Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch
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.
|
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.