody.

However, IIRC this had been suggested in the same manner before CM1, but was'nt implemented, so methinks it won't happen this time, either.

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

"Me tank is still alive me churchill's crew must be laughing there heads off." (GAZ_NZ)

[Col Deadmarsh]

Moon said:

I am not sure if people are sufficiently aware of the fact that each player sees the flags (and who controls them) from HIS very subjective perspecitve. I am saying this because in a few games I have been accused of the last minute rush myself, whereas my units were within the VL area quite some time but simply haven't been spotted. Keep in mind that if you do not see an enemy, the VL might show YOUR flag, although control is really neutral (or even belongs to the enemy without you knowing it). So when you look at your score in the next to last turn and then suddenly find yourself ending up with a draw or a loss, it might be because your subjective point of view didn't reflect the true VL control.

And this is one of the things that I love about the game. People may not realize it but there are things in place like the aforementioned that already deal with the gameyness issue of rushing we are talking about.

This is one of them because it allows for subjective opinions to cause the player to act in one way or another. It says I control the flag but what if the enemy has snuck up some units in those trees over there without me seeing him? If that were the case, I may not be granted control of this vl. Maybe I need to establish more control of the area just to be sure....

In other games, we are given an absolute, objective which everyone can see. There is no guesswork as to whether your enemy has taken the vl or not. You know one way or the other. One more reason why other games are inferior in many ways to CM.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.