Wishlist: Capturing Objective Flags

[Cross]

Currently, an enemy unit can capture a flag the moment it enters the V-hex.

Therefore, if I am defending a V-hex on a crossroads and an enemy scout car drives onto the crossroads and is immediately destroyed, the objective is still considered captured by the scout. But it would be fairer to say that I still 'controlled' that crossroads.

This minor issue can become decisive in the last turn of games.

Then I thought that the V-hex should be captured when the unit leaves a hex. Which would solve the scout/crossroads problem. But if infantry enter an objective building and immediately 'dig in' to defend it...the objective won't be captured until they leave, which would not be right.

Additionally, if attacking infantry enter a V-hex, immediately get shot-up and routed out of the hex the objective is considered captured; but again it would be fairer to consider the objective still controlled by the defender.

Another idea is that units must sit on a hex for a whole turn before it is captured. The strength of this is that you can't just sacrifice suicide units to capture objectives in the end game without genuinely controlling/defending the objective.

The only possible weakness of the idea - that I can see - is that fast moving formations could no longer just cross a bridge or crossroads and immediately capture the flags. They would have to unload infantry, or have some units stop on the objectives for a turn.

Though this may be more realistic, because wasn't it normal practice upon capturing a bridge to unload guards or engineers to check it for explosives? And a crossroads would often have MPs or someone there giving directions.

I guess I'm saying, if it's a true objective, having a unit sit on the objective for one turn is more realistic than the current situation, and would make the 'gamey' capture of flags on the last turn difficult.

Any thoughts or ideas?



Cross

[DRG]

I have a variation on that I'm discussing with Andy and we'll weight the pros and cons and consider the implications to the code and that is the key. The code is stable right now and we've really pushed this far beyond anything we thought possible a few years ago as it is and ANY change made to it now needs to be considered from the "fallout" perspective as in " if we do this what could end up screwed up as a result" as some bits of code have very little impact on other bits of code but some bits of code have HUGE impacts on other bits of code

Don

[Cross]

I did think about the code issue when I was writing this. I was thinking about how units sit on abandoned equipment for a whole turn before the equipment is destroyed. But only you guys would know if something similar for V-hexes is feasible, and only testing would determine if it was stable.

This is not a big issue, just a possible improvement. The game is very stable and works great. And I prefer a stable game than a 'improved' game with bugs.


Cross

[codman]

Cross,

Interesting points and I wonder, based on Don's response if it would be possible to someday produce a list of "possible" changes that we could vote on or at least express our interest in to perhaps ease the ongoing development of the game.

All of us know that it's easy to have an idea but only the folks who "massage" the code on a regular basis have an idea of what's truly feasible and even then as Don points out there could be hidden repercussions that aren't readily apparent until someone accidentally bumps up against them and I'll second Cross's last post about "a stable game than a 'improved' game with bugs."

Steve

[Imp]

Originally Posted by codman

Cross,

Interesting points and I wonder, based on Don's response if it would be possible to someday produce a list of "possible" changes that we could vote on or at least express our interest in to perhaps ease the ongoing development of the game.

All of us know that it's easy to have an idea but only the folks who "massage" the code on a regular basis have an idea of what's truly feasible and even then as Don points out there could be hidden repercussions that aren't readily apparent until someone accidentally bumps up against them and I'll second Cross's last post about "a stable game than a 'improved' game with bugs."

Steve

What use would a list be unless it only includes thoughts they have had & managed to impliment in which case they may as well tell us when the patch is imminent like now.

Coming up with an idea is part of what the forums for post them you will be told if it
A) has any merit
B) might be possible

[codman]

Imp wrote:

>What use would a list be unless it only includes thoughts they >have had & managed to impliment in which case they may as well >tell us when the patch is imminent like now.

>Coming up with an idea is part of what the forums for post them >you will be told if it
>A) has any merit
>B) might be possible

Fair enough. I was thinking that by having a list it might cut down on the number of times they get pinged with the same question or questions.

Steve

[Imp]

I was thinking the reverse it would generate questions & comments to monitor which just shows we all think a bit diffrently which is no bad thing.

[gila]

Why fix something thats really not broke?,
I mean if it's not that big a problem anyway why risk causing other problems?
If you can't recapture a grabbed hex would that make such an outcome on a battle,unless it was close still it seems a little arbitary and not a good reason to change the whole deal because of one persons gripe on losing a battle on a narrow margin.

just my 2.5 cents worth

[gila]

Cross,my friend don't you agree just because you overwatch a VL,does not mean you own it?
You bring up bridges,a perfect example,how can one own the bridge by just having more assumed overwatch firepower on it?

Remagen, the nazi's had 88's and howitzers overwatching,albiet somewhat subdued by airtrikes but U.S captured the bridge before th gerry's could blow it up,so by capturing the bridge they disarmed the explosives,and the rest is history.
Quick grabs are not gamey,IMO only part of war

[Cross]

Originally Posted by gila

Why fix something thats really not broke?,
I mean if it's not that big a problem anyway why risk causing other problems?

Hi Gila,

One of the reasons that this game is the best top-down wargame available, is because it has been incrementally improved over the years.

As long as improvements are tested, there's not much risk; and if an 'improvement' causes unsolvable problems it can be removed and the game taken back to the last stable release.

Originally Posted by gila

Cross,my friend don't you agree just because you overwatch a VL,does not mean you own it?
You bring up bridges,a perfect example,how can one own the bridge by just having more assumed overwatch firepower on it?

Remagen, the nazi's had 88's and howitzers overwatching,albiet somewhat subdued by airtrikes but U.S captured the bridge before th gerry's could blow it up,so by capturing the bridge they disarmed the explosives,and the rest is history.
Quick grabs are not gamey,IMO only part of war

Yes, I agree that overwatch does not always mean ownership. But when we're talking about SP Victory Hex control, what we're trying to establish is who has the greater claim to ownership.

Whose flag should fly on a crossroads which a defender has occupied but then moved into overwatch positions, and then the attacker drives onto and is immediately destroyed? Therefore the overwatch firepower is not "assumed". Surely the defender has more control over the crossroads than the attacker? But currently the flag would switch to the attacker.

If the attacker was not immediately destroyed, and the crossroads successfully occupied for a whole turn, then I think the attacker has more claim to the crossroads than the defender, because the defender's overwatch was ineffective.

In your example of Remagen bridge, if the US had been immediately KO upon mounting the bridge, then I think the Germans have more control of the bridge than the US. However, if the US were able to sit on the bridge for a while - and search for or disarm explosives - then I believe the US have more control of the bridge than the Germans, despite German overwatch.

I'm fine with quick grabs as long as they actually grasp what they are grabbing, otherwise it was just a slap not a grab.

I also think 'the benefit of the doubt' should go to the defender when it comes to V-hexes. Therefore it should be harder for the attacker to take an objective than it is for a defender to hold one, and so making attackers occupy a V-hex for a whole turn is sensible, IMHO.

Originally Posted by gila

If you can't recapture a grabbed hex would that make such an outcome on a battle,unless it was close still it seems a little arbitary and not a good reason to change the whole deal because of one persons gripe on losing a battle on a narrow margin.

1. If I have effective overwatch, I control who can cross the bridge and who can't. Just because the last person to actually be on the bridge was an enemy unit (now a smoking hulk) doesn't mean I've given up control of the bridge.

Why should I have to drive across the bridge again, just to prove my control?

2. Sometimes you just don't have time to 'recapture' a V-hex - you really shouldn't have to recapture anyway - because it's the last turn of the game.

EDIT: I had my browser open for a while and didn't see Don's answer above. I'm fine with the game the way it is, but that won't stop me suggesting improvements when I think I see them.


regards,
Cross