Attacking

[PoorOldSpike]

[Colonel Talvela]

It is amazing that this thread has over 1000 views.

[Copper]

Just goes to show that people appreciate POS' stunning screenshots.

[klanx171]

a most informative thread, and some nice pics.:)

[PoorOldSpike]

COMBAT FOOTAGE from actual game as Owl stages a classic armour-infantry cooperation action against my Brits.

PIC 1 - His Stugs shell a Brit-occupied building..




PIC 2 - The building falls..




PIC 3 - He sends in his troops to mop up the dazed Brit survivors..

[RockinHarry]

Would be interesting to see how you experts start attacks or apply defenses when there´s no silly "flags" positioned on any map! Beside the BORG effect, placing something like flags on a map to indicate targets to HUMAN players is the most unrealistic feature you can see working in a CM H2H game. Beside that you always know what your opponents goals are (the flags), you learn little with regard to terrain evaluation, surprise and other finer arts of war that real commanders had to employ.:rolleyes:

[PoorOldSpike]

Would be interesting to see how you experts start attacks or apply defenses when there´s no silly "flags" positioned on any map...

In every real-life military action big or small, there are specific objectives to take or defend (hills/ bridges/ patch of woods/ buildings, factories etc), so a flag marker is simply a way of marking those objectives, I have no problem with that, they simply serve as useful 'reference points', on which to base our tactics..:)
For example in Panzer Leader, Guderian recounts a conversation with Hitler concerning Russia in late summer 41 that goes something like this -
HITLER - "Can your troops make one more great effort?"
GUDERIAN - "Yes if they're given a clearly-understood objective"..

PS I've played a few CM games without flags and thoroughly hated it. For example in the Onion Wars several years ago they gave me a small all-infantry force in thick woods and told me I must attack AND defend.
"Attack and defend what?" I asked, "there are no flags or objectives!" but they just mumbled something about "do as you think best".
So I said "sorry, I won't fight blind", and resigned my command and left the Wars..

And only a few days ago I playtested a scenario that had no flags, I racked up a winning score at the start by killing two bunkers, then just sat out the rest of the game; I mean there was no reason for me to advance any further. But if there'd been a flag on the other side of the map, I'd have been forced to go for it rather than gift its points value to the enemy..

[RockinHarry]

Would be interesting to see how you experts start attacks or apply defenses when there´s no silly "flags" positioned on any map...

In every military action big or small, there are specific objectives to take or defend (hills/ bridges/ patch of woods/ buildings, factories etc), so a flag marker is simply a way of marking those objectives, I have no problem with that, they simply serve as useful 'reference points', on which to base our tactics..:)
For example in Panzer Leader, Guderian recounts a conversation with Hitler concerning Russia in late summer 41 that goes something like this -
HITLER - "Can your troops make one more great effort?"
GUDERIAN - "Yes if they're given a clearly-understood objective"..

POS, you miss my point actually! Flags are for vs. AI play and for H2H play the appropiate orders/references can be given in the briefing sections! A "flag" is ALWAYS known to both opponents and while in many cases it might be true that (tactical) goals for the opponents coincide, in many cases they do not. Resulting game play is unrealistic and foreseeable, which for me that means no fun. One exception is "dynamic" flags which decrease some of the problems, but IMO most H2H games do not need any flags placed on the map, if appropiate orders are given in the briefing section. Victory calculation can be a bit tricky, but can be solved by applying (special) rules. At last the game calculates victory points just by evaluating destroyed or captured units and the players can decide by their own, whether they reached their "objectives".

One simple example without flags: An attacker is given the order to gain possession of a hill commanding a village/town and its entries. The defender is given the order to just hold the line. The village and hill are part of this line and the defender has to evaluate by his own which parts of his frontline needs stronger or weaker defenses.

The point is that posession of the hill would be more important than capturing the village, as it would become untenable due to the commanding abilities of the hill to the village and its surrounding terrain.

Now players are free to decide themselves what their main (terrain) goals are and are not forced by the scenario maker to split forces on meaningless map spots (those that do not have any tactical value). I think the great majority of scenarios with more than 1-2 flags present on map have totally senseless flag placements, which has some justification when the scenario is meant to be played vs an AI opponent, but none at all for H2H play.

Personally this is not my style of play and there´s little to learn when going for those flags that have no counterpart in real life (military actions).

Yes, Guderian meant the "moscow" objective that he thought would motivate his panzer troops for another final effort. But placing a "flag" (on moscow), would mean in CM game terms to indicate that objective to the russians as well. Kursk was the perfect example for this. The germans placed a "flag" on the Kursk salient, the russians got notice of it and things went accordingly. This is how CM works on a small scale when flags are used, since they always (as said) indicate goals identical to both players. Usually there´s more ways to win a battle or a whole war and this also applies to CM battles.

You get quite another view of a battlefield, if you see no flags, believe me!;)

[PoorOldSpike]

..One simple example without flags: An attacker is given the order to gain possession of a hill... The defender is given the order to just hold the line...

What does "gain possession of a hill" mean exactly?
Why not just plonk a flag on the hilltop so that we'll know for sure who possesses the hill at the end?

And what does "hold the line" mean exactly?
Why not just plonk several flags along the line so we'll know without doubt at the end who holds them?

See, playing without flags means there are too many grey areas, wheras by using flags everything is clear-cut in black and white..;)

"If somebody tells me something is not a clear-cut black and white issue, I say 'Why the hell not?" - John Wayne

[Herr Klopek]

Rockin Harry,

I understand what you're talk'in about and CM does to some effect let you do this. In some scenarios that I've played (as attacker) there were a few flags to take but only 1 was the actual flag that counted. During set-up the attacker can choose which flag it is and away he goes, the defender has no clue which one is the active flag and must worry about both. This gives the defender the option to feint an attack somewhere else.

Wish more scenario designers used that option as it was good fun

Cheers

yc