Re: Objective Flag Values
 

There are a lot of people who like to take a hands off approach to this, i.e. not change flag values. Some of those people want to take the flags because they are defined as objectives. Others, myself included, don't see the point of taking flags that aren't worth the force expense to capture. The nice thing about the idea of having flag values dynamically set before the battle is it doesn't stop anyone from changing them if they choose to. It is just to keep the values used more in line with the intent as force values increase in MBT. I honestly never saw any problems in the balance in WW2 since even the most expensive units are much less on average than in MBT.

Is far a the general purpose behind "meeting engagements", I agree the real objectives should be the opposing forces. It is a "movement to contact" and not really as objective oriented as other battles. That's one reason the flags are valued so low in "meeting engagements". They just seem to be a touch too low as there is no real need to take them. This puts the AI at a significant disadvantage. The AI advances, no matter what, even if the grouped objectives are in or near their deployment zone before the battle starts. But grouped flag placement is a different quibble and not relevant if they flags aren't needed to begin with.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

Sorry just read I only found out recently you can.
Press C (clear) & it asks you for a value that applies to all.
Then asks which side or neutral.
Now you place them on the map.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

Mass adjustments are easy. The only instance where all the flag values are set the same is when they are grouped during "meeting engagements". In all other situations, "meeting engagement" scatted objects, "advance/delay", scattered or grouped and "assault/defend", scattered or grouped, there are at least two different values used.

Another bonus to having the flags set by the system is to avoid disagreements during PBEM games. Increasing the value of flags favors the side that owns them (or can capture them easily) and decreasing the side that doesn't. By having a hands off option, it will limit those disagreements.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

Hi Ray,

I don't disagree with your proposal, but just thought I'd add some comment.

Very occasionally, in PBEM, I've disagreed with the way v-hexes have been set up; I merely send them back for adjustment...no disagreement :D

I'm probably more likely to disagree with where/values that the AI has set. :doh:

The process that I now use in PBEM meeting engagements:

• Manually set up 10 V-hexes on each side of the map (discard the the 21st v-hex on the map edge).
  
• Put the V-hexes on strategic locations like, bridges, hills, villages and crossroads.
  
• Have the distance to the centre line be about the same for both sets of 10.
  
• Do not set any V-hexes in the centre of the map (a 10 hex wide 'no mans land'). This assures both players will capture 10 each in the early part of the battle.
  
• Set the flags to the side that each player controls (so you won't know when they've overrun their own flags).
  
• Set all V-hexes to same value (because it's easy).
  
• I usually set them on the high end of the 5-250 range (sometimes higher for the rear v-hexes, when time allows or the the situation benefits).

I've found the above approach works really well for PBEM meeting engagements.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

I've actually done both in PBEM games, but more often than not I let fate play its game. The system placement of flags is also a problem, but I'm sure that would be a much more complicated fix.

The biggest problem I have with flag placement is when they are grouped for "meeting engagements". I had one recent campaign battle where all 21 flags were within 2 hexes of the AI deployment line. Of those, five were actually in the AI deployment area. If I had gone after the flags, it would have been more along the lines of an understrength "advance" than a "meeting engagement" The AI came out to fight, however, so I won by decimating their force. Didn't capture one flag.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

Flags Can be stacked. You can put several (the most I have ever done was 4, for 1,000 point, so I don't know if there is a limit on how many flags can be stacked in a single hex). I di several of the maps that come with the game and I noticed that the flags and their values did not 'stick' to the map. Don't know if that was because they didn't stick or someone unstuck them.
In the 'swamp thing' (Basara) map I put doubled flags worth 500 points at the entrance to the maze I so labourously created in the swamp. It looks completely impassable but there is a maze of hidden paths thru the swamp and I was leaving a clue. Not sure if that worked or not. Nobody in their right mind fights a battle in a swamp, which might have been why the Mullahs and Saddam fought there.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

Actually I'd say a situation like that is a very good use of objective flags. Since it was a very limited pathing area this helps the AI and indicates the importance of controlling that path.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

Having been an avid ASL player for 25 years now may I make some suggestion for alternate victory conditions?

First thing I should say is that ASL stands for Advanced Squad Leader and is a board game with the same top down view as SP and same unit scale but is entirely WWII.

There is literally hundreds of different Victory Conditions (VC) that different scenario designers will use. Here are a few examples:

The attacker wins by having more good order units within road boundary (as determined by map, the grid would be written out). If the attacker doesn’t have more good order units then the defender, the defender wins buy default. You can change the wording to Player 1 and Player 2 rather than attacker and defender.

The rule book for ASL also has an index with definitions of specific terms: Good order means any armed, unbroken unit not held in melee and any mobile armed AFV with functioning main armament.
Notice the word “mobile” in the sentence, this implies a vehicle which is not immobilized in any way.

Some people have been known to read between the lines when it comes to winning in ASL so scenario designers would have to modify the wording of VC as follows:
The attacker wins by having more good order infantry units within road boundary (as determined by map, the grid would be written out). In the special rules section of the scenario it would be clearly stated that crews may not voluntarily abandon their vehicles.

There is VC that can be two fold as well, another example: Player 1 must have more good order unit on any hill hex of Hill??? Without losing twice as many casualty victory points as player two.

I think this type of VC would work, what do you guys think?

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

Those conditions could certainly make the game a lot more tactical and objective. The way I see it, such score could be possle in two different ways. Automatic and manual. If automatic (built into the code) I would hate to see the coding job needed to get the computer to understand them, so it may not be a viable option.

As Imp as shown, however, there are manual scoring options available which stress the importance of objectives (which explains why he's not trying to advance any furture in our game. Crap, I'm got to go in after him! Sorry. Tangent.) So it could be incorperated into a spreadsheet and manually counted, as I guess it is done in ASL. That has a potential of being time intensive however.

If such scoring could be done, I personally would care to have the option of switching it off. Some games should be simple, but other games are a lot more fun with some context/specific goals. Again, it might require miles and miles of code that Don and Andy will never agree to doing (and I wouldn't blame them.)

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

I think just physically counting isn't that time consuming and if there is a disagreement with the count just post a screen shot for a neutral third party.