Flag Layout in QB MEs

[WWB]

Tonight I put together a custom battle with a 3rd party map which happened to have no flags. I did have to add some, so I gave both sides a "Base Flag" in their setup zone, as well as several flags in the middle.

Then it hit me: that is the way QB ME flags ought to be. Instead of a cluser in the middle, leading to flag rushes and all kinds of gameyness stemming from a lack of defensive responsibilities, why not give the players something to defend. Instead of having the map generator put all flags in the middle, how about setting it up a la Steel Panthers. In that game, there were 3 victory zones, similar to what I have described above. A change such as this will make the QB ME much more interesting.

WWB

[Redwolf]

That doesn't really matter since most Quickbattle ME have so many kills that the knockout points dictate the result, not the flags.

If one side isn't overwhelmned, you usually have neutral flags from rushes or hidden units, further increasing the weight of the knockout points.

In a 1500 points TCP ME this weekend I inflicted 1450 points in losses, and the opponent still had an intact platoon sitting in a house on the small, plus assorted infantry around the field, he did not get an autosurrender.

We had one small and one big flag, that means there were 400 points in flags, the small was neutral, so the big flag I held was 300 points. It didn't really matter. And, BTW, there is no reason why you must have flags in a scenario. Just say "fetch" in the briefing

[ March 17, 2002, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by redwolf:

And, BTW, there is no reason why you must have flags in a scenario. Just say "fetch" in the briefing

That's true for human opponents, but in case you want to play against the AI, I believe you have to have at least one flag for it to organise its strategy.

Michael

[WWB]

Originally posted by redwolf:

That doesn't really matter since most Quickbattle ME have so many kills that the knockout points dictate the result, not the flags.

If one side isn't overwhelmned, you usually have neutral flags from rushes or hidden units, further increasing the weight of the knockout points.

In a 1500 points TCP ME this weekend I inflicted 1450 points in losses, and the opponent still had an intact platoon sitting in a house on the small, plus assorted infantry around the field, he did not get an autosurrender.

We had one small and one big flag, that means there were 400 points in flags, the small was neutral, so the big flag I held was 300 points. It didn't really matter. And, BTW, there is no reason why you must have flags in a scenario. Just say "fetch" in the briefing

Numerically, they might not be a deciding factor, especially if there are alot of losses. But psycholigically, flags have a major effect on the way people play. Players head for large flags like moths are drawn to flames. And players do think to defend flags in most cases. Not to mention the AI is lost without them.

Also, FYI, saying fetch in a briefing does not work. Most players pretty much ignore them, especially parts about "move fast" and "take this key point." Unless you put a flag at that key point that is.

This kind of flag distribution would also be more historically correct. One major goal of a meeting engagement was to not let the other guy get around you, to take territory while holding your own. A couple flags in the rear will encourage some defensive play in these battles.

WWB

[Priest]

Actually I tend to ignore the flags all together. I go for the strongpoints regardless if there is a flag there or not. Having the strongpoints of an area held by your own forces makes taking an objective that is not a strongpoint that much easier.