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.
Assuming you might celebrate it, Happy Easter, Harry!
If not, well happy day anyway
This is worth considering in scenario design.
During one of my responses I started drawing an analogy to Blitzkrieg-type operations of 1939 (Poland), 1940 (Belgium / France / Netherlands), and 1941 (Soviet Union) where the strategy was deep penetration via mechanized units bypassing and isolating strong points to allow the forces passed to "wither on the vine" before being eliminated by the slower follow on forces.
Didn't want to post it because it was a tangent to the point I wanted to make.
But, there couldn't be battle "victories" for the German player if strong points are defined by point circles friendly forces have to garrison as the mechanized units move deeper into enemy territory.
Victory comes in the Blitz circumstance by cutting supply routes to the isolated forces, and moving the mobile forces off the map, perhaps at victory point locations that designate enemy supply routes and the optimum maneuver routes for German forces.
Places a huge burden on the German player to move supply bases close to the front line forces and husband available resources to support maneuver instead of attrition operations.
Also kind of explains a discussion in another thread about the differences in Allied and German artillery doctrine.
Thanks, that reflects my thinking pretty well. Some the objective settings in a number of missions enforce the player (no matter if Germs, US or Brits) to go rather the attrition way of things, instead of manuevering. In RL many positions were made untenable by isolation and thus forced a defending player to retreat, even when not directly threatened at any time. While germans were stunningly successful with these Blitzkrieg operations early war, they were then constantly beaten by same methods from the enemies (russians above all else) late war, when german commanders were taken away needed flexibility by higher orders (Hitler in particular).
CO already has the means available to support Blitzkrieg, thus my idea, at least for a human player, to offer missions with less restrictive Vic Loc employment alternatively.
Telling and setting up an AI player to react to this more open nature of battle set up, is bits of a different issue though.
What´s also needed is sort of overrun assaults (yes, I repeatedly mentioned elsewehere), allowing armored units to actually sweep trough enemies, who do not have appropiate on hand means to fight moving armor (like late war Fausts, Zooks and Schrecks). Early war would see more of these situations occuring, but even late war, aggressive and well experienced leaders would rather keep moving in the face of a surprised, disorganized or otherwise rather helpless enemy.
In CO even a small infantry force is too oftenly able to hold up an armored thrust through pure presence on the battlefield and it needs to be "beaten" decisively, before it makes way for the superior armored force, enabling it to get on the move again. OTOH such an infantry force should also be capable to dodge enemy armor, hold position and wait for it´s actual enemy, the attacking infantry, letting pass the armor to be dealt with by rearward AT units. Could be combined with sorts of tick box (dodge/don´t shoot armor), as well as for armor (overrun) to not mess with infantry when not necessary and movement preferred.
Can´t tell if it´s the case, but maybe the game treats dug in/entrenched infantry to also have "abstracted" obstacles (mines ect.) within position, thus making an armored unit to cautiously stop instead of keep moving through?
Well..it´s just stuff from my wishlist, but when CO moves east front (or France 1940), I´d expect a lot of battles not quite evolving like the real thing, when overrun possibilities and other stuff is not given some more attention.