Flag Talk

[Splork]

I just finished a game where I held the flag and was clearly controlling the battle, yet the flag remained neutral and I lost because I was aggressive and forced the issues losing about 170 men to my opponents 90, and 2 vehicles to his 1. My opponent had units in the sphere so no one controlled the flag.

Don't you think this way of doing flags negates the point of attacking and holding an objective. What is the sense if, like you stated above, you can sit a HQ unit within 50m and force the flag neutral while the other person has a company in the area. What is the point of flags then?, might as well just play a battle of attrition instead.

I think the advantage is that it makes you truly secure the flag. For instance, take the case of a flag on a ridge. If flag ownership were just determined by relative force strength in a flag's zone of control, you'd end up with both guys trying to pack their men close to the flag on their side of the ridge, with no incentive to root out the other. This way, it makes you really clear out the area around the flag and attack through the flag, rather than just try to pack men onto your side of it.

---

If you want no flags, import a map with one 100 point flag on it which is on an island 100 meters from all access. The computer will not add any more flags - voila - your score will be based on casualties alone.

The problem I've always found with no flag games is that there's no incentive to move.
Everyone just squats in the bushes waiting for the other guy to expose himself (that sentence is not at all iffy, if you read it in context).

The first guy to move usually dies, and loses, because of the way CM figures scores based on casualty points relative to the total casualties of both sides.