You must capture all the victory locations in order to win the battle. If morale breaks you can capture an additional victory location. I don't have much of a problem with that. This is pretty standard Close Combat so I have grown accustomed to it.
Close Combat is all about Victory Locations. The battle (for the map) does not end until all victory locations have been captured(whether it be by battle or the enemy leaving the map). The ENGAGEMENT ends after the timer goes down or morale breaks, but the battle will continue until the victory locations are all captured. So it is truly a race against time to capture the victory locations.
Maybe knowledge of the rules is taken for granted, because I think in terminology of the older games.
-An individual battle (like with a 15 minute timer) was technically called an Engagement.
-A meeting engagement happens when both sides enter the map at the same time(most of the map will be gray)
-there are also Axis and Allied defense engagement, and usually a bonus is given so the defenders can 'dig in' with fox holes, because they have time to do so.
-if roads are considered in the map (like with the old strategic maps in previous close combats) then you will enter the map from the respective side of the map. So if there are roads on the map, you'll enter the map from that road (like if you enter via a west road, you will deploy on the west side of the map, along the road).
-If the defeat is not total, the fight will continue so it will be a continuing battle.
-if the battle group leaves the map and the enemy enters the map while no one is there, the enemy takes the map without a fight.
It all made logical sense and TBF carries on that tradition well. But sometimes there just is not enough room on the map and so even if you occupy the map, the attacking enemy can get a freebie and take a strategically significant part of the map when, in reality, you would never let that happen. Maybe the solution to this would be to make the boundaries of the map more contoured, rather than look at it like a strategic grid. You can deploy along the EDGE of the map in a kind of vague/hazy zone, or you can have units enter the map when you want (like bring in anti-tank guns after a given period of time). Also, the developers can manually tweak the deployment zones so certain structures CANNOT be occupied by attacking troops in an attack engagement.
I think TBF has issues with calculating the end descriptions, but in old versions it would be a TOTAL victory if you captured all victory locations. But if the enemy occupies even a single victory location, you must keep fighting for the map. It is just the rules.
But it can be annoying in meeting engagements where you and the enemy deploy in a small area and have to rush outward ASAP. But this has always been this way and I haven't found it to be a problem in this version unless you are pushed back and must counter attack.
I haven't noticed much of a problem with this in TBF, though, because the strategic map is more simple, like with A Bridge Too Far, and is self-guided, rarely giving you strategic choices other than the occasional choice to attack here or there and letting you choose how long to wait before an attack.
My problem was always with the deployment mode, especially in a continuing battle, because how would the enemy not notice you bring a tank into an isolated area of the map? So in my opinion it would make more sense to isolate surrounded units and prevent heavy reinforcements, if any at all, rather than let someone pack in a bunch of tanks without you or the enemy noticing.
But again, this isn't a big deal in this release as the battles are more fast paced (especially outside of Africa) and you don't have to worry about the strategic map that was in old close combats, where maps will have to be fought over again and again, starting at different corners of the maps depending on roads, etcetera.
< Message edited by Saturnian -- 11/6/2019 8:43:21 AM >