Fight for Area Control

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Just an idea:

Instead of VLs CM could use the share of the whole map that each side controls to calculate the victory - additional to the casualties.

The players must use the whole map, not only the parts with flags. This would end the 'you know where you must go' thinking. This is of course not a problem, but after so many games I would often prefer to be free from the need to take a specific VL.

The first question will be: why control areas? Why not only count the casualties? Because this is the sense of war - take enemy territory. Destroy enemy forces is only a way to reach this goal. What sense would it make if you have destroyed a lot of enemy forces, but you wasn't able to hold or take territory?

And I guess it wouldn't be to difficult to realize - AFAIK the victory in operations is calculated that way.

This of course additional to the 'traditional' game mods. I think this could be interesting especially in QBs

[ April 18, 2002, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[Chupacabra]

Because there's territory, and then there's important territory. The point wasn't just to tear-ass ahead, it was to take the stuff that mattered.

[MrSpkr]

I disagree, Puff. As Chup indicated, while control of the map is useful, the particular victory location is necessary for the attack to have focus. For example, imagine a scenario involving Pavlov's House. The Germans might well occupy 2/3 to 3/4 of the map at the end of the scenario -- but they will still lose if they fail to seize and control their primary objective, Pavlov's House.

Another example might involve a delaying action where one side is supposed to hold off the enemy while getting non-combatants over a pontoon bridge. After evacuating the units, the rear guard is to retreat across the bridge. If we use area control, the attacker might well control most of the map by the end of the game, but will still have lost because he failed to take the bridge.

The examples are endless -- seizing key areas of high ground for observation (think of the American battalion surrounded by the Germans in Normandy for 3 days - the Germans lost that battle due to manpower losses, despite their eventual control of most of the area around the hill; -- or seizing key buildings in a village or town -- etc., etc.

I understand your concern with flag rushes. I believe BTS has stated they will address this problem by extending the scenario for one or more turns if a VL changes possession on the last turn of the game.

Because this is the sense of war - take enemy territory. Destroy enemy forces is only a way to reach this goal. What sense would it make if you have destroyed a lot of enemy forces, but you wasn't able to hold or take territory?

Actually, several generals of the period would likely disagree with you. Their philosophy was to attack the enemy and destroy his forces, reasoning that once the destruction occurred, the territory would fall be default. Patton endorsed this philosophy, as did DDE (who IIRC indicated he was please with the German attack in the Ardennes because it drew the Germans out of their defensive positions and gave him the opportunity to destroy their forces outside the German's prepared defenses). The same philosophy was true at the Falaise Gap. The allies weren't interested in seizing as much territory as possible, they were interested in cutting off the German retreat so as to destroy as many enemy units as possible.

Steve

[ April 18, 2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

MrSpkr This is correct, but I didn't said that VL-battle should be history. Area-battle should be an additional mode to play. How about the 'no step back' doctrine?

Beside that, of course the map would have still 'key points'. But the player would be forced to find them by himself. And - talking about QBs - what is the difference to the arbitrary placed VLs? The player must develop the ability to control the map and destroy the enemy. With VLs, the posibilitys are limited. The attack points are obvisious.

BTW, I didn't mean the flag-storming at the end of the battle. A mean the general concept. Of course VLs often makes sense. But an example for the 'Area-control'

I once played a battle with only tanks. A had an exellent fire position inmy first third of the map. My opponent knew that and hides all his tanks behind some hills after some casualties, and we ended that no side tried to attack anymore. I shot down more of his tanks, but he controled more of the map (we didn't counted the VLs). The point is, why should I risk my tanks when I have no reason? If my order would be 'advance as far as possible' = takes as much territory as you can, it would mae sense.

[ April 18, 2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[Olle Petersson]

As for historical battles where land was the goal, take Kursk and Stalingrad.

At Kursk the goal was to even out the front line, by expanding the bulge for the Soviets and by cutting it off for the Germans.

I'm planning something in this way for my Triple Battles. Lots of small flag all over the maps (at local hotspots like hills and road crossings).

Cheers

Olle

[Wolfpack]

I can see both sides of it, and if it was an option rather than a replacement for VLs, it would be nice. As for having the battle determine the key areas of the map...that would be great. Something like Civil War Generals, where if a particular section was repeatedly fought over, it became a VL...I always liked that feature.