Both sides pick their own flag locations

[MOS was 71331]

I don't think I should know what terrain my opponent values, and he/she shouldn't know what I value. Could the system allow both players to place their own flags on the map and then assign point values according to some simple function? Offhand, I'd expect flags to increase in value as their distance from the front increases. And flags in buildings or bunkers or on cross-roads or hill tops should be more valuable than flags in the middle of nowhere. While both sides would have some knowledge of what the other side is after, the present flag system provides perfect -- dare I say "unrealistic" -- information. [The system might randomly decide how many flags or points of flags the player must set up.]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MOS was 71331:

I don't think I should know what terrain my opponent values, and he/she shouldn't know what I value. Could the system allow both players to place their own flags on the map and then assign point values according to some simple function? Offhand, I'd expect flags to increase in value as their distance from the front increases. And flags in buildings or bunkers or on cross-roads or hill tops should be more valuable than flags in the middle of nowhere. While both sides would have some knowledge of what the other side is after, the present flag system provides perfect -- dare I say "unrealistic" -- information. [The system might randomly decide how many flags or points of flags the player must set up.]

It's been suggested several times. Militarily important terrain doesn't really change that much, does it? A crossroads through a town will always be more important than the pig farm 100 metres to the west, and opposing forces will generally know this.

It would conceivably differ when overall objectives change; one side may want to use a crossroads in a town to run a convoy of ammunition through it whereas another side may want to simply bypass the town in order to take a hill on the far side to place their artillery observers. But would these kinds of objectives be predictable by opposing forces?

[MOS was 71331]

I agree that "militarily important terrain doesn't really change," but the sizes and locations of QB flags don't seem to relate well with that concept. Instead, the game seems to be assigning them randomly. I'd like the players to impose some logic on the flag placements without having total knowledge of the other's choices. The defender might like one flag in a building that he can defend with everything, while the attacker might prefer multiple flags so he can pick which to go for. Obviously, if the defender hunkers down around a pillbox in the north while the attacker drives full tilt for some woods in the south, the situation may not develop in an interesting way. As it stands now, though, both sides know that particular building is worth 200 points (and the one 100 meters away is worth 0) and those woods are worth 400 points (while some others with nicer trees are worthless).

[Ivan Drago]

I think we need to consider two points:

1) Fairness. Say we play a game on a 2000 point map with me defending. I place all my flags in a cluster all the way at the back of the map, as far away from you as possible.

Then I expend all my men on keeping you far far away during the 30+ turns, and given how slow units move before getting tired, the game is likely to end before you reach said flags.

2) I believe that objectives were assigned by higher ups, prior to the tactical deployment of the sort CM portrays.

You're just carrying out someone's orders, and the objectives make sense to the planners but not always the tactical commanders of lower rank.

I like the current system myself, keeps things balanced IMO.

[Barrold]

I think that is the best point as people would likely develop what they think is "The One True Way" of placing flags. While not 100% effective probably, it would likely introduce a certain sameness into a number of games that isn't present when a more random approach is taken.

Having the player forced to be a bit flexible seems to be the better way to promote a longevity of interest.

BDH

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ivan Drago:

I think we need to consider two points:

1) Fairness. Say we play a game on a 2000 point map with me defending. I place all my flags in a cluster all the way at the back of the map, as far away from you as possible.

Then I expend all my men on keeping you far far away during the 30+ turns, and given how slow units move before getting tired, the game is likely to end before you reach said flags.

2) I believe that objectives were assigned by higher ups, prior to the tactical deployment of the sort CM portrays.

You're just carrying out someone's orders, and the objectives make sense to the planners but not always the tactical commanders of lower rank.

I like the current system myself, keeps things balanced IMO.

Yeah, but tactical commanders were the ones to pick the specific objectives for each company, which is what CM is portraying.

When the Third Canadian Division was told to participate in CHARNWOOD (?) in July 1944, the three brigades were tasked with specific areas of ground to cover. In turn, the Highland Light Infantry of Canada was tasked to take the town of Buron by their brigade commander. But, it was the Lieutenant Colonel in charge of the HLI that decided which companies would go "up" and where their objectives were to be, ie "A" Company to reorg at an orchard on the far side of the town, "B" Company to pass through, "D" Company to advance on their left with a slight rise as their objective, "C" Company in reserve (these are fictional examples).

And once in action, the company commanders reacted to the situation on the ground and revised their objectives as necessary. "D" Company might find that the hill on the map doesn't exist in reality (this was a not uncommon occurence) and that there was better cover in a gully 200 yards short of their objective, whereas "A" Company got held up by German soldiers in an anti-tank ditch short of the town itself; getting embroiled in that fight, "C" Company might be tasked to bypass them and go into the town itself. etc.

I think changing objectives is arguably in the scope of a battalion or company commander based on my own reading.

[Peter Cairns]

I started a similiar thread called "Asymetric objectives", and steve replied that they would be in CMx2, so both sides will have their own objective flags, which may or may not be shared.

Peter.

[hoolaman]

Also if you remember, the old article (the one feature stars and clouds), they are looking at maybe designating victory areas using multi layered textures or something.

This will mean a whole zone could be contested and not just one house.