VPs
 

I know this has been (negatively) touched before, but I just have to ask again.
Please, please increase the VPs for flags in at least PBEM campaigns. As they are now they are worthless for anything larger than a small battle. If you want to play anything large (modern era, 30K points for example) they are worst than worthless, they are a joke. When a single MBT can cost the same or more than a whole set of VPs flags.
This leads to campaigns ( I don't play much single battles that's why I focus on campaigns) where neither side has ANY reason to go for the flags, thus any reason to risk anything. Just hide your tanks/IFVs behind hills, etc, and just send few cheap scouts to capture a flag if that.
It is damaging the whole concept.

That's it.

Re: VPs
 

That is not damaging any concept whatsoever.

Victory hexes exist as a bonus on top of the primary military objective of destroying the enemy force, while preserving one's own. They are not the primary aim of the battle!.

Victory hexes exist as an "attractor" for the AI force. They can also be regarded as attractors for the type of human player that concentrates too much on them himself, especially if he tries too early for them.

The game mechanism uses the V flags as an indicator of when to trigger an early termination of the game, if one side is considered defeated (broken). i.e the other side has achieved the primary game purpose (destruction of the enemy force, or reduction in morale so it is a broken routing mass).

Therefore the V-hexes can be regarded as an "attaboy" to reward success, and nothing more for the human player. They might swing the result up a level, but not much more.

V-hexes count at the end of the battle, so there is no need to do an AI-lemming style rush for these. A human opponent doing so is descending to the AI's level. He is a lemming :)!

So playing a human player, first concentrate on killing his forces while not losing too many of yours. If your human opponent is lemming to the objectives, use that fact to manoeuvre round him to kill him, and direct arty etc on his campers on the objective zones.

When the enemy force is defeated, then you might consider sweeping up objective hexes for a few "atttaboy" points, and to trigger game end from (enemy force broken + all objectives held by you).

But this game is not a paint-ball type capture the flag exercise. In a paint-ball game it matters not if you lose 99 out of 100 troops so long as number 100 picks up the "victory flag" on the enemy bunker and waves it about.

SP is about killing enemy points, and not losing yours in the process. You can use manoeuvre and/or attrition styles of warfare to do so but preservation of own force is vital.

Leave the V-hexes to police up at end of battle when you have destroyed the enemy or routed him. Only take objective areas during the battle if the position offers you a fighting advantage. (Attracting the lemming AI (or similar humans!) can be considered such of course :)).

Andy

Re: VPs
 

For meetings if you want victory hexes to be important download the system they use over at the Blitz by Weasel & Kiwi or I can email you it. At the end of the game you enter flags controled & player scores in a spreadsheet to determine victory level. Has a larger range of results 9 instead of 5 & you need to control flags to get the best ones or stop the other player doing so. Note in this system flag points are ignored so deduct from player scores as flags are handled by the spreadsheet.
In effect what it does is always give flags the same worth regardless of force size which is I think what you want.

Re: VPs
 

Thank you for your replies.


Imp, that won't be necessary, but thanks.

Re: VPs
 

The final factor not mentioned to this point is that this bit of code was assigned a single byte value probably sometime in 1994 or 1995 and that limits the number to 0-255, unsigned -or -127 to +127 if signed. In this case it's a signed number which makes 255 the limit

Changing that data would change how every bit of code saved after it is stored which would render every sceanrio, campaign and save game useless.

ALL the arguments Andy put forward are valid but the fact remains 255 is the limit.

Don

Re: VPs
 

Would it be very difficult to add code in the end that would multiply the (1 to 255) VP values by a set factor based on force size when calculating game end points?

Re: VPs
 

Here's another way to look at and use victory hexes.

I play long campaigns vs AI and even starting with a small core the build-up of experience generates force values over 20k. So the same issue about the relative worth of VPs is true.

In the set-up for each battle it is possible to edit the map. I use this option specifically to place victory hexes so that there is a physical objective for me to attain. The random placement tends to put them in the middle of bare patches of ground etc. So I look for map features that make some sense as objectives that a commander might be given. The sort of things I'm looking for are bridges, road junctions, villages or groups of buildings, prominent hills/ridgelines etc. The victory hexes have a symbolic value as objectives which does not rely on the points. In effect I create a mission, "take that hill!" or whatever it might be. Because I'm fighting AI killing every unit is pretty much a given because the AI just doesn't know when to quit. But for me the point of the battle is achieving the mission, and the victory hexes represent the mission objectives. I never look at what the hexes are worth in points, but I sure as hell want to get those hexes because the mission is a 'failure' if I don't, regardless of the score. I also adjust the battle length so that there is an element of working 'against the clock', but without having to do the AI style lemming charge. If I get this right I have to fight an aggressive battle, but not being stupid, to reach the objectives 'on time'. In the context of the long campaign not losing lots of core troops in the process is also critical because I want to preserve the hard won experience. This means it is less fun being a support unit in my army, they tend to be first into danger every time :smirk:

I don't play PBEM so I don't know if this idea is useful, but if it is possible for both players to view the map in advance then perhaps the mission objectives could be agreed and the victory hexes placed accordingly. If each hex is given max points value and victory hexes are stacked it would also partly remedy the problem of low values because each side could have just one or two victory hexes worth over 1000 points each.

cheers,

Tim

Re: VPs
 

What about his. The VPs hexes are worth more for determining who the winner is, than in actual points. So, they don't give more points for repairs etc, but they do for determining who won the battle. In very simple terms, if one side controls 2 out of 3 VPs AND lost at least X amount less points due to damages etc, he gets the victory, instead of draw or whatever.

Re: VPs
 

That does not cover the person who gets his force completely and utterly trashed in doing so. Losing your troops for a bit of mud somewhere is not a "victory". Ask Pyrrus what he thought about all of his "wins" over those pesky Romans..

As stated in my post above - the VH are just a little hint as to where to go to trigger the end of the battle, and a small bonus for doing so. Sweep them up as a by-product of eliminating or routing the enemy but don't waste your units in a lemming charge in doing so.

You do need to hold the flags uncontested for an early end-game trigger. But that is not that vital an objective. Take your time, it is the impatient who tend to get ambushed.

In the meantime preservation of your force while meanwhile killing his is the path to victory in these games whether attacking or defending. Your primary source of VP come from breaking his toys, and vice versa. It is not a game of "capture the flag", it's warfare and not paint-ball.

Andy

Re: VPs
 

What you say makes sense.
BUT, my experience with at least some enemy is this. They only commit a fraction of their force, usually scouts+ATGMs+snipers which can do a lot of damage before getting killed (points wise). He never has to commit more, he can just hide 80+ percent of his forces. With some lucky strikes, even if you get the VPs, he can get at least a draw. There is no incentive to commit more. The VPs (point wise) in flags are close to worthless in anything larger than a medium battle). What happens then is the other opponent says, why try to capture the VPs, I will do the same. After a battle or two, we have a handful of units from each side fighting while whole companies are hiding in the "woods".
Where if there was some strong bonus for the flags, that would create pressure to both sides to try to do something more than WW1 trenches battles.

If the "chicken" in the above battle/campaign, knew that the other player daring and capturing and holding the flags will get something more than losing tanks etc, for example either repair points or "points" toward the campaign (the points you get for winning/losing/draw), then it would make the battles in a campaign more interesting against them.
Even as an option.

All the above, IMHO.

Re: VPs
 

Neither side is willing to fully commit because the risks of doing so outweigh the benefit.

In strategic war, supply lines and logistics are the most important objectives. Capture the former and destroy the latter and the enemy is toast, to a large extent regardless of other factors.

Some of the strategic filters into the tactical aspect of this game when you are forced to fight the next battle without refitting.

Wdll suggestion makes sense for PBEM, but I think vs the AI the game works fine.

Re: VPs
 

Thank you Kartoffel. That's my point.

Re: VPs
 

Flags are focal points whether AI or player controled they are an objective to head to. No neeed to get there quick if playing another player covering the paths to while slowly working others towards is logical. They work fine when grouped or better still if placed in 2-7 groups on sensible objectives, shotgun however does not work well in my view for PBEM just go for the ones reasonably close to each other & ignore the rest. However vs the AI it changes the nature of the game as its harder to predict where it might come from. Having said that the AI often completly ignore them till mid game when it will try & swing round on them much like you might do.
If however your opponent treats meetings as delays hardly getting off his start line as I have come across the simple solution is stop playing them or treat as a delay & go for a big push on his flank

Re: VPs
 

You cannot go for the push against a human opponent who plays like this. You will end up losing more units even if you "conquer" most of the map. Where if the flags were worth more in some way, it would force the other opponent to not always turtle up.
As it is now, if one player decides to turtle up, there is nothing the other player can do than to also turtle up. There is no reason to risk even a single platoon of anything.

Re: VPs
 

In first person shooters (FPS) this tactic is called "camping". :)

And is much derided by some players as a n00b tactic. :p

K.

Re: VPs
 

I understand the "lemmings" theory as well, and in many "real" cases, destruction of the enemy force is the objective. But as Wdll points out, it makes for strange games sometimes. In "real" combat, taking ground or seizing a particular objective is sometimes as important, or more important, than the amount of enemy forces one destroys. I like very much the idea by Tim of modifying a map before battle and simply acting as if you need to capture a realistic objective.

Andy, you didn't respond as to whether it would be difficult to modify the code as I suggested. That manner might actually allow BOTH types of games to be played. If destruction of the enemy force were more important, the multiplier could be left at 1. If seizing an objective were more important in that game, you could use the multiplier to make VP's worth much more.

Re: VPs
 

Modifying the code would require data to be added to all save games - including scenarios, campaigns etc. Just like changing VP from the original 1998 byte to a word would do. That would require a data massage of all save games, scenarios, campaigns etc. It ain't going to happen.

VP come from killing the enemy. Ground is only useful if it aids in killing the enemy (or stops him using it against you). Preserving your own force is vital, this is not hollywood or paintball.

If your opponent decides to "camp out" in a meeting engagement then concentrate your forces and overwhelm him locally since he has then given up the initiative, dump your arty on his campers and take him in bite-sized chunks.

Try using larger maps so the force to area ratio is low in PBEM meeting battles, and maybe up the turn count. Both of these favour manoeuvre over head-butting tactics.

Use scouting and act cautiously but with due use of aggression when needed, don't simply blunder into ambushes.

In other words, use appropriate tactics. have a plan, use a reserve, and don't just blunder head first into the opponent using the AI's tin lemming tactics.

The game will never be a "capture the flag" exercise.

Andy

Re: VPs
 

Oh my.
I will try to not take personally the "Hollywood" remark.
Preserving of your own force is the core of the issue here, the flags are not. The flags would be a solution. Flags are irrelevant which makes the battles of a large PBEM campaign nothing but a WW1 battlefield.

This is not about playing "capture the flag".
I understand the coding issues, but the rest I don't agree with (as a gamer).
For the plan you say to work then you have to edit the map settings for each map of a PBEM campaign before it begins so that it fits you and is against the enemy. Increasing the length of the battles etc.
Even then, if you play a large PBEM campaign (modern 30K core, largest map settings) you cannot win like that. You will have to just send scouts and slowly move ahead, but you can't win with scouts only. The camper has a huge advantage, you will lose units, far more units if you want to advance. Else, if you play it very carefully as you say, and as you have to, all the battles will end at the final turn with each side losing a few scouts and 90%+ of each's sides units, way in the back, safe from each other, without firing a single shot.
After a couple of battles you both end with buying infantry only, snipers atgms for just in case, and artillery. So basically you end up with a WW1 campaign. And even then, you don't end up using the infantry apart from scouts because you will end up losing more etc.
If you want I would gladly play a PBEM with you and you will be able to see how playing as I say, makes the game boring as hell. Of course you are probably too busy or just don't want to, play with me, that's ok, I actually don't have time for it either, but I can give you nothing but my word that the game slows dowwwwn a looooot. Not the slow down of careful playing, but the trenches warfare issue.

It's a pity that it can't be changed due to coding issues.

Re: VPs
 

Thanks for your explanation of why it's not feasible Andy. I always appreciate it when someone takes the time to help me understand, rather than just giving an answer. Keep up the great work on the game.

Re: VPs
 

I have to disagree with this statement, if he is dug in its hard going otherwise on most maps vis settings easily doable, sometimes the combo it gives can be a real headache. Andy summed it up he has given up the initiative & in my view he who loses it loses 95% of the time. Hes not going for the flags but neither are you your goal is simple recon in force find those pesky ATGMs then decisive strike on one of his pockets. After that you can fade away you have now a minor victory or you might be in a position to move forward because the rest of your force was covering any supporting action he tried. If neither side is dug in the attacker is generaly the one inflicting the damage because the other side is reacting to him. As I said you have now turned it into a delay game your local force should outnumber him 3:1 or more & if you have CM arty & he wants to sit there thanks for the points.
Its what makes this game so good every tactic has a counter you just have to adapt.
You are correct it will cause a slow start but then it should be otherwise you find ATGMs the hard way & if you have support vehicles & he don't hes in big trouble after the initial scout. Once played vs a side made up exclusivly of snipers ATGMs & arty. Boring as hell thousands of 3% shots but once I realised wiped him out completly at some cost to my poor infantry as they were tasked with ATGM killing. Once gone vehicles just roled up beside the snipers & said goodbye. Do not advise doing this but he p***** me off for wasting my time. My other point still stands if hes not playing meetings as meetings & its ticking you off why are you still playing him. If people don't enter into the spirit of the game or buy silly forces I assumed most people never entertain them again its supposed to be enjoyable after all.

Re: VPs
 

Wdll,

It sounds like your playing the right game, but the wrong opponent. ;)

Re: VPs
 

if the enemy digs in and refuses to budge, I find that some MRLS his way will tend to change his mind.

At least the couple of survivors heading for the hills once the smoke clears :)

Re: VPs
 

We don't use CM artillery (btw for some reason the Greek MLRS do not have CM ammo type in the game), and regular MLRS while good is not that great in digging out digged in enemy or even killing.