Flag Talk

[Weasel]

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.

---

You have a good point there, but I still don't like that a single crew or something silly like that can negate your control of the flag.

[Splork]

Yeah - I've definitely been on the wrong side of that - usually with a bunch of vehicles around the flags and the other guy with one hiding unspotted squad. And it's always frustrating.

But usually I adopt a "level everything within 50m of the flag" approach, with the idea that if I have enough troops around it to feel like it should be mine, I also have enough troops to kill whatever the other guy has in the area.

[Weasel]

I have learned my lesson, and will use this tactic to my advantage in the future. I was playing the flags like Steel Panthers, I am in the building so I control it so the frustration was high.

It would be nice if game manual actually went into all these things.

[Bear]

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.
Sort of Combat Mission meets Alice Through the Looking Glass.

Yes, but with a well tested scenario this sort of gamesmanship is minimized or eliminated.
That is why so many prefer quick games, where gamesmanship dominates the end result. Little to do with tactics, quick games focus on micro managing the force pool and gamesmanship. Nothing to do with tactics in an historical perspective.