Objective Flag Values

[RERomine]

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:

Both sides advance and try to take the various victory hexes on the map, dealing out casualties to the enemy whilst trying to reduce their own. Both sides get the same points to buy troops. Victory points per hex tend to be low, so points scored for destruction of units tends to be as equally important as taking objective hexes. 3 objectives deep in each sides own area are pointed relatively high, to reward a deep thrust into enemy territory if the shotgun type of victory hex assignment is used. NB- Victory hexes can overlap thus adding their value, there may not always be 21 visible.

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?

[vyrago]

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

[Imp]

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

[RERomine]

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.

[Wdll]

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.

[Cross]

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



.

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Cross

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
.

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.

[Imp]

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

[Imp]

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

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.

[RERomine]

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.