Objective Flag Values
 

Is it possible to tie the flag values to the value of the forces fighting for them? The value of the objective flags, specifically in "meeting engagements" are so low they aren't worth fighting for most of the time. It really depends on the force values involved, but those force values seem to be much higher as battle dates approach present dates or future dates.

From the game guide for Meeting Engagements:

In my opinion, the intent isn't being met, i.e. the objectives are rarely as important as destroying enemy units. I will explain. In WinSPWW2, grouped objectives in a "meeting engagement" cost 65 points each. There are 21 of them for a total of 1365 points. A battalion sized force can run around 4,000 points, depending on what nation is involved. Objectives are worth about 14.5% of the points on the board. With WinSPMBT, the grouped objectives are still 65 points each, but a 2009 battalion sized force can run up to 20,000 points. In this case, the same objectives are worth only about 2.5%. Because the cost of the 2009 battalion is so much more than a 1941 battalion, the objectives have been all but relegated to insignificance.

If there was a way to dynamically tie the value of the flags to the total force fighting over them, then they will be restored to the importance they are supposed to have.

OK, where's Don? :hide:

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

Excellent post and I completely concur. I'm excited to the feedback on this one.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

Good call Ray as you say if playing with winning as the main objective in meeting engagements esp going after the flags becomes an irrelivance. In some ways this may be justified & do play with a house rule sometimes that vic hexes & any points they are worth are ignored the winner is based simply on destruction of forces. Also do the reverse & give specific flags very high arbitery costs as victoty is primary dependant on controling them.
It changes the nature of the game adding variety & Weasels alternative I use for the same reason. It only really works for meetings as it stands as it does not take into account the diffrences in force sizes in other engagement types at present.

As you say the best option would be to have vic hex value based on force value or even if possible add a field to allow you to enter a figure or % of force.
Even having the adjustment steps as say 50 rather than 5 would help but it takes a lot of mouse clicks to set them.
They have lost there signifigance in MBT & perhaps for attacks assaults should be worth more though I think they already are. Very hard thing to judge as so many variables but they need to be worth enough that owning the majority could tip the balance on the outcome which is what I think Weasel & Kiwi tried to address

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

While the disparity is there in "advance/delay" and "assault/defend" missions, it's not nearly as bad. The objective flag values are higher for "advance/delay" missions and higher still for "assault/defend" missions. That coupled with the fact that value of the delaying or defending forces is lower (50% or 40% of the advancing or assaulting force respectively) and the flags are worth more makes these missions more in line.

Using the 2009 battalion as an example of the assaulting force, that's 20,000 points assaulting, 8,000 points defending and 3,820 points for flags (this may vary some), we have the flags worth a touch over 12% of the points on the map. You are getting into the range that makes flag points hard to ignore. On top of that, the defending force has them all. You have to go after them or you lose.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

I would LOVE to see an increase of points for the flags. Having them (as an option or auto) depend on the actual points used for the forces would be great. As the other people said, the VPs for any medium to large+ battle (in points) especially for campaigns is so low it is more of a suicide to go to capture them with anything other than a scout or something. Also the way it is now, people just keep their more expensive units way in the back, send scouts and let some artillery kill any vehicles detected. It just feels forced/fake. If the flags were worth far more points then people would actually risk more of their units than now.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

I manually adjust the v-hex values in every battle I set up. It only takes a couple of seconds if you change all to the same value.

The maximum value is 250 (IIRC) which x21 = 5250



.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

What if they just set the flags for a default value that could then be raised or lowered. As far as I understand it, battles are more often about achiving objectives than destroying units. I realize most front line troops probably don't feel that way (particulalry tankers from what I hear), but that is a reality. If you don't achive your objectives in a battle, you haven't succeeded.

As an expreme example, if you made every v-hex worth, say, 500 points, it would certainly encourage people to capture them. It would throw off the Decicieve/marginal scale, as someone with all of the objectives, but few units left on the field could still get a decicieve victory, particulaly in 1946. Just a thought.

I'm an avocate of inclreasing the increment of the increase/decrease buttons. Also if all of the objectives could be selected and changed at once, that would be good. Now I'm dreaming a little, if you could just type in the value you want, that would be great.

My 2 cents. I know it may not be worth much, but there it is.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

That is certainly an option. I just figured some sort of programming approach would be more dynamic and user friendly. While I don't know how the code is set up, it might be possible to set it up so the are based on some percentage of the projected total force present. Since we don't know exactly how many points will be used, the best that can be done is basing it on the projected total. This projected total will be available before unit selection for main force in stand alone battles or support points campaign battles are used. I say projected points because you can never be sure someone will use all the points they have available for purchasing units. It is the only solid value available before the map complete with flags is available for view in the purchase screen.

The appropriate percentage would be subject to debate, but the general standard set by WinSPWW2 could be used. For grouped flags in a WW2 "meeting engagement", flags are 65 points each, giving each flag a value of .8% of the total force points based on 4,000 points for each side (8,000 total force points). If the total force points increase to 30,000 as very possible in an MBT battle, those flags would be dynamically set to 240 points each. This doesn't put the player into the position of having to determine the appropriate flag values to maintain the balance and significance intended in "meeting engagements".

It gets a bit more complicated if the objectives are scattered since they seem to run four different values: 95, 120, 220, 230. Percentages can still be used here as well. It's just a matter of calculating it out.

The value cap is somewhat constraining, but there isn't anything magic about the constraint. It is likely the constraint is based on the programming data type selected for the variable, but that data type could be changed as well. That's all up to the people with the source code to determine. From a programming perspective, it can be done. Pretty much anything can be done. It boils down to practicality, which is a question I can't answer without the source code.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

The reason it would be nicer if the programe did it is if you want to keep the locations selected by the computer you have to adjust each flag value individually as far as I know.
Pressing C & entering values clears the flags for you to position, this is fine if thats what you want & do it a lot placing them on sensible locations.

I just set up a few games & as the force size grows the flags become insignifigant.
If however you go for a small engagement they are worth 1.5x the cost of your force.
900 points gave me flags with a value of 70 (1470 total) twice.

If its burried deep in the code & to much hassle to muck about with fair enough after all just trying to take hassle out of set up

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

While I agree the values of the objectives makes them somwhat less then useful, given the max value of objective hexes vs the unit costs in WinSPMBT, for determining victory they are VERY useful for scenarios vs the AI.

I've never sat down and worked out the exact corrilation but the AI looks at "distence to closest objective" and "point value of objective" to determine where to send its troops. So it may decide to temporarily bypass a nearby low point objective for a higher value one. This makes the AI a little less predictable for the player.

In player made scenarios you can use objective hexes to encourage the AI to take a certain path.

You can also use a cluster of objectives to encourage the AI to go to a certain area first.

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.

Re: Objective Flag Values
 

I vaguly remember this subject being chewed over several years ago on the Blitz. I don't remember if it was WW2 or W@W. IIRC, there were code issues with increasing the point values past 250. I would guess that the values of the flags are used elsewhere in the program, which means the Law of Unintended Consequences (AKA Murphy) is laying in wait for that sort of change.
Matrix did allow the flags to be hidden, restricted to one change (First past the post in legal terms) and not showing up until a certain turn. I almost forgot, Exit flags, which I really enjoyed. Exit a unit off the map at that flag and you got points for it.
Ultimately SP is Clausewitzian (Is that a word?) in that once you destroy the enemy forces, there is nothing to permit you from carrying out your mission, no matter what that mission is, which make the flags unimportant. Different types of flags are useful when using an indirect approach. Since the indirect approach can also be used to destroy the enemy, one argument was that the flags are just for the Program and scenario designers. The man at the top of the ladder confessed to turning the flags OFF when he played. That shocked everyone and started a trend.