Fighting to the last man and victory locations.

[James Crowley]

If I remember correctly, CMx1 had a global morale sub-system which measured overall losses and terminated the game if one sides' losses were too high in relation to the other side (it was probably more complex than that).

Searching previous threads gives no definitive answer as to whether this feature is present in CMBN or not but, from casual observation over several games, it would seem not.

In one game I had three men left, from an infantry company, and an immobilised tank, all on a victory location. I had to manually surrender to end the game.

In a recent PBEM, my opponent had 75% of his infantry and 100% of his armour destroyed. With only 36 men left, and over 25% of those crewmen from destroyed vehicles, he was able, in the final turn before mutual ceasefire kicked in, to move a couple of those men into a victory zone and obtain a draw. This despite me having a couple of men and two tank destroyers in the same zone and over 100 men still active. Had he been able to infiltrate another crewman into another victory zone, he woulld have won!

Apart from the nonsense of having crewmen serving and being counted as active infantry, it seems that the presence of only a very small number of men, in whatever state of morale, in a victory zone at games end, negates that zone for victory purposes. Even if they are vastly outnumbered and, in reality, have zero chance of survival, the zone is scored as in 'dispute'

This leads potentially to terribly gamey and unrealstic tactics which simply destroy any sense of historical reality and ruin a good game. Surely, for a zone to be in dispute, there needs to be some comparison of quantative and qualatative factors of the troops involved. Pulling together, as the 'godlike' player can, a motley bunch of broken remnants and crew from abandoned vehicles to form units which can filter into victory zones in ones and twos and 'steal' a game is just wrong. And, for the record, I have done this as well.

[c3k]

Addressing only the first part: there is a global morale system. You don't have the cool bar measuring it that we had in CMx1, but then no commander ever had a barometer like that, either. The global morale issue should cause an auto-surrender at a certain point.

Why didn't it happen for you? I don't know. The size of your forces may've had an impact. A small unit may have a more robust global morale. That makes sense. Otherwise every small battle would end after just a few losses. Another factor is that reinforcements count towards the morale base. If a side has reinforcements scheduled to enter, they will hold on far longer. (You can game the system by having the reinforcements scheduled to enter AFTER the battle ends. That will keep the guys on board fighting to the end.)

Ken

[Broadsword56]

Agreed. One thing that could easily improve this is if the game allowed the game to end at a certain level of enemy or friendly casualty percentages (depending on how the scenario designer sets the conditions) instead of only letting scenarios end when the turn clock runs out. The existing system only encourages unrealistic fighting to the last man, sloppy tactics, and gamey tactics like the ones you describe.

[John1966]

Addressing only the first part: there is a global morale system. You don't have the cool bar measuring it that we had in CMx1, but then no commander ever had a barometer like that, either. The global morale issue should cause an auto-surrender at a certain point.

When I was playing Platoon Patrol the other night I don't think there was a single able-bodied German on the map with 10 turns to go. I had to spend those turns wandering about trying to find them, which I didn't because, as a post game sweep indicated, there weren't any. Very boring 10 turns. I was expecting some kind of auto-end but it never happened.

[YankeeDog]

When I was playing Platoon Patrol the other night I don't think there was a single able-bodied German on the map with two 10 turns to go. I had to spend those turns wandering about trying to find them, which I didn't because, as a post game sweep indicated, there weren't any. Very boring 10 turns. I was expecting some kind of auto-end but it never happened.

Yep. Same thing happened to me. If you look at your final victory screen, you'll notice that the Germans still show as having "Men OK", even though there are no combat-able Germans left on the map.

This is because the scenario designer used the "never arriving reinforcements" trick described above to force the Germans to fight to the last man.

I actually found it kind of interesting because it the result was that I had to execute a sweep & clear procedure after the major fighting was over, and these are an important part of combat operations IRL that one does not do very often in CM. I actually did find one small German unit that did not participate in the primary firefight hiding away in a corner of the map, and I managed to eliminate it without casualties, which I was rather proud of since it showed that my sweep & clear tactics were good.

But I can see how it would get rather boring if you had to finish every major victory scenario this way, so it's probably best that unless the scenario designer deliberately tricks things, the global morale surrender feature will trigger well before you've eliminated every single enemy unit.

[Broadsword56]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the victory conditions options inthe editor.

Let's say it's a HTH attack-defend, US attacking Germans. I want to create a scenario that would trigger a US defeat and scenario end if the Germans inflict over 40% casualties, and a german defeat and scenario end if the US inflicts over 80% casualties.

Could I do this by having no terrain objective VPs, and assigning all 1000 VP's to either side for achieving its casualty goal first? I suppose the terrain objective(s) could simply be stipulated beforehand, and the players just would have to agree on which side controlled them at the end. That would avoid the gamier mechanism of letting the game decide objective control. What do you think?

[Blackcat]

One of my frustrations in CMSF is that the scenarios would finish too soon - when the AI had plenty of units left who could have caused me major damage as I still had objectives too take. I can't say I have noticed this problem in CMBB.

To be sure there have been times in CMBN when the AI still had viable units on the board, but not in a position to do me any great damage as the only way they could affect the outcome was by way of a suicide rush a la CMX1 AI flag counter-attack. So I think that this time round NF and the designers have got the balance about right.

Not only that each time I see the, "Game over" screen, I am usually pleased to see it as by then I have had enough and pleased my troops got off so lightly.

[xian]

Another problem is that units do not rout in CMBN, so they can end up hiding at the edge of the map. This is something that I hope BFC will eventually look into and change.

Also, I think that it might be an idea to include the option for 'balance of force terrain objectives' - where the objective points are given to the side that has units worth at least 1.5x the unit cost of the other side within the objective zone.

[James Crowley]

Another problem is that units do not rout in CMBN, so they can end up hiding at the edge of the map. This is something that I hope BFC will eventually look into and change.

Also, I think that it might be an idea to include the option for 'balance of force terrain objectives' - where the objective points are given to the side that has units worth at least 1.5x the unit cost of the other side within the objective zone.

+1 to both of those suggestions.

Routed units would eventually disappear and play no further part in proceedings.

The second idea would limit the gamey rushes as they would be mostly pointless.

Crews who have abandoned their vehicles should be out of the players control within a defined time and should become routed after that.

[c3k]

Would an exit zone at the appropriate location on the map edge allow routed units an acceptable path out of the battle area?

[xian]

Yes - this can work, but could also produce undesirable effects with panicked units.

I think the 'red exclamation mark' of recent CM games should be reinstated in CMBN. The manual says it is a feature, but sadly it's missing.

[Blackcat]

"The second idea would limit the gamey rushes as they would be mostly pointless."

Wouldn't this also force the player to fight directly for the objective, rather than allowing him to take an indirect approach? I am fairly sure it would re-introduce gamey flag rush as both sides try and make sure they have the requisit number of people present.

So, at best it would create a slug fest as it removes any incentive for elegant and effcient behaviour. In the worst case the idea would bring back an unpleasant behaviour from CMx1, particularly when playing the AI.

[Michael Emrys]

Another problem is that units do not rout in CMBN...

Point of order: They do rout, but not off the map. Which is unfortunate for the reasons brought up in this thread.

Michael

[James Crowley]

"The second idea would limit the gamey rushes as they would be mostly pointless."

Wouldn't this also force the player to fight directly for the objective, rather than allowing him to take an indirect approach? I am fairly sure it would re-introduce gamey flag rush as both sides try and make sure they have the requisit number of people present.

So, at best it would create a slug fest as it removes any incentive for elegant and effcient behaviour. In the worst case the idea would bring back an unpleasant behaviour from CMx1, particularly when playing the AI.

But location objectives invite a slugfest, one way and another. The only way to gain mastery of them is to get enough troops into them.

I don't really object to fighting good-order troops and one side getting a clear numerical advantage. I really don't like having a few odds and sods wandering in, offering no real-world challenge but, just by being there at games end, denying control to the other player.

Both might be 'gamey' but the second one is just totally unrealistic.Especially when they are mostly vehicle crews. In reality these few hangers-on would be quickly rounded up or wiped out - the area would not really be in dispute at all.

[ClarkWGriswold]

I complained about this same problem in another thread. I had a recent QB that only ended after a mutual cease-fire, despite the fact that my opponent had ONE man left alive (a crewman leftover from a destroyed halftrack, IIRC). In reality, his force had become completely ineffective at least 10 turns beforehand. I've also experienced the anguish of one or two hidden men denying me an objective, despite the fact that they had no chance against my well preserved, well armed forces. It's frustrating.

I'd love to see a system that uses "front lines" or something similar, that can weigh the reach and effectiveness of each force. The further the attacker can push his front lines the more points he gets, and better the defender does at preventing the front line from moving forward, the more points he gets. Something along those lines. Of course, actually programming something like that would be non-trivial.

[Holien]

In a recent PBEM, my opponent had 75% of his infantry and 100% of his armour destroyed. With only 36 men left, and over 25% of those crewmen from destroyed vehicles, he was able, in the final turn before mutual ceasefire kicked in, to move a couple of those men into a victory zone and obtain a draw. This despite me having a couple of men and two tank destroyers in the same zone and over 100 men still active. Had he been able to infiltrate another crewman into another victory zone, he would have won!

Apart from the nonsense of having crewmen serving and being counted as active infantry, it seems that the presence of only a very small number of men, in whatever state of morale, in a victory zone at games end, negates that zone for victory purposes. Even if they are vastly outnumbered and, in reality, have zero chance of survival, the zone is scored as in 'dispute'

This leads potentially to terribly gamey and unrealstic tactics which simply destroy any sense of historical reality and ruin a good game. Surely, for a zone to be in dispute, there needs to be some comparison of quantative and qualatative factors of the troops involved. Pulling together, as the 'godlike' player can, a motley bunch of broken remnants and crew from abandoned vehicles to form units which can filter into victory zones in ones and twos and 'steal' a game is just wrong. And, for the record, I have done this as well.

Hmmmm as ever two sides to a story...

You had one broken man in the coloured zone one tank with main gun broken and the other all out of HE and 17 rounds of AP.

Your tanks stood idle as my men ran towards the zone, so hardly well defended and clearly not in secure control!!! (I also had two HMG's laying down fire...)

We had been fighting over that zone and it was there that my men found locked doors and got mowed down as they ran to front door. BTW I had 1 man hidden on the edge of the zone and I reckon he alone would have contested the area without me running the other men to the zone.

The Stug crew had a score to settle (and the hamster told them to do it....) so a Heroic charge...

What you fail to mention is your last minute rush on the zone I held with your M10 and for once I finally nailed one of those M10's. I do hope it was the M10 who survived a direct hit from an 88!!!

In terms of the scenario and the VP's it was good not to know how it would be resolved. The designer had given no clue as to the VP's (Last Defense) and so I had thought I had totally lost it and was very pleased to get a fair draw!!!

As you say you had more infantry so why did you rely on just one broken man to hold the area with two tanks with no real AP weapons. (I guess they should have reversed in there to use their 50 cals...) :-p

What I think is really good about this new game engine is the relative spotting and the way of setting victory points. The designer could have chosen to use VP locations and damage done to enemy. That would have achieved the effect you wanted....

As for the use of crews I do seem to remember you using crews to clear some woods in the Cats vs Dogs game? Maybe my memory is poor as I am getting older...

The use of crews as infantry has always been a CM hardcore bug bear and the AI I hope has been tweaked to stop the AI from doing it. I guess you can never stop players from doing it and if the game allows it, it will be done... (the hamster will whisper and make you do it....)

I think the new engine is better than CM and I can't see why you would expect it to stop this, it can't...

If you don't have good control over an area then you have allowed the game to be "Stolen"...

Just a different POV....

[Blackcat]

But location objectives invite a slugfest, one way and another.

Mr. Cowley what I meant by the indrect and efficient approach was, for example ignoring the objectives perhaps swinging round past them and destroting the enemy in detail away from the objective "hexes". At present it is possible in most games I have played to achieve a good, if not total victory, by such means. Your idea that I must have at least 1.5 times the value of the enemy units negates that strategy.

Just thinking of your proposal in a little more detail, calculation of the value of units should present a few challenges. What is th numeric value of a broken tank crew with one member missing?

I also note Holien's post above and am remided by that old legal adage "Hard cases make bad law".

[Childress]

The use of crews as infantry has always been a CM hardcore bug bear and the AI I hope has been tweaked to stop the AI from doing it.

If CMBN is anything like the CM1 games they addressed the issue by making tank crews really, really valuable in terms of points. Which is plausible considering the training involved.

[Holien]

If CMBN is anything like the CM1 games they addressed the issue by making tank crews really, really valuable in terms of points. Which is plausible considering the training involved.

Fair enough then it is down to the scenario designer to factor those points into a scenario design, which correct me if I am wrong can be done with the new way of constructing scenarios?

So the game covers it, just depends on how the designer designs the game?

[xian]

Point of order: They do rout, but not off the map. Which is unfortunate for the reasons brought up in this thread.

Michael

Personally, I have never seen the word 'routed' appear in the morale box so I will have to take your word for it.

[womble]

I'd like to see a revision of how our little pTruppen handle "getting whaled on". As I see it currently, they won't fall back from a position without having first become "Shaken", which leads to a lot of casualties. They also often refuse to recognise the hopelessness of their situation, leading to a lot of running about in the open between surrounding machine guns and tanks, and getting mown down for their troubles. The slope to 'Surrender' should be a different shape, or more factors need to be taken into account when deciding how far they move down it.

Routing should be more common, especially near the edge of the map. Units know which edge is 'Friendly' and tend to fall back towards it. Being near a friendly map edge and still disinclined to fight should more frequently result in "!" routing, even if it's not an exit location, especially if there are no HQs about.

Units should fight to the last man less often than they do, I feel.

[LJFHutch]

The way I see it, the zone should be contested even if you have a single man inside. However, both sides should get points awarded based on the ratio of troops (or even the points of those units?). That way if you manage to get 3 crewman into an enemy objective that is controlled by an infantry platoon and a couple of tanks you'll probably only get 2% or so of the total points.

This way you avoid unrealistic outcomes but also avoid gamey and obscure mechanics to get those results - tank crewmen are people too you monster!

[C'Rogers]

On the issue of keeping one man in to hold a point:

I agree with the above statements about perhaps dividing the points up based upon people in the zone, but here is perhaps an easier alternative.

Designers, stop making such large victory zones. If victory zones are small, then the chance of it being contested radically decrease. There are times that a scenario might necessitate a large zone I understand, but in general they probably should not be so big that opposing forces could be in them without having any chance of knowing about the other.

[LJFHutch]

The problem with small zones is that they get crushed by artillery, and if you have lots of them the game degenerates into tiny little micro-managed battles.

[Michael Emrys]

I'd like to see a revision of how our little pTruppen handle "getting whaled on". As I see it currently, they won't fall back from a position without having first become "Shaken", which leads to a lot of casualties. They also often refuse to recognise the hopelessness of their situation, leading to a lot of running about in the open between surrounding machine guns and tanks, and getting mown down for their troubles. The slope to 'Surrender' should be a different shape, or more factors need to be taken into account when deciding how far they move down it.

Routing should be more common, especially near the edge of the map. Units know which edge is 'Friendly' and tend to fall back towards it. Being near a friendly map edge and still disinclined to fight should more frequently result in "!" routing, even if it's not an exit location, especially if there are no HQs about.

Units should fight to the last man less often than they do, I feel.

I guess one way to deal with this is to lower their motivation level. That definitely makes them less brave.

Michael