Objectives

[Chisai]

A suggestion to the game designers. Can you make victory point tactically sound. For example, capturing a cross road of a bridge is great and all but if the hill over looking the victory point is controlled by enemy units, tactically it makes the capture meaningless since I can bring direct or indirect fire on the crossroad. I am "trying to" create a scenario where a cross road is worth 10 points but the hills surrounding it are worth 100 to 500 point depending on observation values. Also, make the victory point invisible until capture. This will make it harder in the Human vs AI game since we won't know where the AI will concentrate it's force.

BTW, love this game.

[CaptCarnage]

You can turn off the Victory Points.

[Mad Russian]

The Victory Points are tactically sound for the scenarios/campaigns they are in. If I wanted you to take the hills there would be victory points on the hills. If the objective is to take the bridge then the victory points are on the bridge. How you get those victory points is up to you. If you determine that certain parameters must be met before you can attain the VP's, again, that's up to you. What you think is important the next gamer may not. I placed the VP's according the objectives of each scenario.

Good Hunting.

MR

[jenrick]

Can you make victory point tactically sound. For example, capturing a cross road of a bridge is great and all but if the hill over looking the victory point is controlled by enemy units, tactically it makes the capture meaningless since I can bring direct or indirect fire on the crossroad.

On the other hand, holding the hill while the enemy wires the bridge for demo or puts up obstacles and mines on the crossroads does no good either. I can see having both locations be objective hexes if you want though.

-Jenrik

[cbelva]

Objectives are never that simple and until we can define an area as the objective make it where you have to control the entire objective area, individual hexes will have to do. Wait a minutes. To control the hex you have to also control the terrain that controls that hex. Bingo. One of my favorite strategy is to control terrain that controls the objective hex. I then will use them as bait to draw in the enemy and kill him. Works against the AI and works against people who are too narrow focused on that single hex. When you look at the objectives you have to take and hold, look around also at the terrain around it. It you want to hold and keep that obj hex, you also have to control the dominate terrain.

[Chisai]

Yes.cI know that you can turn off Victory Point Markers. I was wondering if the Victory Point markers would be OFF as default. Makes it harder to play against the AI

[CapnDarwin]

During the setup you need to see them to know what you are doing. After the game starts there are really 3 ways to deal with the markers. They can be on, off, or visible but only show the owner if a unit can see the marker. This is something we will be looking at in the 2.04 update.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

The Victory Points are tactically sound for the scenarios/campaigns they are in.

The VPs may be good for the game, but one of my concerns is how it skews Soviet behavior towards objectives rather than the enemy. One of the books I read long ago with articles translated from Russian military sources summed up a fundamental difference between NATO and Soviet/Warsaw Pact doctrines. NATO and western forces historically focused on terrain and objectives; ie, who owned what and that's what we need to attack or defend. The Soviets and eastern forces historically focused on the enemy, to find him and destroy him, not unlike fleets on the ocean - which the vastness of the worthless steppes pretty much amounted to; ie, they didn't really care about the terrain, it was just something to maneuver on.

So maybe that's something to consider in the game. The first echelon Soviet forces shouldn't be more concerned about taking certain objectives than finding and destroying enemy forces. The second echelon Soviet forces would push through to take those intermediate march objectives and on to their final objectives. What I'm getting at is that the combination of VP locations and unit destruction used to determine scenario victory should not be identical for both sides. Maybe weight NATO more towards the VP locations and the Soviets more toward enemy unit destruction? Maybe a 60:40 vs 40:60 combination, something like that if it helps make each side perform more realistically according to their different doctrines. Just a thought...

[CaptCarnage]

I remember that the Russian army in the czarist days were focused on total destruction but that was when battles were fought in 1 or 2 days. And even if they were intent on destroying enemy forces completely in the 80s, the Soviets still need roads and bridges when they invade NATO countries. Their tanks need to roll somewhere and it's a bit hard to push them through forests.
Don't forget the level that we're fighting at here.
These are battles in a 20kmx20km area so they are small battles that are part of a huge invasion. As far as I have seen in the last 2 weeks since I had the game, these scenarios are all about holding bridges or crossroads and that's where the Victory Points are situated. If Soviets need to push onwards they need a certain bridge and if NATO is to stop them, they need to prevent the Soviets having that bridge. Hence there is the Victory Point on the hex where the bridge is at.
So I don't see why both sides would need to have different VPs.

I do see merit in the idea of adding more weight to NATO losses because of the infamous 2nd Echelon... But who knows, perhaps that's already included? I haven't studied the scenario scoring much yet.

[CaptCarnage]

Meanwhile I found this:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

I dimly remember playing some game--board or computer, can't recall which--where the victory conditions required you to not only take locations, but to keep them out of range of enemy fire as well in order for them to count. Given the small size of these maps, and the long range of modern weapon systems, especially arty, that might prove impossibly complicated here. What I've found, anyhow, is that if you don't clear off the immediate dominating terrain around a VP location, you won't hold it long anyhow, so unless you seize it right when the game ends, you're going to have to clear those hills in any event. But either way, you will still take arty fire on that objective no matter what....

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Skyhigh
So I don't see why both sides would need to have different VPs.

I am not suggesting different VP locations for both sides, just a subtle difference in how scenario victory is determined. Again, my concern is how well the game captures the doctrinal differences, and to provide some unique constraints and limitations for both sides (for either human players or the AI) to fight a bit more realistically.

I would like to see this game mature into a better sim of the opposing 1980's doctrines. But without some unique incentives for each side, all you get is a generic free-for-all for each side to do whatever it wants/can within its limited orders. Granted, there are already some differences in C2 and orders cycles that help to achieve this effect, which is great, but perhaps more can be done. Some subtle weight-shifting of the victory scoring may help.

[Tazak]

I view objectives in game to be political objectives (i.e. take that town/bridge) allowing the player to define their local military objectives (i.e. secure that hill overlooking town/bridge).

Political objectives are mostly land-grabbing activities that enable a better bargaining position at the peace table, while military objectives are normally derivatives of political objectives i.e. you wont hold a town/bridge long if you haven't secured the hill overlooking the objective.

I plan my scenarios to simulate engagement of 1st echelon troops with a view that the scenario time limit is when either WP 2nd echelons arrive on the scene or a relief in place is due for the NATO side.

[CaptCarnage]

I wouldn't consider a bridge a political objective - those things actually have a use in securing supply and communication lines over geographic obstacles such as rivers.

Edit: I checked a few scenarios just now, randomly - and all VPs were at crossroads or bridges so the game requires you to keep supply lines secure or prevent the enemy of establishing them. There aren't any political VPs as fas as I could see. All VPs make sense from an operational point of view.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

The Victory Points are tactically sound for the scenarios/campaigns they are in.

The VPs may be good for the game, but one of my concerns is how it skews Soviet behavior towards objectives rather than the enemy. One of the books I read long ago with articles translated from Russian military sources summed up a fundamental difference between NATO and Soviet/Warsaw Pact doctrines. NATO and western forces historically focused on terrain and objectives; ie, who owned what and that's what we need to attack or defend. The Soviets and eastern forces historically focused on the enemy, to find him and destroy him, not unlike fleets on the ocean - which the vastness of the worthless steppes pretty much amounted to; ie, they didn't really care about the terrain, it was just something to maneuver on.

So maybe that's something to consider in the game. The first echelon Soviet forces shouldn't be more concerned about taking certain objectives than finding and destroying enemy forces. The second echelon Soviet forces would push through to take those intermediate march objectives and on to their final objectives. What I'm getting at is that the combination of VP locations and unit destruction used to determine scenario victory should not be identical for both sides. Maybe weight NATO more towards the VP locations and the Soviets more toward enemy unit destruction? Maybe a 60:40 vs 40:60 combination, something like that if it helps make each side perform more realistically according to their different doctrines. Just a thought...

I don't know where you read that. In my estimation that is exactly backwards. It's been NATO/Western Allies that have concentrated on destroying Soviet/WP units while at the same time looking to control as much West German terrain as possible.

Every Soviet treatise on Soviet tactics/operational doctrine I've ever seen, from WW2 through modern, they stress taking the objective over all other activities.

Having said that, you should notice that when the AI plays the Soviets it will try to take/hold dominating terrain and not just drive singlemindedly to the VP's. We already figured, long ago, that VP's should be more easily controlled by the surrounding terrain.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Skyhigh

I do see merit in the idea of adding more weight to NATO losses because of the infamous 2nd Echelon... But who knows, perhaps that's already included? I haven't studied the scenario scoring much yet.

Soviet and NATO units aren't scored the same. Soviet units are much cheaper per unit.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Skyhigh
So I don't see why both sides would need to have different VPs.

I am not suggesting different VP locations for both sides, just a subtle difference in how scenario victory is determined. Again, my concern is how well the game captures the doctrinal differences, and to provide some unique constraints and limitations for both sides (for either human players or the AI) to fight a bit more realistically.

I would like to see this game mature into a better sim of the opposing 1980's doctrines. But without some unique incentives for each side, all you get is a generic free-for-all for each side to do whatever it wants/can within its limited orders. Granted, there are already some differences in C2 and orders cycles that help to achieve this effect, which is great, but perhaps more can be done. Some subtle weight-shifting of the victory scoring may help.

This game is anything but generic. There are specific NATO/Soviet factors that are included in the game. That comment makes no sense.

What is not in the game is that the AI will do Soviet Doctrine down to the last period in the tactical manuals. That would mean that the gamer would always have to play as NATO. Since we allow you to play both sides in the game that means that the AI isn't specific to one sides tactical doctrine.

Good Hunting.

MR

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

This game is anything but generic. There are specific NATO/Soviet factors that are included in the game. That comment makes no sense.

What is not in the game is that the AI will do Soviet Doctrine down to the last period in the tactical manuals. That would mean that the gamer would always have to play as NATO. Since we allow you to play both sides in the game that means that the AI isn't specific to one sides tactical doctrine.

MR, you are missing my point. I already acknowledged the differences between the sides currently implemented in the game; it works for a game, fine. But if you guys really want to bump up the game to be a more realistic sim of the confrontation between opposing doctrines, then a little more could be done. Again, the way C2 was implemented in the old GDW Assault! boardgame series was pretty good; something more like that could be integrated into this game series. And the balance between controlling objectives and destruction of units could be reconsidered to be slightly different for each side. Nothing major, but maybe it would help the non-specific AI and human players play each side differently and more realistically. Or at least consider something as a game option or a scenario editor option so players can fiddle with it and see how it goes. So again, just a thought...

[Werewolf13]

ORIGINAL: Chisai

A suggestion to the game designers. Can you make victory point tactically sound. For example, capturing a cross road of a bridge is great and all but if the hill over looking the victory point is controlled by enemy units, tactically it makes the capture meaningless since I can bring direct or indirect fire on the crossroad. I am "trying to" create a scenario where a cross road is worth 10 points but the hills surrounding it are worth 100 to 500 point depending on observation values. Also, make the victory point invisible until capture. This will make it harder in the Human vs AI game since we won't know where the AI will concentrate it's force.

BTW, love this game.

Very cogent suggestion.

I would add that geographicly important VP locations that do not take into account control of the location are gamey as hell. I hate that - gaming the system that is. Like running up the side of a map so the AI or even human opponent only gets a shot at one side of a vehicle (combat mission anyone?), holding a hex for the last turn of a game and winning even though the hex is surrounded by enemy units and its one turn away from being taken back, units that fight to the last man as a cohesive organization, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on.

The above is perfectly acceptable for a game. It, IMO, is not acceptable at all for a simulation or even a serious game.

But then victory is subjective and measuring a subjective attribute objectively can be - difficult.

Wait.
What?

"Where was I going with this?", he says wandering off looking for the beer he left somewhere in the other room.

[CaptCarnage]

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326


Very cogent suggestion.
I would add that geographicly important VP locations that do not take into account control of the location are gamey as hell. I hate that - gaming the system that is. Like running up the side of a map so the AI or even human opponent only gets a shot at one side of a vehicle (combat mission anyone?), holding a hex for the last turn of a game and winning even though the hex is surrounded by enemy units and its one turn away from being taken back, units that fight to the last man as a cohesive organization, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on.

The above is perfectly acceptable for a game. It, IMO, is not acceptable at all for a simulation or even a serious game.

But then victory is subjective and measuring a subjective attribute objectively can be - difficult.

Come on, it is perfectly acceptable for a simulation. In real life there's points awarded as well to holding certain key positions - only in that case they talk of "You'd better hold that position son or you will have a one way ticket to the Gulag" as opposed to "nah would be nice if you can occupy that crossroad but if not, it's just a demotion and not the Gulag". So one is more important than the other and that's why certain VPs have a higher value than others.

And as far as I know these scenarios hardly ever end on turns but more by one of the 2 belligerents suffering so many losses they have to retreat and reorganize.
At that point the "gamulation" looks at the VPs you hold and at the losses. So if you hold a VP whilst surrounded by the enemy - thats fine because they are retreating so you have all rights to that VP.
If you are the one retreating, well you get some kudos for being on that VP but you suffered so much that I doubt you will score a victory in that scenario.

And another thing - there's talk here about holding a VP whilst not holding the high ground next to it. Well as far as I know, in this gamulation, if I have this situation I get my ass kicked from the VP so I'd better make sure I get the high ground as well! Of course you go for the high ground. Flashpoint requires you to do so.
Again, if you hold a VP and the enemy has suffered so many losses, they will also retreat from that high ground. So again you have the right to that position.