Sequoia Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Reading the DAR/AAR I got to thinking about a possible option that we didn't have in CMX1. In CMSF except for one side totally surrendering to end the scenario there were no prisoners so this is a new feature for CMX2. I am making a big assumption that taking prisoners nets one more points than causing casualties and as I recall that's how it was in CMX1. Like wise having your men surrender loses you more points. What if it were reversed however? And what if there was an option so that you could self surrender one of your units? Naturally you would only do this in a hopeless case but wouldn't this be a reflection of the actual event? Wouldn't it make sense to surrender your troops in a hopeless position rather than lose more points to have them killed or wounded. I'm sure I haven't thought through all the repercussions of having this as an option in addition to having guys surrendering as coded now. That's why I'm asking you guys. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It feels pretty good to me on first reading. The really cool thing would be to make it adjustable by the scenario designer. Then we can argue about it for years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noltyboy Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Will the other player have the option to shoot them out of hand after the MG42 team that chewed up a platoon worth of the units buddy's surrenders? Edit * this is meant as a rather dark joke* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 But seriously folks..... No, once they surrender they become like any other prisoner in the game and (I assume) you can't shoot them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finalcut Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 If you got victory points for surrendering your own men,rather then letting them be killed,then imagine the victory points the U.S. would have recieved when Major General Edward King surrendered in the Philipines. Or better yet,The German victory points for Von Paulus.:eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Just brainstorming here, but a few points occur to me. 1. You should get VPs for any enemy losses whatsoever. Those are men that the enemy no longer has available to fight with. 2. You should get more points for inflicting WIAs than KIAs. Why? Because caring for WIAs represents a larger drain on enemy resources than burying dead. 3. POWs. This is a hard one. If POWs can provide useful intelligence, you should get a lot of points for capturing them. Otherwise, they are just a drain on your own resources, and should represent the least VPs awarded. There would need to be some mechanism, even if it is just rolling a die, to determine how many VPs you should get for captures. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Just to be clear, in my thinking you would still lose points for surrendering. Just not as many as WIA/KIA. High Ranking officers may be an exception. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Springelkamp Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Best thing would be to include it in the detailed victory conditions the scenario makers can define at the moment. In CMSF it is already possible to assign the severity of casualty numbers in the final victory conditions, as well as putting a weight on state of the force. But although it would not be rocket science, it would take time... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetori Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 If you got victory points for surrendering your own men,rather then letting them be killed,then imagine the victory points the U.S. would have recieved when Major General Edward King surrendered in the Philipines. Or better yet,The German victory points for Von Paulus.:eek: Paulus was a bit too low on the negative end due to losses and organisation so I still think it'd be a Major Axis defeat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.