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

[TeAcH]

As a proponent of random turns in an earlier post of mine, I'd like to once again wade in with a suggestion for a modification. It would require two changes.

First, allow the scenario/QB to have either a random or user defined game length modifier. At the start of scenario design OR during a QB setup, the players would agree to select how much, if any at all, of an end turn modifier they want; EXACTLY like we/they do now when selecting turn time limits in a TCPIP game. Everyone gets it their way.

Secondly, add in Lt Bull's suggestion that a VL needs to be held for X number of turns (say 2 or 3) before the flag changes control. Voila', this situation is handled.

It seems that BTS has made considerable effort to prevent players from using gamey tactics (i.e. the game long distinction of CREWS from INFANTRY), so this just seems right-in-line with their design.

I, too, have been in those games with rushes to the flag in the last turn and it really detracts from the game when that happens.

Thanks,

TeAcH

BTW, We shouldn't hold our breath for a CM1 modification.

[marsunit]

Originally posted by 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...)

I agree with moon.You can't just sit on your arse and wait for the enemy to test your so called well defended positions.You let him get that close to the VL and you'll lose cause you won't be able to keep track of panicking units fragmenting then recovering near the end w/ ammo and straggles to victory.You just have to go out there and beat the snot outta him or as Barney used to say to andy..."You gotta 'nip it in the bud,Nip-It-In-The...BUD".My games usually only last about half the alloted turns with either total or major victories(not trying to brag...just a begginer @CMBO,but have many years playing SSI games) :0 .IMHO the puter doesn't like accepting defeat and streches out games suicidally."If we are not victorious;let none return alive"

[Juardis]

The solution is simple (given the current state of the game). Play a destroy op. 2 battles, each 15-20 turns long. No flags. Just search and destroy with resupply in the middle. Might work better if get reinforcements between battles.

Of course, this would require a 3rd party setup or gentlemans agreement between 2 people not to cheat. I'm currently exploring this option to see how feasible it is. I put a thread out here about it too but judging by the lack of response to it I guess it's not a popular idea. I think it's great though, so I'm playtesting it right now...

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

Jeff Abbott

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by Moon:

Three facts to add to the discussion:

- 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.

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.

I certainly have not been clear. I mentioned small flags (contrast with big flags) and no, the greyed-out flag did not change the outcome of the battle. Still it looks weird that a squad with 9 men and still in their full aremd efficieency is deemed to be countde as equal - toward controlling an area by CM engine - as two empty mortars units and one sharpshooter with no ammo.

I think you are turning the question upside down. I think this shows that controlling an area if decided simplistically, i.e. on the sheer number. I deemed reasonable that by controlling one should ratehr favor the concept that the enemy CANNOT force you to leave.

It does not mean that if in the last 20 secs moving toward the flag you are not abe to kill them all or notice them in the last seconds of the last turn THEN you have no more control of the area. Claiming that this is your duty , and all the other - still seemingly reasonable thoughts - does not take into proper account the fact that by sheer number of unarmed units you do not ceat control of an area you simply create dead corps in a few minutes. If those few minutes are not there because the game ends it is simplistic to claim that the enemy have been able to contest the control of the area.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by Seahawk-vfa201:

I certainly have not been clear. I mentioned small flags (contrast with big flags) and no, the greyed-out flag did not change the outcome of the battle. Still it looks weird that a squad with 9 men and still in their full aremd efficieency is deemed to be countde as equal - toward controlling an area by CM engine - as two empty mortars units and one sharpshooter with no ammo.

I think you are turning the question upside down. I think this shows that controlling an area if decided simplistically, i.e. on the sheer number. I deemed reasonable that by controlling one should ratehr favor the concept that the enemy CANNOT force you to leave.

It does not mean that if in the last 20 secs moving toward the flag you are not abe to kill them all or notice them in the last seconds of the last turn THEN you have no more control of the area. Claiming that this is your duty , and all the other - still seemingly reasonable thoughts - does not take into proper account the fact that by sheer number of unarmed units you do not ceat control of an area you simply create dead corps in a few minutes. If those few minutes are not there because the game ends it is simplistic to claim that the enemy have been able to contest the control of the area.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by Moon:

Three facts to add to the discussion:

- 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.

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.

I certainly have not been clear. I mentioned small flags (contrast with big flags) and no, the greyed-out flag did not change the outcome of the battle. Still it looks weird that a squad with 9 men and still in their full aremd efficieency is deemed to be countde as equal - toward controlling an area by CM engine - as two empty mortars units and one sharpshooter with no ammo.

I think you are turning the question upside down. I think this shows that controlling an area if decided simplistically, i.e. on the sheer number. I deemed reasonable that by controlling one should ratehr favor the concept that the enemy CANNOT force you to leave.

It does not mean that if in the last 20 secs moving toward the flag you are not abe to kill them all or notice them in the last seconds of the last turn THEN you have no more control of the area. Claiming that this is your duty , and all the other - still seemingly reasonable thoughts - does not take into proper account the fact that by sheer number of unarmed units you do not ceat control of an area you simply create dead corps in a few minutes. If those few minutes are not there because the game ends it is simplistic to claim that the enemy have been able to contest the control of the area.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Sorry guys,

I see I have too many typos and should read again my posts before hitting submit.

The idea of a random ending (30 +/- 2) for example would certainly ease things up.

Although the discussion here is reasonable it lacks to focus on one point,

having unarmed units advancing toward a flag - notice: not armed and fully active units sneacking with the intent of regain control - in the last seconds have a value ONLY because CM just count presence not fighting ability to assign a flag to one side or the other (or at least it looks like it is what it does).

This is done only because the player knows the battle is in his last 60 seconds and because it is only the presence of units - not their fighting ability - the decisive factor to decide which side controls an area.

IMHO I control an area if the enemy cannot force me to leave and is bound to die till his last man if he tries to in the next minute which follows his advance.

The very fact that only because there are no more seconds alloed to me to kill him THEN the area is bound to become suddenly neutral this is unrealistic.

Borrowing from Lt Bull style:

Sarge: "Lt. Are you serious? I and my men have no ammo, most are wounded and you want me to get as close as possible to that enemy squad to regain control? Are you crazy? We are bound to die as soon as they realize we are closing in."

Lt: "No worry Sarge, the war is over in 60 seconds from NOW! if we put enough men in a 20 meter range up there God will come down and claim we have denied the enemy control of the area and our Generals will be happy and you'll get a medal not a bullet on your head. They will not have enough time to realize you are closing in AND react AND start firing at you! So wait 30 secs here then get as close as possible: bullets will be stopped in mid air before reaching you and I swear to you you will no die and will have instead challenged control of the hill. Go ahead my brave!"

If that does not sound silly to you than silly are all people asking for more realism from a CM battle.

If the player does not KNOW before hand he is playing the last 60 second he will not move unarmed units toward ANY flag because the odds of having them slayed without mercy would be too high.

CM should count fighting capability in the flag area not just counting heads.

Right now is what CM does.

Claiming this is instead the right way to do allows for having last 60 seconds of battles to become the silliest 60 seconds of a great fighting - that might have lasted 50 minutes - and which leave you with a bad taste.

PS

I won that game still it was like all of a sudden the only reaction to the game was: BLEAAHH, what a silly thing to let happen and to do.

[Treeburst155]

I have to agree with Seahawk. I may not have good enough control of the VL to keep you from charging it with shot up squads low on ammo, but to say control is contested just because I need one more minute to finish off your fanatical fools just doesn't sit right with me.

Here's a suggestion. The 50 meter firepower ratings of all units involved with the contested VL should be compared at the end. If either side has say a 2:1 or better FP ratio compared to the other then that side wins the VL. This is not an elegant way to handle the situation but it addresses mine and Seahawk's problem while at the same time supporting Lt. Bull's way of looking at the issue. Just a thought inspired by Seahawk's post.

Treeburst155

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Here's a suggestion. The 50 meter firepower ratings of all units involved with the contested VL should be compared at the end.

Make that the 40m (=close assault) FP and it's a deal!

Cheers

Olle

[nedlam]

Sorry, didn't read all the posts so I don't know if this has been suggested.

With regards to a scenario, I usually set any game I'm playing (QB) or a scenario I made and I'm testing to the max number of turns (60 for the QB and 120 when you make one up). Depending on the size of the engagement (I've only once played a Battalion sized game). The battle is well over before the last turn.

As the game progresses, if I have reached all of my objectives or if I feel I no longer can win. I secretly request a cease fire. This usually ends the game with the AI (unless your losing badly and / or he still has a sizable force. ) If there is no hope for a victory I will surrender (or the computer makes me if my moral goes down too low.) The computer will surrender too if this happens.

I've never really liked the gamey quality of "turns" how many times have you finally pushed through and are about to make your final assault when you look and you have 2 turns left! DOH!!! I guess there a necessary evil. This game is GREAT! just like other players out there who make up mods for the game there are ways to get around stuff like "x" ammount of turns and cheesy capturing of VL's.

Nedlam

Chest wounds suck.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

The close assault range firepower comparison looks very promising, maybe even ideal. That really tells whether a push forward to challenge control is foolish and gamey or might indeed have chances of success.

Having a flag (it only bothers me because of unrealistic issues involved here) contested only because your - how small it could be - fully armed squad is matched in the area by an equal number of zombies ready to die makes all comments of the kind "if you do not control the flag you do not deserve the points" totally out of context and irrelevant.

Those zombies have no place in a realistic situation.

I hope we are nailing down the issue here: it has nothing to do with winning/losing or having more/less final score.

Also the random ending factor (+/- 1 or +/-2 ending turn, or 0 if old style) sounds also appealing to me and could be added as a welcomed feature to many players.

[Jeff Pattison]

The fact that you have zombies on your VL should give you an indication that you are not defending in depth properly. Some approach path wasn't covered by fire from multiple units or a hole was blasted in your outer defenses that wasn't closed by adjusting your reserves.

If this situation happens in a meeting engangement, it means more you haven't advanced far enough to have fully secured the objective.

When ever I see that kind of situation, I go back and review tactics. More times than not I find an error has crept into my planning process.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Pattison (edited 02-20-2001).]

[Treeburst155]

The thing is, Jeff, the zombies would have never been ordered to approach the VL if their commander didn't know it was the last turn.

Treeburst155

[Jeff Pattison]

Yeah, that's true that ordering the zombies on the last turn to attack is a rather gamey move. But, if the objective is still defended properly by multiple units that still have ammo and can engage the zombies in a crossfire, the last minute charge still won't succeed.

Also, those zombies have to assemble somewhere before the last turn. If you get that area under fire, then the attack may never happen. In other words, go find him before he finds you. That's what those 1 or 2 man squads with no ammo are for. You know. Lose sight, lose fight.

I seem to recall that the Iranians using mass charges of unarmed fanatics in front of the regular troops in Iran-Iraq war were quite effective against the Iraqis.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Pattison (edited 02-20-2001).]

[Scipio]

Wow, one day not visited the forum, and I nearly missed the discussion I started .

My inital thought was: if the attacking side (the one who wants the flag) wasn't able to take it til a specified time, they should be unable to turn it to '?', but should still be able to turn the flag to it's own color. After reading all the posts, I realize that 'control' is not easy to define.

Also, if I don't secured my VL so wise and in a wide area, then it's my problem if the enemy successfully break throught and neutralize it, what can be already an military success! This is an very important point. Let's look at Stalingrad. Non of both sides had really control of it for several month - bud nevertheless, the russian wasn't able to use the river Wolga as transporting way.

I agree: we don't have a VL problem in CM. Maybe this discussion helps to eleminate this misunderstanding.

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

Keine Gefangenen!

Visit my Combat Mission Sound Mods site!

Scipiobase

Join the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club

[This message has been edited by Scipio (edited 02-20-2001).]

[StellarRat]

I like the idea of a variable ending time. Another thought I had was to have the computer calculate the number of points that each side had within a certain distance from the flag to determine whether or not someone really had control. Example: You are within the flag radius with one squad, but the enemy is almost within flag radius with two squads. In this case I'd have the computer make the owner a "?". If, on the other hand, you had a Tiger parked on the flag and the enemy had two squads close by, I'd have the computer give you the flag points.

[DekeFentle]

I believe Lt. Bull has a perspective that some of you are missing as well as some real life experience he may be trying to communicate. VL’s are objectives set forth by the scenario designer. Objectives are points on the battlefield that are key gauges to your success in the battle. They are NOT phase lines to simply be reached but rather areas to be taken and held within the otherwise fluid environment of the conflict.

Although I can not speak to the WWII training and doctrine I can tell you USA troops are trained to take, push through and set up a security perimeter around objectives. The doctrine I was taught demanded we move through the objective 100 – 300 meters and set up a security perimeter. This distance was of course dependent on terrain and I can recall a platoon sergeant sharply reprimanded during one training exercise for reporting an objective secured before the affore mentioned perimeter had been established.

The example of unarmed virtual soldiers contesting control on the last turn loses some validity when you realize that small arms are abstractly modeled in the CM engine. The modern battlefield was to my amazement a veritable junk yard of small arms and ammunition. Those supposedly unarmed troops would have a very easy time picking up a plethora of arms with which to contest control of any area they could get to. There are ample historical examples of very small groups or even individuals effecting the outcome of battles as members of the larger force or on their own. View a VL as an area over which you must exert total control and the acceptance of even one enemy soldier within that area can be seen as unacceptable.

The “gamy” aspect of contesting an objective on the last turn because both players know it’s the last turn is a hard hurdle to get past but I believe that following the doctrine of securing the objective before you consider the mission accomplished in game terms precludes this from happening. If I can put a force in place to dispute or seize control of what you have then how can you consider that gamy? If I didn’t know the “world is ending” in one minute I would still be in a position to do it and that indicates you do NOT have complete control. It really works both ways, as the defender of the VL I know my two depleted squads can’t hold against that company you have marching through the woods towards me. However if I open up with my HT I can keep you from getting across the field for one turn even though your tank will make swiss cheese out of that HT. I know, I know you can poke a million holes in that example but it illustrates a counter point to the end game rush only working for the attacker. I also need to add there is nothing “gamy” about a game it’s the nature of the beast.

I strongly object to the fire power ratio as a resolution. The problem I have is where do you stop? Why 50 meters? Why 2-1, isn’t 3-1 the generally accepted ratio for attacker success? BTW my FO is sitting in that house 400 meter away with LOS and he has 20 units of 8” to pour down on you. I want credit for him too! Hey, I just realized my 105 spotter can see the objective, add him in. I almost forgot that 75mm infantry gun I’ve been pushing through the woods for three turns can see that flag, add it up. Do you begin to see the ramifications? In my politically incorrect way I am trying to demonstrate that requests for coding changes may seem simple but are usually very complex in there scope.

>>>>> 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 perspective. 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.<<<<<

Everyone read that last paragraph again and then a third time. Ponder it. Now ask yourself, if I truly have secured my objective do I have to worry about it, or an endgame bum rush? I know I don’t. Thank you Lt. Bull for pointing out that yet again the depth of consideration inherent to the CM engine is mind boggling in its complexity and design. We should all endeavor to find the other side of the coin when we look at this game; I am consistently amazed at how often I find it to be far beyond anything I could have hoped for.

Now is there room for improvement? Of course, again that’s the nature of the beast. Should we be lobbying for change on the way VL’s are handled? I guess I have yet to hear a convincing argument that supports that.

[This message has been edited by DekeFentle (edited 02-20-2001).]

[Treeburst155]

I still think a last minute rush that would be suicidal were the game to go on another minute or two is gamey. I just can't get past the fact that the rush would not happen if the attacker didn't know the the game was over in 60 seconds. I agree there are problems with the "firepower tally" solution. That's why I described it as not being an "elegant" solution. I still like it though.

As far as the flag sitter being able to take advantage of the last turn situation by defending in a suicidal manner as described above you have to realize that this is nowhere near as gamey as the attacker waiting deliberately for the last turn to do something. The defender is only reacting to a gamey move by the attacker. In fact, the defender will be controlled by the AI if the attack truly occurs during the last turn. I like the suggestion that the flag not be changeable to a "?" in the last sixty seconds now that I think about it. If you've got the strength to take it outright then it is yours and you deserve it. If you don't then your gamey last second rush will not be rewarded.

Let's talk about defensive perimeters. How big would this have to be? The gamey attacker could have ammoless troops in a treeline 125+ meters away and still run up to the VL on the last turn.

The only legitimate last turn attack is a powerful one that can take the VL during the last 60 seconds. Anything else will be viewed with a suspicious eye, and rightly so in most cases IMO. The benefit of doubt should go to the flag defender since he does not have the opportunity for gamey play like the attacker by waiting until the last second to initiate action. The defender can only react, and any reaction will be handled by the AI anyway.

Treeburst155

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Of course I agree with Tree.

Let us not forget one point here: realistic behavior.

Tree looks like has clearly explained what unrealistic situation the simple headcount brings in in the last 60 seconds. Also, the case I was discussing was not of rifle company (which never go out of ammo: NEVER) with LOW ammo. The case discussed was two mortar crews and on sharpshooter. I think this is a little different case.

Also, try it it works: with sneacking and with certain terrain setup you could end up advancing to meters close to the enemy without being noticed. I also had cases where an hiding FO was quitly sitting near two (TWO) enemy squads who have been camping near him without noticing the guy for the entire game (he was not firing of course).

Whatever perimeter you may provide around your flag (and does that mean you forgot to have units AT the flag?), depending on the terrain configuration enemy troops could still be able to sneak: there is no such impenetrable perimeter.

Now ask yourself: you have a perimeter, you have squads around the flag, few mortar crew memebrs sneack through and grey out the flag at the last turn or so.

I fully appreciate and love this game (see I know i is a game) still this is something that is bound to happen now and then and does not look realistic at all.

It is a game but this is not FLAG FOOTALL, where a desperate move could get the strip and have you blocked. Here - I think - CM is aiming at warfare simulation. In the simulation there are cracks where the engine alows for unrealistic behavior. I think this is one of it.

[Major Tom]

How the AH game 'Operation Crusader' handled VP areas, was to give points for each turn that the VP's were held. For example, if the British held Tobruk for 20 turns, and the Germans for 10 turns, the British would get 200 points while the Germans got 100. Even though the Germans held it at the end of the game, the British get more points for holding it longer. This would also aid in the Germans (or whatever) requiring to take and hold the VP's as fast as possible.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Let's see it from another point of view.

If my enemy is so desperate that the only forces he is able to try to get toward the flags are unharmful zombies then I - effectively - have crushed him and CM should keep this into account.

The fact that he can only oppose to my armed squad(s) ONLY zombies in the last 60 seconds gamey resort push to (try to) grey out as much flags as possible tells me in a realistic situation those men whould have backed off from the battle long before since they lost the confrontation. Their push forward in the last 60 secs is to profit from the fact that CM engine just counts for presence in the flag area not fighting power, which in my opinion should instead do (somehow).

In all respect, those suicidal act has a meaning ONLY because it is conducted in the last numch of the last 60 seconds of the last turn. Performed in ANY other previous moment of the battle the only conclusion would be more corps on the ground. I cannot see how this could pass any *realism filter*.

[Jeff Pattison]

From another POV,

In terms of CM, 'unarmed' means a unit armed with makeshift weapons, not one without weapons. So, the group of apparently 'unarmed' soldiers charging into your VL is a group of soldiers armed with entrenching tools, rocks, clubs, K-bar Knives, Kuk-ri, and anything else they could find. I doubt you could declare any perimeter secured with that kind of rabble roaming around inside it. You can find many examples in the WWII literature, especially in Stalingrad, that detail fights between units that ran out of ammo and resorted to bricks, rocks, and shovels.

As far as commanders ordering their men into battle 'unarmed', there also examples of that in the literature too as has been mentioned before in this thread. IMHO, ordering one's men into battle unarmed is a desperate act, not a gamey one.

Your orders in CM are essentially, "take and secure objective X and hold at time Y." A last minute charge of 'unarmed' men is a desperate act that is well within the bounds of those orders.

So, I do see how that could pass the *realism* filter.

What the problem here really is is that CM is not programmed to recognize or deal with more than a limited set of victory conditions. Therefore, it can really not be used to effectively represent all types of situations. CM really needs have a larger set of conditions coded into it. Allowing the user to select random game turn end and/or turn counted victory points are part of that. Other things like, "no unit shall have a LOS/LOF to location X by the end of the game", should also be included.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Pattison (edited 02-21-2001).]

[CavScout]

These "excuses" miss the mark. A bum-rush by units that can't move a force off the location or survive long, except for the saving grace of the time-limit, are gamey. If you like these "tactics" just say so, don't sit around trying to justify them.

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 02-21-2001).]

[Tiger]

I dunno. Since the locations of the flags are apparent to both sides from the set-up phase onward, I find it hard to label a last-turn attack on a flag as "gamey". You've had the entire battle to figure out some way to defend or hold "your" victory location. If a last turn movement of enemy forces changes the VL to "neutral" then you didn't control that locale like you thought you did. If it changes control of the VL to the other side then you really didn't "own" it in the first place. It matters not whether it was an out-of-ammo enemy mortar unit or a fresh tank or infantry squad that caused the change of VL "ownership".

That said, I can not remember any instance where someone attacking on the last turn a VL for my side that has cost me the game.

It's cost points but my take was that I just never had sufficient units properly positioned to make sure it didn't happen. I think this "victory flag problem" is not such a problem as it is being made out to be

IMHO,

Tiger

[Jeff Pattison]

Hey, it's just a game. In games, gamey things happen.

I personally won't deliberately use unarmed men to take a VL. But, I'm not going to penalize someone who does. And, I'm not going fight with one hand tied behind my back, because I'm afraid I might do something gamey.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Pattison (edited 02-21-2001).]