Where is the boundary for occupation?

[Erwin]

That's unfortunate as it implies someone who knows these numbers can game the system vs an otherwise xnt player who doesn't comprehend the numbers game (ahem).

[Mad Mike]

I don't think there is anything as sophisticated as denial-through-LOS or denial-through-possible-fire going on in CMBN (or CMx2).

Simple proof in the following pictures:

German rifle platoon occupying a house in an occupy VL, with a US tank battalion and one pioneer platoon just outside the VL (but with LOS and LOF to the VL).

As can be clearly seen, even this overwhelming force just outside the VL does not change the result one bit. The winner is germany, with 200 points.

Same setup, this time the US pioneer platoon HQ has been moved inside the VL (everything else unchanged).

This time, nobody controls the VL and the result is a draw.

The game only checks to see if there are good order units from any side in a VL.

If you are the only side to have good order units in the VL, you will earn points (if it is your VL).

If both sides have good order units in the VL, nobody will get any points (no clear control).This also works if one side has only 1 man in the VL versus a regiment, as at least a couple of complaints on these same boards clearly show. People were complaining that even due to overwhelming force in the VL, they were denied the points. Mostly they were told that they didn't apply the correct "Search and clear" routine to the area.

I think the results are based purely on unit status (in good order or not - broken or panicked) and the units locations. A more probable explanation when this doesn't seem to work would be a bug where the game doesn't register some of the units correctly. At least that is my opinion.

[RockinHarry]

Made some quick test with occupying a large uncontested (US units outside) 1000 point value zone with just a regular, normal motivation FO (~60 points) in there. Points awarded. Changed the FO to conscript, poor motivation (~40 points). This FO went to shaken by it´s own inexperience and lonelyness during 60 seconds of game play. Ceased fire and yet this FO gained the 1000 points. :confused:

From the game manual, leaving bits of interpretation (page 116):

"... Keep in mind that points for a specific

objective are only awarded once and that 10 separate spots

for a single objective means that the player must pay

attention to ALL 10 spots, not just one...."

[GreenAsJade]

I really don't think that there was an enemy unit inside the walls, IE in the VL.

However, now I will have to go and have another really close look.

Seems like the cure for that is to redraw the VL so that it lies entirely within the walls, assuming that there is enough room within the walls for that.

Just to confirm (as someone else said): the VL already lies entirely within the walls. I _thought_ that it was the enemy troops all huddled just on the other side of the wall that denied me the VL. That would line up with what has been discussed here: that if there is enemy close by, then you get denied.

However, this doesn't seem to fit the wonderful pictures posted just above.

I wonder what happens in this house scenario if a unit is placed in an action spot just next door to the VL?

I will go take a closer look at my battle result., maybe post some pics

GaJ

[A Canadian Cat]

I don't think there is anything as sophisticated as denial-through-LOS or denial-through-possible-fire going on in CMBN (or CMx2).

Simple proof in the following pictures:

German rifle platoon occupying a house in an occupy VL, with a US tank battalion and one pioneer platoon just outside the VP ....

Those pictures are brilliant. I laughed out loud.

[c3k]

Mad Mike,

Well done.

FWIW, if the VL's were bigger, it would be much harder to winkle out all the defenders. This would make VL control HARDER, not easier. Additionally, I see no issue with walls making it difficult to gain control of a VL. If your LOS/LOF stops at the edge of the VL and the enemy is a grenade toss away, you don't control it. You need to push out your perimeter.

[womble]

Mad Mike,

Well done.

FWIW, if the VL's were bigger, it would be much harder to winkle out all the defenders. This would make VL control HARDER, not easier.

I disagree. It is more difficult to winkle everyone out of a fuzzy area than it is to winkle them out of a slightly larger, defined one.

[c3k]

I disagree. It is more difficult to winkle everyone out of a fuzzy area than it is to winkle them out of a slightly larger, defined one.

I was speaking only of the VL's as they actually exist in the game. Using a larger, fuzzy area would be far different. It may be more realistic, but then "control" would be open to debate. An enemy tank on a far hilltop may preclude control if it has LOS/LOF to the center of the fuzzy VL. What if that same tank is on the back side of the far hill? It can move up to a hull-down position in a few seconds and preclude control, but, at that moment, it is out of LOS. Does that mean the tank's firepower should count? (I'm assuming that player has a spotter on the front of the hill to communicate with the tank.) Fuzzy zones, fuzzy firepower, fuzzy numbers.

[GreenAsJade]

OK, I went back and looked at the end game report that started this thread and found that I was completely wrong.

The game had in fact given me the VL, which confirms the wonderful pictures recently posted: if you have guys in the VL and the oppo does not, you get the VL, easy as that.

The mistake I made was in reading the very-confusing end game summary: I posted a link to this in another thread.

What I didn't realise is that the Allied *** VLs are different to the Axis ones!

This begs the question: when you are looking at the end game map, how do you know what the Oppo's VLs were? I _think_ the answer is "there is no way, you can only see your own"...

GaJ

[RockinHarry]

Nonetheless, I´ve learned a couple of useful things from this thread and got inspired to deal more in detail with the various map targets, when it comes to scenario making.

[womble]

I was speaking only of the VL's as they actually exist in the game. Using a larger, fuzzy area would be far different.

Yet that's the point of the thread. VLs certainly seem fuzzy, as it is. Maybe it's all down to misinterpretation, but I'm pretty certain that in my last QB v the AI, there were no live Amis in the VL, yet I wasn't awarded control of it until either time had passed or the half track had backed off further.

[Erwin]

Am really glad this was resolved...

[Mad Mike]

Nice to see that I could help to clear things up .. and apparently entertain a little bit as well.

[GreenAsJade]

You should post those screenies in the screenies thread, for wider appreciation

It's fascinating how we can leap to conclusions about the game when we don't

have all the information eh?

The feeling that VLls are fuzzy was certainly wider than just my mistake, and there were some fascinating theories about how and why it was working... only to find out through experimentation that the truth is different...

... it will be interesting to see if someone else can come with a screenie of an actual

not-awarded VL that makes it look fuzzy...

GaJ

[Michael Emrys]

This begs the question: when you are looking at the end game map, how do you know what the Oppo's VLs were? I _think_ the answer is "there is no way, you can only see your own"...

Which IMO is as it should be. Sometimes, maybe even often, in war the opposing sides have differing goals. Those may or may not be mutually exclusive. In CMx1 we were accustomed to them being always mutually exclusive. Now that is no longer the case.

Michael

[GreenAsJade]

I don't understand your point.

I was asking about seeing the oppos VLs _in the end game analysis screen_.

It tells you which ones they were awarded, but you have no way of knowing where those are!

GaJ

[Michael Emrys]

I was asking about seeing the oppos VLs _in the end game analysis screen_.

Oh. Missed that part. Sorry.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Just to add some fat to the fire, I just finished a QB and was awarded a total victory, including full points for the objective. But get this: I didn't have a single man or piece of equipment in the objective zone. In fact, I think the nearest was a tank that was over 100m away. The enemy had several men within an estimated 10m. I think the decisive factor though was that all his units were in reduced morale state, either broken or panicked. So add that to the file.

Michael

[Mad Mike]

Just to add some fat to the fire, I just finished a QB and was awarded a total victory, including full points for the objective. But get this: I didn't have a single man or piece of equipment in the objective zone. In fact, I think the nearest was a tank that was over 100m away. The enemy had several men within an estimated 10m. I think the decisive factor though was that all his units were in reduced morale state, either broken or panicked. So add that to the file.

Did your opponent surrender, by any chance?

If the enemy surrenders, automatic achievement of all occupy VLs is assumed by the game, even if the player has no troops anywhere near them.

[Michael Emrys]

Did your opponent surrender, by any chance?

I was playing against the AI. How can you tell if it surrendered? That sounds likely though as all the enemy units left on the map were, as I wrote, in reduced morale state.

Michael

[Mad Mike]

I was playing against the AI. How can you tell if it surrendered?

Hi Michael,

you can tell from the AAR screen showing after the battle.

Here are examples of the three possible ways for a battle to end:

1. One side surrenders:

2. Both sides agree a Ceasefire (the AI will ALWAYS accept a ceasefire, no matter how disadvantageous it is to the AI):

3. The time limit for the battle hav been reached:

These should be all the possible ways for a battle to end.

Like I said, when the AI surrenders (usually you will notice this, as the game just suddenly ends when the surrender threshold has been reached), you will achieve all terrain objectives.

Cheers,

Mad Mike

[Sixxkiller]

I believe "fitness" of the troops also comes into play guys. If you have guys panicked, routed, troops without ammo, or cowering in the corner I believe the system takes this into account. In order to hold an objective the object is to be able to actually be able to repel attacks or have the advantage. Rule of thumb is to be firstest with the mostest.

[Michael Emrys]

Mad Mike:

Thanks. You have increased my store of knowledge.

Michael

[GreenAsJade]

I believe "fitness" of the troops also comes into play guys. If you have guys panicked, routed, troops without ammo, or cowering in the corner I believe the system takes this into account. In order to hold an objective the object is to be able to actually be able to repel attacks or have the advantage. Rule of thumb is to be firstest with the mostest.

I think this is a misleading rule of thumb. It's not the person with "the most", it is the person with exclusivity.

AFAIK if there is _any_ oppo fighting capacity in the VL, then you don't get awarded it.

The funny screenies earlier in the thread show this.

GaJ

[JonS]

I think this is a misleading rule of thumb. It's not the person with "the most", it is the person with exclusivity.

AFAIK if there is _any_ oppo fighting capacity in the VL, then you don't get awarded it.

True, but the point remains valid. A lot of this thread seems to be along the lines of "what is the absolute barest minimum I can do in order to secure an objective."

In that sense, I think Sixxkiller's response is entirely correct; "screw the minimum. Get there early, get there with a lot, and then kerb stomp your opponent."