What force morale and tactical maps represent

What force morale and tactical maps represent (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem

Message

xe5 -> What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 4:31:02 PM)
Having read yet another rant against the Force Morale (FM) battle option, it seemed appropriate to revisit why, in CC's overall design, FM makes it a more valid simulation. Real-life battles are not about fighting to the last man. Battles are usually fought until one side (sometimes both) has had enough. That side then withdraws, effectively ceding some territory to the winner. The 6 - 15 teams in a Battle Group (BG), a force that is platoon(-) to company(-) in size, represents, in battle, the efforts of a battalion, regt/brigade or even a division. When a CC battle occurs, those larger organizations are presumed to have other BGs, not represented in-game, fighting in the same sector (strategic area). BGs, being the sole in-game representatives of larger organizations, determine the outcome not only of their own battle, but the battles of the organizations unrepresented BGs. If your BG wins big in a battle, the game assumes the organizations unrepresented BGs also won big that turn. The battle maps represent an entire strategic area. Elst, which is .7 square kilometers in size, represents a strategic area that is twenty times larger at 13 square kilometers. Thus the 12 VLs on Elst... [image]local://upfiles/31774/161C3E752377470395BED2588AD91743.jpg[/image]

xe5 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 4:33:12 PM)
...represent 12 different parts of the Elst strategic area: [image]local://upfiles/31774/0F6F6B2BCA9B4E3E8780B866A897D1A8.jpg[/image]

xe5 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 4:39:51 PM)
So when a US BG attacks onto Elst from Bemmel and defeats the enemy by FM in the fighting around VL #12... [image]local://upfiles/31774/ED21C79AFF344043959F98DBEA902E67.jpg[/image]

xe5 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 4:46:14 PM)
...it represents US BGs parent organization moving into the Elst strategic area and attacking to the northwest... [image]local://upfiles/31774/C62C3FCEB5DB4BD8AB1B6380DF23C53D.jpg[/image]

xe5 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 4:51:16 PM)
...when, as a result of its success on turn 1, the FM bonus gives the US additional VLs on the tactical map... [image]local://upfiles/31774/7581C39C3D5B4009810A7CAE97B7675D.jpg[/image]

stolidog -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 5:01:10 PM)
Great post and reminder for everyone on the FM, I remember a fairly lengthy explanation by one of the designers on FM when CC4 came out being posted on the SSI forums, I wish I had saved it somewhere,

xe5 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 5:05:14 PM)
...in the strategic area this represents the US having advance units at the VLs it controls, with the area to their rear yet to be completely cleared and controlled. [image]local://upfiles/31774/5275962DA26E477D8803D1C57C2A4D48.jpg[/image] So the VLs gained or lost as a result of FM bonus or penalty, simulate what the unrepresented BGs in the parent organization achieved that turn, based on the results of the Player's BG.

7A_Woulf -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 5:32:23 PM)
In my opinion, the problem with FM is that you don't clear the area between the additional VL's and your in-game captures; -In reality your soldiers would sweep the area to clear it of enemy units. In the upcoming battle you either deploy in what you physical captured or you might find yourself surrounded by wicked, sneaky enemies... [X(]

Peterk1 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 5:39:21 PM)
Right, but now the player is stuck defending #10 completely surrounded by the enemy since the imaginary "other part of the organization" has conveniently disappeared or moved on to something else. And it will be a death-trap for the handful of units who set-up there. And the black space in the middle will only get cleared by my guys. Which I would be doing anyways on the next battle, even had the bonus flag not been handed to me. Nice idea, but doesn't quite work in my opinion. I don't see any benefit to the bonus VCs most of the time. One of the exceptions will be when you get close to the end of a battle on the map and the enemy owns very few flags and they let you attempt a flag rush to end things early. But usually the bonus areas are the equivalent of a poisoned pawn in chess. Yes, you have it and can take it, but you will probably get clobbered if you take it.

xe5 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 5:52:28 PM)
In reality, do you "sweep the area clear", or do you concentrate on capturing VLs? If you "sweep", how do you remember where the enemy had control? If you concentrate on capturing VLs dont you play lots of battles with mixed up map control with pockets of uncleared territory like the pic below? [image]local://upfiles/31774/AF38C484B3AD4C068F6FB5F0C0E5D18B.jpg[/image]

Peterk1 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 6:05:20 PM)
I do make an effort to sweep, because I know the AI really, really likes setting up behind my lines and nothing hinders an effective attack more than having to draw off 3-4 units to watch the flags in rear which may be threatened. I like to keep no black behind my lines, because that lets me put all my units up front. In a game like CM, it would be less of an issue, but here because there are so few units in play it is a real burden to guard against rear actions. In urban terrain it's often a huge challenge to keep the line covered even without having to guard rear areas. I don't really pay attention to VLs until I start getting near the end of a series of battles on a map. I concentrate on casualties and overall control of the map. But I'm a relative newbie coming back to the game after a long while. My approach might be completely flawed, but it feels realistic.

xe5 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 6:06:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peterk1 Right, but now the player is stuck defending #10 completely surrounded by the enemy ... usually the bonus areas are the equivalent of a poisoned pawn in chess. Yes, you have it and can take it, but you will probably get clobbered if you take it. Unless of course the player decides not to defend #10. In which case the opponent diverts his own scarce resources to "clobber" a vacant area, better allowing the player to pursue his own intentions. So rather than being a "poison pawn", the player can utilize bonus VLs as empty feints.

Peterk1 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 6:12:04 PM)
Of course, but by almost always leaving the bonus areas vacant it's only a very small and temporary advantage that the player gains. Enemy sees that the area is empty, reclaims it and then moves those units to the front.

stolidog -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 6:16:10 PM)
Granted force morale is not perfect, but you have to admit the break in FM and awarded VLs gives the winning force more options/initiative, no one says you have to deploy in those awarded VL locations, but if your playing H2H, your opponent doesnt necessarily know where you will deploy, they may deploy units around those awarded vls weakening their defense or attack allowing other areas of the map more susceptible to your attack or easier for you to defend. FM is a good option for those who want to play a GC and simulate the parent organization/units and affects of them occupying the area that the BG is attached too as discussed above by Xe 5.

xe5 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 6:27:49 PM)
In a 15 minute battle, those "temporary" minutes the enemy wastes reclaiming a VL, and moving his units to the front, can mean a lot. The other advantages of FM bonus VLs are that the VL point count determines victory level which determines soldier morale changes. And exit VLs offer additional strategic level options. I disagree that the AI "really, really likes setting up behind" the lines and can demonstrate that this isnt the case.

Peterk1 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 6:37:46 PM)
Not complaining guys. The game's enormously fun with this aspect left the way it is. And I do like trying to find a way to actually use the bonus areas during my next set-up and trying to decide if it IS actually safe to try and hold onto. Regarding the AI setting up behind...I guess you only have to be burned by it once. It happened a couple of nights ago and cleaning up the resulting mess it caused was not pleasant. I breathe a sigh of relief every time I see that the AI did not set up somewhere sneaky. :)

Peterk1 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 6:45:34 PM)
Just for fun....and I did mention this in another thread, so my apologies for bringing it up again. What do you guys think about the "bonus" consisting of the normal setup areas growing in size a notch or so? In the example above, this would result in quite a few buildings changing hands, the regions for the two flags get closer together and easier to join on the next battle, and it also seems somewhat satisfying with respect to simulating the effects of hidden portions of the same formation.

xe5 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (7/28/2010 7:00:58 PM)
Also plausible that the FM bonus could consist of being awarded additional map territory. Problem is that the "normal", starting setup area tends to grow in size anyway during each battle as the side seeks to control new territory. And developing an algorithm that fairly awards additional 'unconquered' territory as an FM bonus would be complex.

CSO_Talorgan -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (8/1/2010 10:29:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peterk1 What do you guys think about the "bonus" consisting of the normal setup areas growing in size a notch or so? Wouldn't this be achieved by shifting entry location VLs in a bit i.e. towards the map centre.

xe5 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (8/1/2010 11:03:10 PM)
I think he meant changing the FM bonus from gaining 1-3 VLs to increasing the contiguous territory the winning side controlled beyond what it had occupied or traversed. Something similar to the map control creep awarded the AI.

CSO_Talorgan -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (8/1/2010 11:43:35 PM)
OK Cheers!

Peterk1 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (8/2/2010 1:33:59 AM)
Yes, I thought that maybe if the controlled area around a victory condition was coded with a variable radius in the game (I have no idea if it is or not), an easy way to give the winner a bonus would be to bump up the radius by one square on one or more of the already held flags. It would still give the winner control of more ground but not ground out in the middle of nowhere hundreds of yards from where the fighting occured. My main motive is more to get rid of or minimise the opponent having set-up areas behind the winner's frontlines on the next battle rather than to extend the front forward per-se.

xe5 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (8/2/2010 2:50:44 AM)
The standard deploy radius around a bonus VL is 72 meters square (3x3 megatiles), the VL being in the center megatile. A megatile (24m x 24m or what you call a 'square') is the smallest unit of deployment area. You'd have to bump that radius up to 5x5 megatiles (120m x 120m) to keep the VL in the center.

GS_Schimpf -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (8/2/2010 9:10:05 AM)
I also like the idea of FM bonus VLs. But I also see a problem in just rewarding the FM "winner" just a blob around the won VLs. A better choice could be to have at least a corridor, small but existant, between the held VLs and the FM bonus VLs, coded as "nomansland" meaning it can't be used for deploy for the enemy nor the player. A different approach could also mean to have those VLs lost due the FM loss coded as "nomansland" and increasing the radius around the VL for that event. So neither the enemy nor the player can deploy there, no deathtraps happen and the realworld situation, namely having the enemy retreated form a VL and the player not yet securing the VL but both can try to get there without having to fear a deathtrap. Another way could be to have a small line of "nomansland" put along the entire frontline representing the area the FM looser left behind for both sides to be (re-)occupied. Both ideas could be combined. If the moral drop was quite big the first alternative could kick in, simulating the enemy retreating more hastily or farther away. While the second alternative should take place if the difference between the moral of both opponents is not that big. This way you could simulate a more realistic approach of swinging battle tides and have a more dynamic progress over a GC. This should be possible as a comparison between both sides chohesion and FM values should be easy to calculate. Perhaps cohesion comparison could also be incorporated in the formula to decide how FM loss influences the battle result accoring to my annotations above. Let me hear your opinion please!

xe5 -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (8/2/2010 12:40:44 PM)
I would welcome a wider variety of FM bonuses. Another idea would be to give the winner a map-entry sized area around an entry/exit VL leading to a friendly controlled map, as opposed to just the standard 3x3 megatiles around a bonus VL. In effect that would act just like another friendly BG moved in support onto the contested map from there.

Pvt_Grunt -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (8/3/2010 11:52:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GS_Schimpf I also like the idea of FM bonus VLs. But I also see a problem in just rewarding the FM "winner" just a blob around the won VLs. A better choice could be to have at least a corridor, small but existant, between the held VLs and the FM bonus VLs, coded as "nomansland" meaning it can't be used for deploy for the enemy nor the player. Unoficial multiplayer rules state you cannot setup units in these "orphaned" VL islands. You need to have continous lines of control back to your main controlled area to use them. This rule is from CC5 GJS where it was considered a bug. quote: Let me hear your opinion please! You just did [:D]

mooxe -> RE: What force morale and tactical maps represent (8/5/2010 4:06:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pvt_Grunt quote: ORIGINAL: GS_Schimpf I also like the idea of FM bonus VLs. But I also see a problem in just rewarding the FM "winner" just a blob around the won VLs. A better choice could be to have at least a corridor, small but existant, between the held VLs and the FM bonus VLs, coded as "nomansland" meaning it can't be used for deploy for the enemy nor the player. Unoficial multiplayer rules state you cannot setup units in these "orphaned" VL islands. You need to have continous lines of control back to your main controlled area to use them. This rule is from CC5 GJS where it was considered a bug. quote: Let me hear your opinion please! You just did [:D] Grunt I have never heard of that version of the house rule. Most people play with the rule you cannot deploy in any area not connected to a VL. So orphaned VLs are legit deploy zones. You may even get orhpan VLs from non-FM related results. After reading the LSA manual it seems there are some restrictions on deployment zones now that make it seem probable this house rule can be hard coded.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.609375