Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!A little bit of history with To End All WarsBattle Academy 2 gets a release date!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Seizing and Holding an Objective

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Seizing and Holding an Objective Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/28/2013 12:49:41 PM   
AndrewKurtz

 

Posts: 530
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
Curious if there are tips on actually seizing and holding an objective? In Hofen, I find that, at the end, I do not have an objective because a single enemy unit is still within whatever range is needed to deny, however, my forces which were ordered to take it never seem to focus on completely securing the objective.

If tried simply ordering an attack on the objective. I've tried expanding the size of the objective. I've tried ordering defend and different formations.

Am I missing a trick or technique?

< Message edited by AndrewKurtz -- 3/28/2013 12:50:07 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/28/2013 1:25:52 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1837
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
I always micromange the final stages to clear it, Andrew. The AI does not place defensive screens where you would need them to clear these stubborn units, even if you widen the defensive box to full size, I've found. Best place each unit in the force yourself, at a wide enough position to either engage units within the objective circle, or to prevent entry, then, once they're in position, re-attach and give the HQ a defend in-situ order. At least that's what I've done in Hofen to clear them. Plus massive focussed bombards on each stubborn unit bothering you (uncheck 'avoid friendlies') until it moves - do them all one at a time on day 3 in Hofen.

Of course, you can always (very easily) reduce the size of the objective circle in scenmaker.....:) Joking, but, that said, some of them are very wide (not in Hofen, perhaps, but other scenarios).

< Message edited by phoenix -- 3/28/2013 1:47:34 PM >

(in reply to AndrewKurtz)
Post #: 2
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/28/2013 9:07:32 PM   
AndrewKurtz

 

Posts: 530
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
Interesting. How does the AI ever win if attacking and it can't manage this?

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 3
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/28/2013 10:36:07 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 619
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline
Well you need a 10:1 ratio over your enemy in strength (not necessarily in # of units, or in manpower)...it is not needed necessarily to entirely clear out every stubborn unit. The AI seems to win just by rushing so much combat power in, that they overwhelm you in numbers more than trying to eliminate every last unit as well.

(in reply to AndrewKurtz)
Post #: 4
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/28/2013 11:25:07 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7924
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Also is it a objective you get points for holding at the end or that gives you points over time for holding it?

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 5
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/29/2013 12:43:20 AM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 555
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewKurtz

Curious if there are tips on actually seizing and holding an objective? In Hofen, I find that, at the end, I do not have an objective because a single enemy unit is still within whatever range is needed to deny, however, my forces which were ordered to take it never seem to focus on completely securing the objective.

If tried simply ordering an attack on the objective. I've tried expanding the size of the objective. I've tried ordering defend and different formations.

Am I missing a trick or technique?


What works for me is first attaining the objective, and then working to build a cushion around the unit(s) which has attained the objective to assure there is no ability for the AI to counterattack effectively.

Involves combined arms with bombardment to reduce morale of attacking units, mobile units necessary to respond to fractures in the defense at the objective, and well emplaced and rested units to defend at the point of the enemy's counterattack.

It's more important with high value objectives (e.g. those with the most points assigned) than with lower valued objectives that are intermediate to the ultimate goal for the scenario.

By my experience, the AI is less inclined to use significant assets to retake a minor objective when it has been secured sufficiently to move onto the next high value target, even if the friendly force occupying it isn't sufficient to start counting up victory points.

Yeah, the ratio necessary to "secure" a contested objective is a problem, but not if you use your extra assets (those above the minimum necessary to occupy the objective with no risk of losing it to a counterattack) to either isolate counterattacking forces or push away those enemy units most prone to counterattack because of their proximity to the mutual goal.

The other aspect is to consider time and space necessary to win.

If you've got 10 days to accomplish all your goals, it helps to take the minor objectives between FLOT and a major objective before attempting to take a critical high value objective.

Puts the enemy at a disadvantage for its communications / supply status and truncates the enemy's ability to interrupt friendly resupply, allowing you as a commander to keep your own units relatively fresh for defensive or offensive operations. Also tends to isolate the major objective, allowing freer friendly troop maneuver into advantageous positions for taking the major objective.

Hope this helps.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to AndrewKurtz)
Post #: 6
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/29/2013 12:53:37 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1837
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
But in Hofen, Jim, you don't really get all those luxuries, do you? I mean - Involves combined arms with bombardment to reduce morale of attacking units, mobile units necessary to respond to fractures in the defense at the objective, and well emplaced and rested units to defend at the point of the enemy's counterattack. Is that how you won your Hofen scenarios? The bombardment you can do ,yes. But well-rested units? At Day 3 in the Hofen scenario? Mobile reserves? Seriously - you have these things available on day 3 in Hofen when you play it? How? I'm doing it wrong, clearly.

< Message edited by phoenix -- 3/29/2013 12:55:30 AM >

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 7
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/29/2013 1:06:25 AM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 555
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

But in Hofen, Jim, you don't really get all those luxuries, do you? I mean - Involves combined arms with bombardment to reduce morale of attacking units, mobile units necessary to respond to fractures in the defense at the objective, and well emplaced and rested units to defend at the point of the enemy's counterattack. Is that how you won your Hofen scenarios? The bombardment you can do ,yes. But well-rested units? At Day 3 in the Hofen scenario? Mobile reserves? Seriously - you have these things available on day 3 in Hofen when you play it? How? I'm doing it wrong, clearly.


What I suggested is almost straight from the story of Rommel's operations in North Africa (both on offense and defense) and Guderain's operations on the Eastern Front (both offense and defense).

They aren't "luxuries" but necessities for success, even if "success" is in delaying an overwhelming enemy force's advance.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 8
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/29/2013 1:25:04 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17779
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
The golden rule of operational command is "always maintain a reserve. Once you commit it, create another." That may mean thinning out the forces assigned to other objectives but without a reserve you have very little options for controlling the battle space.

The AI controlled forces have access to Secure doctrine. This is not available to the human player primarily because we wanted to maximise human involvement. A Secure mission is like a defend except that it can assign peripheral delay tasks on the likely approaches and can launch counter attacks to clear the perimeter. The human player is expected to manage these peripheral aspects manually by issuing Delay and attack orders directly. But to do this you have to maintain a reserve.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 9
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/29/2013 1:30:13 AM   
Deathtreader


Posts: 711
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

The golden rule of operational command is "always maintain a reserve. Once you commit it, create another." That may mean thinning out the forces assigned to other objectives but without a reserve you have very little options for controlling the battle space.

The AI controlled forces have access to Secure doctrine. This is not available to the human player primarily because we wanted to maximise human involvement. A Secure mission is like a defend except that it can assign peripheral delay tasks on the likely approaches and can launch counter attacks to clear the perimeter. The human player is expected to manage these peripheral aspects manually by issuing Delay and attack orders directly. But to do this you have to maintain a reserve.


Ah Ha!! <light bulb goes on>

That is good to know...........explains much. Now I know why the AI is often so much better with contested obj. than I am.

Good stuff!!

Rob.

_____________________________

So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 10
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/29/2013 2:54:49 AM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 555
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

The golden rule of operational command is "always maintain a reserve. Once you commit it, create another." That may mean thinning out the forces assigned to other objectives but without a reserve you have very little options for controlling the battle space.

The AI controlled forces have access to Secure doctrine. This is not available to the human player primarily because we wanted to maximise human involvement. A Secure mission is like a defend except that it can assign peripheral delay tasks on the likely approaches and can launch counter attacks to clear the perimeter. The human player is expected to manage these peripheral aspects manually by issuing Delay and attack orders directly. But to do this you have to maintain a reserve.


I've been accused of telling people how to build a watch to get to the point of answering "what time is it?"

Better explained than mine.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 11
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/29/2013 5:31:57 AM   
AndrewKurtz

 

Posts: 530
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

I've been accused of telling people how to build a watch to get to the point of answering "what time is it?"

Better explained than mine.



Too funny! Thanks to everyone for the comments. Very enlightening...however we'll see if enlightening can be turned into victory.

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 12
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/29/2013 10:23:49 AM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1837
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
All very interesting! Especially that the AI has that capability! Thanks Dave.

However, Andrew, you can get a decisive victory in the Hofen scenario (honest!) without any reserves at all, certainly without rested men (how you would acheive that by day 3 at Hofen and win is beyond me - but I would love to see the AAR proving it) and there are quite a few AARs showing you how in the old AAR section. As I said, how I have done it, without the luxury of reserves (they all have been, of necessity committed much earlier in this battle), is more or less outlined above. It sometimes seems to me that the pure military doctrine is a very different thing to the circumstances you encounter playing this game (maybe in real life too), which, with Hofen, for example, is that you have a bunch of very poorly trained VGs, no way near what you were promised, no where near enough, and a very capable (if small) defending force against you, with tight time limits to clear way too many objectives for the forces at your disposal. Because of the paucity of resources and tight time limits things like rested reserves vanish around day 2. To have rested mobile reserves to clear the objectives on day 3 you would have needed to put together probably 3 groups of such reserves (for 3 of the objectives) from the forces available, and if you'd done that you would never have got into the objectives in the first place. You're dealt a weak hand. But you still have to win, somehow. So, my simple answer was don't trust the AI to place defenders because it will place them too close to the centre of the objective and you won't thus clear the perimetres. Use arty as much as you can to batter units stuck within your perimetres.

That's not to say Dave's advice about reserves isn't beautiful and true. :) I just doubt you'll have that ability by day 3 in Hofen.

< Message edited by phoenix -- 3/29/2013 10:28:39 AM >

(in reply to AndrewKurtz)
Post #: 13
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/29/2013 10:43:51 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7924
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I'm awful for never having a reserve..every scenario I feel I need everything at once..not good planning on my part that though.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 14
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/29/2013 8:24:59 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
A point to consider for sure is that friendly and AI Obj Locs, as well as control radii are not necessarily the same (which is quite realistic and one the many features I like in CO). If they´re (almost) the same, then it can´t hurt to push a bit farther than necessary.

It´s a bit like with that "take that bridge" situation. If you HAVE that bridge, that doesn´t necessarily mean that you CONTROL it. Thus there´s need to push farther, build a bridgehead and clear all locations that the enemy can use to observe the actual crossing site and call/deliver effective fire on it.

< Message edited by RockinHarry -- 3/29/2013 8:25:44 PM >


_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 15
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/29/2013 9:22:26 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 555
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

A point to consider for sure is that friendly and AI Obj Locs, as well as control radii are not necessarily the same (which is quite realistic and one the many features I like in CO). If they´re (almost) the same, then it can´t hurt to push a bit farther than necessary.

It´s a bit like with that "take that bridge" situation. If you HAVE that bridge, that doesn´t necessarily mean that you CONTROL it. Thus there´s need to push farther, build a bridgehead and clear all locations that the enemy can use to observe the actual crossing site and call/deliver effective fire on it.


I view the objectives as intermediate steps toward winning the battle . . . making the enemy ineffective by the end.

Holding the bridge gets points, but controlling the bridge to either deny maneuver to the enemy, or increase friendly options for maneuver wins battles.

One minor issue I have with the game is that once an objective is bypassed and totally denied to the enemy, unless it's occupied it stops counting points to victory.

In theory, one could destroy the enemy forces yet end up with a less significant victory because the high value objectives 20KM behind friendly lines were not garrisoned long enough to add significantly to the point totals.

Sometimes causes me to reposition higher headquarters, base units, long range artillery, and some of the less mobile / essential combat support units in areas not necessarily conducive to support for units at the front.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 16
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/30/2013 12:37:24 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7924
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Jim it depends on the scenario maker whether they want you to hold it at games end..many objectives just last a certain amount of time..others only active at games end.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 17
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/30/2013 1:22:42 PM   
phoenix

 

Posts: 1837
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Wodin has a point, Jim. You could set up the objectives so that you got all the points on Completion only - that way you would only have to occupy them at the point they expired, which you could also set to whatever time you like - not necessarilly the end of the scenario. That's a kind of workaround, and easy to do. Not perfect, because, it you might set the objective to expire at day 5, say, of a 10 day scenario, guessing that would be a reasonable time to get in there, but events might prevent that, and then your chance of getting the points through a later occupation would be gone. It's a bit artificial, but might be better than having to constantly marshall lesser assets to hold and keep something.

< Message edited by phoenix -- 3/30/2013 1:24:15 PM >

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 18
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/30/2013 3:28:30 PM   
AndrewKurtz

 

Posts: 530
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
I could see how it makes sense that an objective doesn't change state simply because you move units away. It only changes state when new units are within the control radii.

So once you control it, it stays in your control until the enemy gets a unit within the control radii.

However, to be clear, this isn't my Hofen challenge:)

(in reply to phoenix)
Post #: 19
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/30/2013 4:24:30 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1815
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Not at all, it can change state with the state of units remaining inside the area ~ routed units don't add much to the control.

All that is required is a force preponderance of around 10:1 (exact force required varies a bit, depending on circumstances) ~ this pretty much forces the 'holder' to eject most of the enemy major formation occupying the area, but a battalion attack into a platoon outpost should pretty reliably succeed, even if the platoon holds for some time after the successful occupation.

Note that it takes a lot more to dislodge a steady and full strength artillery Bn than a platoon of MPs, or even tanks...

Control is lost for the enemy at *his* 10:1 ratio as well, so there is a wide range of 'contested' objective occupation... this is useful even when you fail to occupy, as it denies the enemy *his* occupation or completion points ~ although beware, sometimes one side only has a "defend" or 'maintain presence' order, rather than a "secure" one, and the other side must remove the enemy entirely to prevent success for *this* objective.


(in reply to AndrewKurtz)
Post #: 20
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/30/2013 4:56:47 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 555
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Jim it depends on the scenario maker whether they want you to hold it at games end..many objectives just last a certain amount of time..others only active at games end.


It isn't a case of not understanding what's necessary to hold at the game's end, but looking at early objectives which accumulate points for being occupied for a period of time during the scenario.

If I've been successful enough at clearing the area and crippling enemy forces to the extent there is little if any chance of losing it before the time necessary to occupy it for full points expires, I don't like the idea of assigning a line unit to lag behind while the points add up.

Though headquarters units at regiment and above tend to include personnel for MP duty in their line strength calculations, those "MPs" can't be used to free up line units for a move to the front once the objective is secure enough to require an MP detachment instead of a full line unit for protection / traffic management.

I can rationalize it as part of the attrition a force undergoes as it advances, but that attrition is more against individual units assigned to detach a squad for a garrison duty than assigning whole platoons and companies to one objective normally requiring a squad for security.

In all, it should be low on priorities for correction.

It's just one of those things I note when I play.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 21
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/30/2013 5:27:27 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1815
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
I never had a shortage of LOC troops to... you know, secure my LOC. I might leave a line-reserve unit nearby the most important/vulnerable/exposed to protect the softer elements, but HQ, Artillery and Supply units do a fine job of just sitting on a crossroads and denying it to the enemy if those are only in platoon or company (-) strength.

I frequently find that I have combat elements that are in no fit condition to advance, far less fight, and they can join in securing the rear area until they are rested and resupplied enough to be useful again. The idea that you *have* to expend good quality troops to secure anything within the rear area (beyond what the reserve can do while they are waiting to be committed)... is not one that I hold.

Even where the good troops are needed to deal with a serious threat, IMO they are better used to prevent the enemy actually closing on the region, with the actual local security performed by LOC troops.

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 22
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/30/2013 8:46:16 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7924
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Jim..yeah you may not like it but in real life your unit wouldn't have as much info as you have most likely so they'd keep a unit back to defend the objective just in case. Your looking at it from the perspective we have not the perspective a unit would have. We have a huge FOW advantage playing the game compared to if they where historical units and I think the timed Objective is a good way to make the player play in a realistic manner. We have borg spotting and this counteracts that to a degree.

I always move a high HQ unit and some arty units to a timed Objective...no problem then. I've never had to detach a line coy unit or forntline combat unit to hold a timed Objective once the frontlines have moved on. Looks like Leiste hasn't either. So again I've never in all the time I've played the game (since RDOA came out) had a problem.

< Message edited by wodin -- 3/30/2013 8:49:08 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 23
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/30/2013 9:22:26 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 555
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

I never had a shortage of LOC troops to... you know, secure my LOC. I might leave a line-reserve unit nearby the most important/vulnerable/exposed to protect the softer elements, but HQ, Artillery and Supply units do a fine job of just sitting on a crossroads and denying it to the enemy if those are only in platoon or company (-) strength.

I frequently find that I have combat elements that are in no fit condition to advance, far less fight, and they can join in securing the rear area until they are rested and resupplied enough to be useful again. The idea that you *have* to expend good quality troops to secure anything within the rear area (beyond what the reserve can do while they are waiting to be committed)... is not one that I hold.

Even where the good troops are needed to deal with a serious threat, IMO they are better used to prevent the enemy actually closing on the region, with the actual local security performed by LOC troops.

I said it wasn't a big issue, just something that bothers me.

The issue isn't "securing" the Line of Communications, particularly if there's a steady flow of troops coming from rear areas to the FLOT, it's being required to leave any unit far in the rear when they can be better sited for support closer to the front.

It's leaving potentially valuable troops, even if worn out and resting too far back in the rear areas simply because an uncontested rear area "needs" a unit to sit on an objective to gather points for victory conditions.

Doesn't facilitate the maneuver warfare I favor, because if I need to call on them from reserve in an emergency at the front, I don't like them so far in the rear for "administrative purposes" that they become depleted by the time they make it to the front.

Those units I don't mind leaving far in the rear are Army, Corps, and in some cases, Division level headquarters and base units that aren't as critical to supply distribution routing and command and control when there are sufficient regiment and brigade level headquarters and bases available to facilitate those communications closer to the action.

But, in uncontested areas, I'll even move them forward to shorten the lines between supply distribution points and the units that need them.

The whole point is, if the area is uncontested, securing the Line of Communications doesn't require the quantity of soldiers that are eligible to be assigned to the task.

If it turns out I did a bad job in clearing the area, I can live with a straggling enemy unit I didn't account for retaking the objective unopposed. Guess I'll have to divert some of those units I moved too far to the front to retake the objective again.

But, if I think the enemy's not interested in it any more, it makes no sense to divert line units to a garrison task simply because an uncontested objective "needs" to be occupied once cleared of opposition to add up victory points over the period of time a designer said it should be occupied before being left behind.



_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 24
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/30/2013 10:39:02 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7924
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Again it's most likely a case of the scenario designer giving players enough time to take it and gain some points. SO really it's a scenario designer issue. Maybe they are giving over too much time. I find timed OBJ's useful they are a good indicator of where you should be at a certain time. A good scenrio designer will time OBJ's to live for a period of time so they are not live well after being taken.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 25
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/31/2013 1:28:50 AM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 555
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Again it's most likely a case of the scenario designer giving players enough time to take it and gain some points. SO really it's a scenario designer issue. Maybe they are giving over too much time. I find timed OBJ's useful they are a good indicator of where you should be at a certain time. A good scenario designer will time OBJ's to live for a period of time so they are not live well after being taken.


OK, I'll accept that a scenario designer could be the cause of my concern.

Perhaps it came from reading the biography _Boyd_, about John Boyd who shook up the US Pentagon with his concepts of maneuver and battlefield control while defining the Observe, Orient, Decide Act (OODA) combat operation control loop.

Buried in his philosophies is that a commander should be less concerned with occupying space or specific objectives than with using the available space and combat power as a means to maneuver his opponent into a position where the opponent cannot avoid defeat (which made him an excellent fighter pilot instructor).



_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 26
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/31/2013 4:55:16 AM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
I follow a different approach with regard to Vic Locs in self made missions. I treat Vic Locs mostly to be the needed guidelines for the AI player, as off course without them, the AI won´t move/attack anywhere. A mission intended to be human played just needs "end goal" objectives and everything between the start lines and the end goal, should be on judgement of the (human) player and not artificially enforced on him. Maybe it´s not for beginning/average players, but the more interested and skilled player might like to take up the challenge to make own terrain, time and force allocation judgements, just like a RL commander.

Example St Vith (leaving aside that this is a tutorial mission): End Goal = St Vith town and related info from mission description = cut off germans retreating east from the bulge.

Without the intermediate Vic Locs of the original mission, the player is free to find the truely important key locations, avenues of approach and such, not binding him to any mission maker intermediate timings on Vic Locs, that a human player might find restricting and not suiting the players own operational/tactical judgements and plans.

This also takes away much the players natural knowledge on the enemy (AI) Vic Locs and likely actions, since human player and AI Vic Locs are very oftenly the same.

This off course limits a particular mission to be human played just from a single side and in case a player wants to play the AI side as well, an additional mission version needs to be made.

What I´d find to be useful in future CO, would be a set of Victory Condition templates, to be chosen from the player and give him the choice to either play the "one goal" method, or any other thinkable, with intermediate objectives ect. If well implemented, then just a single mission needs to be made, which has the different goal achievement methods already included by the mission maker. Playtesting times are greatly increased, but also is replayability of any mission that makes uses of offering alternative playmethods (hard - easier).

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 27
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/31/2013 6:28:18 AM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
Expanding on the St Vith mission example (human US player) and some evaluation:

"Lommersweiler" is of little tactical value, since it neither commands "Steinebruck" bridge, nor the main road leading up to "St Vith" via "Breitfeld". So this worthless village can be left to minor forces, following up a concentrated main thrust toward "St Vith".

Securing "Steinebruck" crossing is a self purpose.

"Breitenfeld" crossroads tactical importance is due to the 2 crossing points nearby. This can be figured by human player without the Vic loc.

Beside these, other important crossings are near "Neidengen" (and particularly the commanding hill about 1km west of it), "St Vith" and a minor one SW of "Lommersweiler". The latter, if not used by US human and once "Lommersweiler" is taken, can also be controlled by Arty (FO) from "Elcherath". Seizure of "Maspelt" with a reccon force could also help to secure the US assembly area and Arty positions by denying observation.

Human player could also choose to send minor forces via "Steinebruck" - "Weppeler" - "Schliersbach" to endanger german supply lines even farther to the east and possibly quicker.

These are major considerations, when just a main Vic Loc is placed near St Vith, although not even this is really essential. The main goal can be already well grasped by a descriptive mission briefing.

Thinking about it, St Vith does not really need a single Vic Loc for a human player at last. Winning goal then would be determined by Cas rates as well as denying the (unknown yet plausible) AI Vic Locs and winning conditions.

The challenge then would be to set up AI goals to deal with a humans possible considerations and actions.

< Message edited by RockinHarry -- 3/31/2013 6:30:54 AM >


_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 28
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/31/2013 12:26:56 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1815
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Even as it is, my approach to the Tutorial mirrors those in most respects:

First importance: Clear environs of Steinbruck.
Second importance: Prevent evacuation of as much of the garrison of Steinbruck as feasible.
Third importance: Screen, reduce and eliminate the defenders of Lommersweiler.

Fourth task then assumes first importance: CCB Drive to St Vith via secondary routes, occupy town and deny entry from north and south.
Subsequent tasks then involve the reduction of troops on the highway to St Vith, and occupation of the cross-roads, the screening and clearing of roads further to the East.

With the Eastern terrain cleared orientation to the West, and a crossing to the south of Lommersweiler by CCR permits the surrounding and destruction of Peiper before the end of the scenario time.

Lommersweiler and Steinbruck occupied by Artillery and Divisional Supply units, with the supply chain using the secondary route to the East of the highway, and direct E-W routes to their supported elements. CCR supply setup south of their assembly point in the SW of the map. Limit end-game activities of the CCA artillery and combat units ~ they have been in action for 3-4 days and the CCA depot will struggle to support two artillery Bn and full-on combat operations. CCB can be more heavily committed, and CCR is fresh, but generally more fragile. Divisional Artillery (the 155mm) can be heavily used to break-up concentrations of armour and armoured infantry...

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 29
RE: Seizing and Holding an Objective - 3/31/2013 12:29:08 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7924
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Some of us need more help though Harry. The objectives and timings give that help for planning. Without them I'd never consider playing the game. I'd just be way to confused about where I should go and what times I should be there..obj help me here massively, we aren't all as experienced or as good at these games as your goodself. Like when 3we were discussing TU the other day and you mentioned players being lazy by not doing something and I said maybe they don't realise the importance of or are to scared to start messing with that particular setting..always remember games have to also be playable by newbies and those who aren't as knowledgeable as your self.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

I follow a different approach with regard to Vic Locs in self made missions. I treat Vic Locs mostly to be the needed guidelines for the AI player, as off course without them, the AI won´t move/attack anywhere. A mission intended to be human played just needs "end goal" objectives and everything between the start lines and the end goal, should be on judgement of the (human) player and not artificially enforced on him. Maybe it´s not for beginning/average players, but the more interested and skilled player might like to take up the challenge to make own terrain, time and force allocation judgements, just like a RL commander.

Example St Vith (leaving aside that this is a tutorial mission): End Goal = St Vith town and related info from mission description = cut off germans retreating east from the bulge.

Without the intermediate Vic Locs of the original mission, the player is free to find the truely important key locations, avenues of approach and such, not binding him to any mission maker intermediate timings on Vic Locs, that a human player might find restricting and not suiting the players own operational/tactical judgements and plans.

This also takes away much the players natural knowledge on the enemy (AI) Vic Locs and likely actions, since human player and AI Vic Locs are very oftenly the same.

This off course limits a particular mission to be human played just from a single side and in case a player wants to play the AI side as well, an additional mission version needs to be made.

What I´d find to be useful in future CO, would be a set of Victory Condition templates, to be chosen from the player and give him the choice to either play the "one goal" method, or any other thinkable, with intermediate objectives ect. If well implemented, then just a single mission needs to be made, which has the different goal achievement methods already included by the mission maker. Playtesting times are greatly increased, but also is replayability of any mission that makes uses of offering alternative playmethods (hard - easier).


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Seizing and Holding an Objective Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.113