Prinz Eugen Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Why not replace the concept of Victory flags, and replace it with Victory areas (or somefink) ? Youd have your deployment zones, and the neutral terrain in between. You'd fight over the control of the ENTIRE area, and not just some locations randomnly scattered all over, without making a lot of sense. Points would be awarded by the amount of area controlled, and you'd get extra points from controlling bits of the other guy's deployment area. I would think this would remove the concept of flag rushing totally, that I've noticed in atleast some of my fights. You have no flags to rush ! Instead, you're fighting over control of territory. Much more realistic too. You wouldn't, in real life, try to control one or two given locations, instead you'd aim for gaining control over larger areas, right? I'm not knowledgeable whether current engine allows this, but it shouldn't be too hard to program, especially for the likes of MadMatt & Co. ! There's traces of it in operations, though, there are no flags there. Wonder if that could be transferred into single scenarios and QBs ? This would be extra super cool, and revolutionise the concept of Meeting Engagements ! My idea must have a general flaw somewhere, but with my logic this sounds good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Uum sure. How about divide map in 9 parts: opppenent's side middle "no mans land" and yuor setup zone. And left flank center and middle. -get it? Then depending of what there is in each of sections the flag would be little more "valuable" For example: a big hill that dominates the terrain would be quit valuable. Also a opponent's side would be more valuble to yuo than than it's to him and the other way around. -Just something I made out in 1sec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 Originally posted by Prinz Eugen: Much more realistic too. You wouldn't, in real life, try to control one or two given locations, instead you'd aim for gaining control over larger areas, right?Not necessarily. Certain locations on a map become objectives (in real life) because they have a decisive effect within a battle or campaign. A terrain feature is important if it controls the surrounding countryside through fire or observation, for instance. A road may be vital for supplying a further advance. Alternatively, capturing a road to deny its use to the enemy may be vital. In my opinion, the random map maker for QBs doesn't do too bad a job most of the time choosing where to plant VFs. As far as last minute flag rushes go, proper use of tactics will probably do more to discourage that than eliminating the flags would. If you think your opponent is apt to do that, set up an ambush to wipe him out. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 Hey that's a great idea Eugen and like you stated a lot more realistic. I mean what good would it do to control a flag ( terrain feature or building etc ) if the entire area around that flag is in control of the enemy? Now true the flag has worked for a long time but this would allow for a lot more possibilities. I think it would also cut down on both sides trying to occupy a small area which just causes some unrealistic play. Besures you wouldn't have to eliminate flags anyway just add this idea also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yggdrasill Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 Actually, in many cases, such as with a cross-roads or a hilltop, controlling the flag-area would make a difference in real life even if surrounding areas were controlled by the enemy. The cross roads doesn't do the enemy any good if they can't use it ('course it doesn't do you any good if you can't use the roads leading up to it). But victory points are awarded on the basis of enemy and friendly units killed. If all you can control is a flag or two and the enemy controls everything else, then presumably you have suffered greater losses which would be reflected in the final score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted July 13, 2002 Share Posted July 13, 2002 As a simpler solution, what about an option to not show the victory flags until the end of the game? Based on the type of battle, one would still have a fairly decent idea of how far from the edge the flags would be located, and they would tend to be in reasonable locations, so... At the end of the game you get the surprise of discovering where the flags were after all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foobar Posted July 13, 2002 Share Posted July 13, 2002 Play operations, 1 game or many. No flags. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts