Should defender know dynamic flags are in play?

[Alsatian]

I understand the concept of dynamic victory flags. If dynamic victory flags are in play, the attacker gets to pick which flags are real and which are bogus. The defender does not know this and so is forced to defend all flags.

Should the defender's scenario briefing tell him that dynamic flags are in play?

I argue that the point of dynamic flags is not to trick defenders out of a victory, but to force a change in their play behavior. If a defender is not aware that dynamic flags are in play, then he will not change his play behavior.

I'm asking what other people think because I just finished a scenario as a defender and the briefing did not tell me it was a dynamic flag scenario. I was a little miffed at the end. If I had known that 1 of the 2 flags was bogus, and only 1 flag was real I would have played the scenario quite differently.

[junk2drive]

" I would have played the scenario quite differently."

I'm not being smart, but curious. How so?

[Brent Pollock]

You never HAVE to "defend all flags"; you are quite free to ignore them, dynamic or otherwise

I figure its the designer's choice as to whether or not to give details of the flag dynamics.

I've only played a couple of them as the defender, and I never felt miffed at the end.

[Alsatian]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

" I would have played the scenario quite differently."

I'm not being smart, but curious. How so?

In the final turns I had one flag secure. The second was in doubt and not worth the casualties. I was willing to hold one flag and concede the other whether it stay neutral or go to the attacker. If I had known one flag was dynamic, I would have rolled the dice and attempted to control the second flag as well, no matter the casualties.

It turned out that the flag I had secure was the bogus flag, but like I started with, I didn't even know that was a possibility.

[junk2drive]

I've only made one dynamic flag scen. Exit battle with four flags to give four choices of exit location. I gave that info in the overall briefing.

I see your point.

[Mad Russian]

I have made many scenarios with dynamic flags. What would be the point of making a scenario with a dynamic flag and then telling the defender, "Oh and by the way, I'm only after one objective during this battle." Ever hear of a commander calling the enemy and telling them don't worry about our troops that are moving into the south of town we are really only after the rail station on the north edge.

The whole idea of dynamic flags is that the defender rarely knows what the attackers objectives are. Sometimes you have a pretty good idea. But to KNOW happens rarely. Look at Lee and McCellan at Antietam for instance and how important it was thought that event even took place.

McCellan got a copy of Lee's OOB and objectives. He didn't believe that they were real so he didn't act on them. They were real and had he realized it could have changed the course of history. It is so rare that it happens that when it does there is tremendous caution to make sure the enemy isn't just trying to lead you someplace other than the real objectives.

Look at what great lengths the Russians went to keeping the objectives, start times and directions of their offensives from the Germans.

No, for me, dynamic flags introduce a level of realism that you can't get any other way in CM. I can understand that you want to know what to defend. My question to you is: as the battlefield commander would you know that your enemy was only going for the train station or would you defend the bridge too?

[Mad Russian]

Double post...

[Carl Puppchen]

I haven't made as many scenarios as other posters, but I have made a bunch, and I do disclose when dynamic flags are in use. As creator if I am using dynamic flags I give the defender proportionally more forces because they are essentially spreading their forces to defend useless objectives while the attacker, on the other hand, knows which ones are real. The game does play differently. The attacker usually seems to push for all of the flags, waits for the defender to commit, and then goes after the "real" flag right near the end of the game.

I agree that it is more realistic to not know if flags are dynamic or not but since the game plays so much differently I disclose it to the players. I guess I could give the defender even "more" forces (proportionally) and not tell the defender, because knowing that dynamic flags are in use can definitely be worth hundreds of cmak "points".

[SgtMuhammed]

This comes close to being a realism vs fairness debate. IRL neither commander knows what the other is doing. Are the Germans trying to sieze and hold this town or are they just trying to get around it? Are the Americans executing a DIP (Die In Place) mission or a rear guard action? If you want to stress fairness you tell the players that all might not be as it seems. If you want to be more realistic you expect the players to know this to begin with and to react according to what the enemy does.

If you find that your troops are defending useless terrain then use them to counter attack or give support against the enemy main effort. If he feints you in to holding an area he has no interest in then good for him. Learn to identify what the other guy is doing and it can give you an extreemly valuable advantage.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

No, for me, dynamic flags introduce a level of realism that you can't get any other way in CM. I can understand that you want to know what to defend. My question to you is: as the battlefield commander would you know that your enemy was only going for the train station or would you defend the bridge too?

But just because you let the defender know that only one flag counts, doesn't mean that he'd know _which_ flag. That is, unless the enemy concentrates all his forces against one flag - but that could be a mere bluff...

If you tell the defender that all flags are equal but the attacker that actually, just one flag really counts, you're giving the attacker a considerable edge, as only he knows what is required for victory.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Sergei:

If you tell the defender that all flags are equal but the attacker that actually, just one flag really counts, you're giving the attacker a considerable edge, as only he knows what is required for victory.

Doesn't the attacker, in an actual combat situation, have an advantage in being the only one who knows what his objectives are? Why should I give a game player an advantage that a real commander on the battlefield doesn't get?

In PBEM games you play, do you tell your opponent that you only intend on going for the left objectives and letting him have the other's?

Why would you, as the attacker, tell the defender ANYTHING about how or where you intend to attack? This doesn't happen in real combat situations.

[Paul AU]

Alsatian, I would also Feel Miffed, not being told that dynamic flags were in use.

[TheVulture]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

Originally posted by Sergei:

Doesn't the attacker, in an actual combat situation, have an advantage in being the only one who knows what his objectives are? Why should I give a game player an advantage that a real commander on the battlefield doesn't get?

Having victory flags at all is hardly the heights of realism. Capturing the arbitraruly placed flag by the arbitrary time limit means you win, while being one minute late or twenty meters short means you lose.

Victory in CM games is to a fair extent an artificial construction with a selection of arbitrary rules. It doesn't then seem so wrong for both players to know what the rules of the game are.

Granted, those rules are hopefully used to create realistic situations, but that isn't always going to be the case. And in the case of dynamic flags, the difference between a 'victory' and a 'loss' (in game terms rather than reality) can be determined by the knowledge of dnyamic or static flags, as in Alsatian's example. Keeping the dynamic flags secret from the defender doesn't automatically add to the realism.

Maybe it can, but it won't always. But ultimately, this is a game (which aims to be as accurate a simulation as it can be), and generally having both players playing to slightly different sets of artifical rules isn't going to give you any more realism than having both sides know that there are dynamic flags. It just leads to different 'game' (rather than 'real' tactical) decisions.

[Carl Puppchen]

I agree that as a player I'd feel cheated or misled if I didn't know they were dynamic flags. I would also expect forces to be "balanced" differently if the attacker knew which flags were "real" and the defender didn't since that is a big factor.

I do think that games are more fun with dynamic flags because they allow for fients and subtler strategy than you usually get in an assault game.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by TheVulture:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panther Commander:

Doesn't the attacker, in an actual combat situation, have an advantage in being the only one who knows what his objectives are? Why should I give a game player an advantage that a real commander on the battlefield doesn't get?

Having victory flags at all is hardly the heights of realism. Capturing the arbitraruly placed flag by the arbitrary time limit means you win, while being one minute late or twenty meters short means you lose.

Victory in CM games is to a fair extent an artificial construction with a selection of arbitrary rules. It doesn't then seem so wrong for both players to know what the rules of the game are.

Granted, those rules are hopefully used to create realistic situations, but that isn't always going to be the case. And in the case of dynamic flags, the difference between a 'victory' and a 'loss' (in game terms rather than reality) can be determined by the knowledge of dnyamic or static flags, as in Alsatian's example. Keeping the dynamic flags secret from the defender doesn't automatically add to the realism.

Maybe it can, but it won't always. But ultimately, this is a game (which aims to be as accurate a simulation as it can be), and generally having both players playing to slightly different sets of artifical rules isn't going to give you any more realism than having both sides know that there are dynamic flags. It just leads to different 'game' (rather than 'real' tactical) decisions. [/QB]</font>

[Mad Russian]

Maybe I should mention, that the scenarion that has the dynamic flag in it, is a meeting engagement between Canadian tanks and SS German tanks in Normandy.

Neither side knew where the other was and was cautiously feeling out where the enemy might be.

How would the defender in this situation know what the attackers objectives are when he doesn't even know where the attacker is?