dalem Posted April 14, 2001 Share Posted April 14, 2001 BTS- Sometimes the ground held at the end of the day is irrelevant as compared to the damage done to the enemy. So I would like a 'no flag' type of scenario to be considered for CM2 - something where victory is determined solely by casualties inflicted. Maybe even an option for selecting your own 'threshholds' (i.e. are you trying to inflict 'some' or 'lots' of damage, are you trying to preserve 'most' or 'none' of your force). Sure it could be abused by the Super Pershing/King Tiger crowd, but I don't care about them that much. Anyway, I'm not qualified to speculate on the 'whys' or 'wherefores', but I hope it's possible. Thanks for reading, -Dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ckoharik Posted April 14, 2001 Share Posted April 14, 2001 OK, I personally like the idea of a damage related goal for the attacker, but what criteria would you judge the defender on? Holding on to their position? Casualties inflicted on the attacker? How good they look? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted April 14, 2001 Share Posted April 14, 2001 Sounds sort of McNamara like to me. Just count the arms and legs at the end of the battle, divide by four and there is the body count. Wouldn't that be a meeting engagement with no flags? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted April 14, 2001 Author Share Posted April 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Boxb: OK, I personally like the idea of a damage related goal for the attacker, but what criteria would you judge the defender on? Holding on to their position? Casualties inflicted on the attacker? How good they look? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think either of the first two are valid options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Johnson-- Posted April 14, 2001 Share Posted April 14, 2001 No your mean Westmoreland, not McNamara. hehhehe. This is WW2 man not Vietnam. It was "come on men, we got to take that hil!!" not "ok guys fire for effect and can in more tacair" errr maybe it was. never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterk Posted April 15, 2001 Share Posted April 15, 2001 This type of game is in CM1 right now, but only for operations, not single scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted April 15, 2001 Share Posted April 15, 2001 Actually, you can have scenarios without flags. Unfortunately, they are 2 player-only scenarios. This is because the AI is lost without flags to guide it. What I propose is giving scenario designers the ability to make 'AI flags' which are invisible to players and have no VP value, but would be treated by the Strat-AI as normal flags. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted April 15, 2001 Author Share Posted April 15, 2001 Right, I know it can be done in scenarios, I am hoping it can be added to Quick Battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted April 15, 2001 Share Posted April 15, 2001 If you want to play this with someone, I'll be happy to set up a map with no flags, and put your and your opponent's DYO units on the map. Any takers? I love doing this, so don't worry about bothering me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted April 17, 2001 Share Posted April 17, 2001 Mr. Johnson, if this was a Vietnam game the scenarios wouldn't be "Let's take that hill!"...They would be "Let's take that hill...Then give it back so we can take it again!" And do it again every 2 months. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts