Wishlist Capturing Objective Flags

Cross · #1 August 10th, 2010, 08:09 AM

Currently, an enemy unit can capture a flag the moment it enters the V-hex.

Therefore, if I am defending a V-hex on a crossroads and an enemy scout car drives onto the crossroads and is immediately destroyed, the objective is still considered captured by the scout. But it would be fairer to say that I still 'controlled' that crossroads.

This minor issue can become decisive in the last turn of games.

Then I thought that the V-hex should be captured when the unit leaves a hex. Which would solve the scout/crossroads problem. But if infantry enter an objective building and immediately 'dig in' to defend it...the objective won't be captured until they leave, which would not be right.

Additionally, if attacking infantry enter a V-hex, immediately get shot-up and routed out of the hex the objective is considered captured; but again it would be fairer to consider the objective still controlled by the defender.

Another idea is that units must sit on a hex for a whole turn before it is captured. The strength of this is that you can't just sacrifice suicide units to capture objectives in the end game without genuinely controlling/defending the objective.

The only possible weakness of the idea - that I can see - is that fast moving formations could no longer just cross a bridge or crossroads and immediately capture the flags. They would have to unload infantry, or have some units stop on the objectives for a turn.

Though this may be more realistic, because wasn't it normal practice upon capturing a bridge to unload guards or engineers to check it for explosives? And a crossroads would often have MPs or someone there giving directions.

I guess I'm saying, if it's a true objective, having a unit sit on the objective for one turn is more realistic than the current situation, and would make the 'gamey' capture of flags on the last turn difficult.

Any thoughts or ideas?

Cross

DRG · #2 August 10th, 2010, 01:03 PM

I have a variation on that I'm discussing with Andy and we'll weight the pros and cons and consider the implications to the code and that is the key. The code is stable right now and we've really pushed this far beyond anything we thought possible a few years ago as it is and ANY change made to it now needs to be considered from the "fallout" perspective as in " if we do this what could end up screwed up as a result" as some bits of code have very little impact on other bits of code but some bits of code have HUGE impacts on other bits of code

Don

Cross · #3 August 10th, 2010, 01:41 PM

I did think about the code issue when I was writing this. I was thinking about how units sit on abandoned equipment for a whole turn before the equipment is destroyed. But only you guys would know if something similar for V-hexes is feasible, and only testing would determine if it was stable.

This is not a big issue, just a possible improvement. The game is very stable and works great. And I prefer a stable game than a 'improved' game with bugs.

Cross

codman · #4 August 11th, 2010, 08:56 PM

Cross,

Interesting points and I wonder, based on Don's response if it would be possible to someday produce a list of "possible" changes that we could vote on or at least express our interest in to perhaps ease the ongoing development of the game.

All of us know that it's easy to have an idea but only the folks who "massage" the code on a regular basis have an idea of what's truly feasible and even then as Don points out there could be hidden repercussions that aren't readily apparent until someone accidentally bumps up against them and I'll second Cross's last post about "a stable game than a 'improved' game with bugs."

Steve

Imp · #5 August 12th, 2010, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codman

Cross,

Interesting points and I wonder, based on Don's response if it would be possible to someday produce a list of "possible" changes that we could vote on or at least express our interest in to perhaps ease the ongoing development of the game.

All of us know that it's easy to have an idea but only the folks who "massage" the code on a regular basis have an idea of what's truly feasible and even then as Don points out there could be hidden repercussions that aren't readily apparent until someone accidentally bumps up against them and I'll second Cross's last post about "a stable game than a 'improved' game with bugs."

Steve

What use would a list be unless it only includes thoughts they have had & managed to impliment in which case they may as well tell us when the patch is imminent like now.

Coming up with an idea is part of what the forums for post them you will be told if it
A) has any merit
B) might be possible

codman · #6 August 12th, 2010, 05:31 PM

Imp wrote:

>What use would a list be unless it only includes thoughts they >have had & managed to impliment in which case they may as well >tell us when the patch is imminent like now.

>Coming up with an idea is part of what the forums for post them >you will be told if it
>A) has any merit
>B) might be possible

Fair enough. I was thinking that by having a list it might cut down on the number of times they get pinged with the same question or questions.

Steve

Imp · #7 August 12th, 2010, 09:46 PM

I was thinking the reverse it would generate questions & comments to monitor which just shows we all think a bit diffrently which is no bad thing.

gila · #8 August 13th, 2010, 06:57 AM

Why fix something thats really not broke?,
I mean if it's not that big a problem anyway why risk causing other problems?
If you can't recapture a grabbed hex would that make such an outcome on a battle,unless it was close still it seems a little arbitary and not a good reason to change the whole deal because of one persons gripe on losing a battle on a narrow margin.

just my 2.5 cents worth

gila · #9 August 13th, 2010, 07:54 AM

Cross,my friend don't you agree just because you overwatch a VL,does not mean you own it?
You bring up bridges,a perfect example,how can one own the bridge by just having more assumed overwatch firepower on it?

Remagen, the nazi's had 88's and howitzers overwatching,albiet somewhat subdued by airtrikes but U.S captured the bridge before th gerry's could blow it up,so by capturing the bridge they disarmed the explosives,and the rest is history.
Quick grabs are not gamey,IMO only part of war

DRG · #10 August 13th, 2010, 12:35 PM

I talked with Andy about it and it's not going to happen for all reasons I suggested it might not. My idea was to flip them to neutral so nobody holds them until a unit has sat on them for a turn or two but then we start impacting all kinds of AI reaction code.

What we have now works equally for both sides. If one side is stronger in one part of the map they can grab a V hex on the fly but if they are too weak to defend on another it then they will lose it back when the opponent sends his own forces to grab bit back and if he isn't strong enough to hold it will switch sides again.

Yes, it's "gamey" to wait until the last turn or so then grab V hexes from your opponent not giving him the chance to respond but really how often does it happen that the stronger side gets blindsided at the end ? The whole concept of V hexes is "gamey" and not to forget.... SP is a game not a combat simulation ( though we do strive to minimize "gameyness" where possible but no matter what we do someone will find something "gamey" )

If you don't want V Hexes to influence the outcome set up the game so the V-hexes are all worth zero and just go by losses to determine who wins. It's all on how you want to play the game and there are as many opinions on how that should perfectly be as there are players. V hexes represent ground gained and held. We altered to code many releases ago to allow players edit the location of the V hexes so they can set up what they feel are" realistic" V-Hex Objectives so they don't have to rely on the auto generated ones if they don't want to.

Don