VPs

[Wdll]

What you say makes sense.
BUT, my experience with at least some enemy is this. They only commit a fraction of their force, usually scouts+ATGMs+snipers which can do a lot of damage before getting killed (points wise). He never has to commit more, he can just hide 80+ percent of his forces. With some lucky strikes, even if you get the VPs, he can get at least a draw. There is no incentive to commit more. The VPs (point wise) in flags are close to worthless in anything larger than a medium battle). What happens then is the other opponent says, why try to capture the VPs, I will do the same. After a battle or two, we have a handful of units from each side fighting while whole companies are hiding in the "woods".
Where if there was some strong bonus for the flags, that would create pressure to both sides to try to do something more than WW1 trenches battles.

If the "chicken" in the above battle/campaign, knew that the other player daring and capturing and holding the flags will get something more than losing tanks etc, for example either repair points or "points" toward the campaign (the points you get for winning/losing/draw), then it would make the battles in a campaign more interesting against them.
Even as an option.

All the above, IMHO.

[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.

[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