Matrix Games

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).