A question about holding an objective

[herbertzhao]

I gradually picked up this feeling that since you need about ten times fire power(if i remember correctly) to hold an objective in presence of enemy force. So, would it be possible for me to keep harrassing enemy forces defending an objective, using small forces, like a company(depending on the size of the entire force actually), so that even when i do not have the ability to actually secure an objectve, i can make my enemy unable to hold it either, which, apperently, will lead to a low victory points for both sides thus leaving me no chance to get a decisive defeat? Can any one in beta testing team try this tactic? Since if this ALWAYS work, then, as a game, it may be much less fun...

[simovitch]

The tactic you describe is valid - you can keep sending your troops into what you think is the enemy's objective radius, hoping that you are tilting the 10:1 balance in strength.

A well designed scenario will take this possibility into account. So before you embark on this tactic, consider these points:

1. You dont know what the enemy's point value or objective radius is for that objective. So, how will you know when your force is influencing the control, except maybe by watching the meter which is an estimate at best.

2. If you are playing the AI, this "objective" that you see could be just an AI objective that has no value to the enemy other than keeping YOU from getting the 10:1 majority.

3. The enemy may be getting lots of points for killing you off as you beat your head against one of his low-point objectives.

Remember, you don't get to see the enemy's objective locations, value, or radius so beware.

[James Sterrett]

He could, in theory, use the scenario editor to map out the AI objectives.  But even so, I'm not convined this would be effective.  Either you commit significant assets to these spoiling attacks in order to maintain a positive kill ratio, or you're throwing troops away at them.  There may well be cases where this will pin the AI and/or cause it to lose more VPs than you lose to losses, but it's my suspicion that there are always more effective ways to handle your forces to seek victory.
 
That said, Herbert -- feel free to prove us wrong.  [:)]
 

[herbertzhao]

Well, first of all, i wouldn't call using the editor to find out enemy's objective a justifiable way to win the game - and i never do that. I am aware of the fact that the enemy may not share my objective. Actually, what's in my mind is not simply keep a decisive defeat away... you see, when i use a small portion of my force to pressure the enemy to keep more force at their objectives (if they want the vp), i can use the rest of my force to take other objectives one by one, each time with a undoubtedly superior number of people. So this tactic not only helps keeping decisive defeat away, it may actually help winning.

I cannot figure out a way to test my claim right now, since if i just literally send a small troop to a well defended position, sooner or later my force are going to become killing vps for the enemy... But i do think you see my point. So, would you please take this as, maybe, an advice? - keep the objective radius small, unless necessary (i.e. to encompass the entire city)

By the way, currently in my games, it is not me who is intentionally using this tactic, it's the AI. It attacks my positions with obviously less then necessary force but this keeps me from gathering my force to launch larger scale attacks. When the attacking small AI forces get pressed down, they pull back a little and reorg. I hate their presence, but I don't want my entrenched defense force to loose their advantage just to chase say, 120 enemy infantry...

Anyway, it's good to know that you people know this possibility and have taken it into account. After all, to make you see this is all I'm trying to do.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: James Sterrett

He could, in theory, use the scenario editor to map out the AI objectives.

Hmmm, so that's how you win your games, eh James?

[James Sterrett]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

ORIGINAL: James Sterrett

He could, in theory, use the scenario editor to map out the AI objectives.

Hmmm, so that's how you win your games, eh James?

Of course not!

I use the scenario editor to alter the AI objectives! [;)]

[James Sterrett]

Herbert:  Two notes on the AI:
 
1)  It may not know what you have on the objective.  (In fact, it very likely has a very poor idea of what you have there.)  Fog of war affects the AI too!   (This is really obvious in the debug version of the engine, where you can shift back and forth between the two sides' perspectives (I await Simovitch's accusation [;)] ).  )
 
2)  Does your Defend task boundary encompass the entire objective circle?  That should get your forces to deploy to defend the entire area, so you can keep the bad guys back without sacrificing your positions.
 

[FredSanford3]

One thing I'd like is if the 'occupation' point option were available to exit tasks in a decreasing-award countdown fashion. This way (unless there is an AE option), a player isn't tempted to use units on the map until towards the end of the deadline, but exit them in a timely manner as they are presumeably urgently desired elsewhere.

And, I'd like it if reinforcements and/or SEPs could be contingent upon control of an objective (e.g. an airfield for airlanding). As is, just bringing them in leads to unrealistic "beam them down Scotty" type of situations.

Ok so that's two things.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

One thing I'd like is if the 'occupation' point option were available to exit tasks in a decreasing-award countdown fashion. This way (unless there is an AE option), a player isn't tempted to use units on the map until towards the end of the deadline, but exit them in a timely manner as they are presumeably urgently desired elsewhere.

That's a good idea. The designer can accomplish this now by placing multiple exit objectives in the same location, each with decreasing value. As one expires the other activates.

On the objective interface you could see:

Exit Early 50
Exit Normal 25
Exit Late 10

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz
And, I'd like it if reinforcements and/or SEPs could be contingent upon control of an objective (e.g. an airfield for airlanding). As is, just bringing them in leads to unrealistic "beam them down Scotty" type of situations.

What you are asking for is a "trigger". These are on the wish list. We will probably do these in conjunction with sequential tasking.