VPs

[Kartoffel]

Neither side is willing to fully commit because the risks of doing so outweigh the benefit.

In strategic war, supply lines and logistics are the most important objectives. Capture the former and destroy the latter and the enemy is toast, to a large extent regardless of other factors.

Some of the strategic filters into the tactical aspect of this game when you are forced to fight the next battle without refitting.

Wdll suggestion makes sense for PBEM, but I think vs the AI the game works fine.

[Wdll]

Thank you Kartoffel. That's my point.

[Imp]

Flags are focal points whether AI or player controled they are an objective to head to. No neeed to get there quick if playing another player covering the paths to while slowly working others towards is logical. They work fine when grouped or better still if placed in 2-7 groups on sensible objectives, shotgun however does not work well in my view for PBEM just go for the ones reasonably close to each other & ignore the rest. However vs the AI it changes the nature of the game as its harder to predict where it might come from. Having said that the AI often completly ignore them till mid game when it will try & swing round on them much like you might do.
If however your opponent treats meetings as delays hardly getting off his start line as I have come across the simple solution is stop playing them or treat as a delay & go for a big push on his flank

[Wdll]

You cannot go for the push against a human opponent who plays like this. You will end up losing more units even if you "conquer" most of the map. Where if the flags were worth more in some way, it would force the other opponent to not always turtle up.
As it is now, if one player decides to turtle up, there is nothing the other player can do than to also turtle up. There is no reason to risk even a single platoon of anything.

[Kartoffel]

Originally Posted by Wdll

You cannot go for the push against a human opponent who plays like this. You will end up losing more units even if you "conquer" most of the map. Where if the flags were worth more in some way, it would force the other opponent to not always turtle up.
As it is now, if one player decides to turtle up, there is nothing the other player can do than to also turtle up. There is no reason to risk even a single platoon of anything.

In first person shooters (FPS) this tactic is called "camping".

And is much derided by some players as a n00b tactic.

K.

[Hermit]

I understand the "lemmings" theory as well, and in many "real" cases, destruction of the enemy force is the objective. But as Wdll points out, it makes for strange games sometimes. In "real" combat, taking ground or seizing a particular objective is sometimes as important, or more important, than the amount of enemy forces one destroys. I like very much the idea by Tim of modifying a map before battle and simply acting as if you need to capture a realistic objective.

Andy, you didn't respond as to whether it would be difficult to modify the code as I suggested. That manner might actually allow BOTH types of games to be played. If destruction of the enemy force were more important, the multiplier could be left at 1. If seizing an objective were more important in that game, you could use the multiplier to make VP's worth much more.

[Mobhack]

Modifying the code would require data to be added to all save games - including scenarios, campaigns etc. Just like changing VP from the original 1998 byte to a word would do. That would require a data massage of all save games, scenarios, campaigns etc. It ain't going to happen.

VP come from killing the enemy. Ground is only useful if it aids in killing the enemy (or stops him using it against you). Preserving your own force is vital, this is not hollywood or paintball.

If your opponent decides to "camp out" in a meeting engagement then concentrate your forces and overwhelm him locally since he has then given up the initiative, dump your arty on his campers and take him in bite-sized chunks.

Try using larger maps so the force to area ratio is low in PBEM meeting battles, and maybe up the turn count. Both of these favour manoeuvre over head-butting tactics.

Use scouting and act cautiously but with due use of aggression when needed, don't simply blunder into ambushes.

In other words, use appropriate tactics. have a plan, use a reserve, and don't just blunder head first into the opponent using the AI's tin lemming tactics.

The game will never be a "capture the flag" exercise.

Andy

[Wdll]

Oh my.
I will try to not take personally the "Hollywood" remark.
Preserving of your own force is the core of the issue here, the flags are not. The flags would be a solution. Flags are irrelevant which makes the battles of a large PBEM campaign nothing but a WW1 battlefield.

This is not about playing "capture the flag".
I understand the coding issues, but the rest I don't agree with (as a gamer).
For the plan you say to work then you have to edit the map settings for each map of a PBEM campaign before it begins so that it fits you and is against the enemy. Increasing the length of the battles etc.
Even then, if you play a large PBEM campaign (modern 30K core, largest map settings) you cannot win like that. You will have to just send scouts and slowly move ahead, but you can't win with scouts only. The camper has a huge advantage, you will lose units, far more units if you want to advance. Else, if you play it very carefully as you say, and as you have to, all the battles will end at the final turn with each side losing a few scouts and 90%+ of each's sides units, way in the back, safe from each other, without firing a single shot.
After a couple of battles you both end with buying infantry only, snipers atgms for just in case, and artillery. So basically you end up with a WW1 campaign. And even then, you don't end up using the infantry apart from scouts because you will end up losing more etc.
If you want I would gladly play a PBEM with you and you will be able to see how playing as I say, makes the game boring as hell. Of course you are probably too busy or just don't want to, play with me, that's ok, I actually don't have time for it either, but I can give you nothing but my word that the game slows dowwwwn a looooot. Not the slow down of careful playing, but the trenches warfare issue.

It's a pity that it can't be changed due to coding issues.

[Hermit]

Thanks for your explanation of why it's not feasible Andy. I always appreciate it when someone takes the time to help me understand, rather than just giving an answer. Keep up the great work on the game.

[Imp]

Even then, if you play a large PBEM campaign (modern 30K core, largest map settings) you cannot win like that

I have to disagree with this statement, if he is dug in its hard going otherwise on most maps vis settings easily doable, sometimes the combo it gives can be a real headache. Andy summed it up he has given up the initiative & in my view he who loses it loses 95% of the time. Hes not going for the flags but neither are you your goal is simple recon in force find those pesky ATGMs then decisive strike on one of his pockets. After that you can fade away you have now a minor victory or you might be in a position to move forward because the rest of your force was covering any supporting action he tried. If neither side is dug in the attacker is generaly the one inflicting the damage because the other side is reacting to him. As I said you have now turned it into a delay game your local force should outnumber him 3:1 or more & if you have CM arty & he wants to sit there thanks for the points.
Its what makes this game so good every tactic has a counter you just have to adapt.
You are correct it will cause a slow start but then it should be otherwise you find ATGMs the hard way & if you have support vehicles & he don't hes in big trouble after the initial scout. Once played vs a side made up exclusivly of snipers ATGMs & arty. Boring as hell thousands of 3% shots but once I realised wiped him out completly at some cost to my poor infantry as they were tasked with ATGM killing. Once gone vehicles just roled up beside the snipers & said goodbye. Do not advise doing this but he p***** me off for wasting my time. My other point still stands if hes not playing meetings as meetings & its ticking you off why are you still playing him. If people don't enter into the spirit of the game or buy silly forces I assumed most people never entertain them again its supposed to be enjoyable after all.