Objective Flag Values

[Imp]

The reason it would be nicer if the programe did it is if you want to keep the locations selected by the computer you have to adjust each flag value individually as far as I know.
Pressing C & entering values clears the flags for you to position, this is fine if thats what you want & do it a lot placing them on sensible locations.

I just set up a few games & as the force size grows the flags become insignifigant.
If however you go for a small engagement they are worth 1.5x the cost of your force.
900 points gave me flags with a value of 70 (1470 total) twice.

If its burried deep in the code & to much hassle to muck about with fair enough after all just trying to take hassle out of set up

[Imp]

I'm an avocate of inclreasing the increment of the increase/decrease buttons. Also if all of the objectives could be selected and changed at once, that would be good. Now I'm dreaming a little, if you could just type in the value you want, that would be great

Sorry just read I only found out recently you can.
Press C (clear) & it asks you for a value that applies to all.
Then asks which side or neutral.
Now you place them on the map.

[RERomine]

Mass adjustments are easy. The only instance where all the flag values are set the same is when they are grouped during "meeting engagements". In all other situations, "meeting engagement" scatted objects, "advance/delay", scattered or grouped and "assault/defend", scattered or grouped, there are at least two different values used.

Another bonus to having the flags set by the system is to avoid disagreements during PBEM games. Increasing the value of flags favors the side that owns them (or can capture them easily) and decreasing the side that doesn't. By having a hands off option, it will limit those disagreements.

[Cross]

Originally Posted by RERomine

Another bonus to having the flags set by the system is to avoid disagreements during PBEM games. Increasing the value of flags favors the side that owns them (or can capture them easily) and decreasing the side that doesn't. By having a hands off option, it will limit those disagreements.

Hi Ray,

I don't disagree with your proposal, but just thought I'd add some comment.

Very occasionally, in PBEM, I've disagreed with the way v-hexes have been set up; I merely send them back for adjustment...no disagreement

I'm probably more likely to disagree with where/values that the AI has set.

The process that I now use in PBEM meeting engagements:

• Manually set up 10 V-hexes on each side of the map (discard the the 21st v-hex on the map edge).
  
• Put the V-hexes on strategic locations like, bridges, hills, villages and crossroads.
  
• Have the distance to the centre line be about the same for both sets of 10.
  
• Do not set any V-hexes in the centre of the map (a 10 hex wide 'no mans land'). This assures both players will capture 10 each in the early part of the battle.
  
• Set the flags to the side that each player controls (so you won't know when they've overrun their own flags).
  
• Set all V-hexes to same value (because it's easy).
  
• I usually set them on the high end of the 5-250 range (sometimes higher for the rear v-hexes, when time allows or the the situation benefits).

I've found the above approach works really well for PBEM meeting engagements.

[RERomine]

I've actually done both in PBEM games, but more often than not I let fate play its game. The system placement of flags is also a problem, but I'm sure that would be a much more complicated fix.

The biggest problem I have with flag placement is when they are grouped for "meeting engagements". I had one recent campaign battle where all 21 flags were within 2 hexes of the AI deployment line. Of those, five were actually in the AI deployment area. If I had gone after the flags, it would have been more along the lines of an understrength "advance" than a "meeting engagement" The AI came out to fight, however, so I won by decimating their force. Didn't capture one flag.