The Devil's in the details (screen)

[xe5]

Seems consistent that a broader 'brush' is used in determination of map control after meeting engagement battles than in Attack/Defend or Continued battles.

Example below:
Meeting engagement on the Isigny map.
I fail to take the major Vire Bridge VL (marked w/ yelo) in battle yet am awarded that VL and a whole bunch of territory my teams never came close to during play.

How does this work?
I'd noticed considerable map control 'creep' in CC5 after testing custom 2-second time limit battles to quickly cycle thru an Op, but dont recall any VL 'creep'.

[Andrew Williams]

There shouldn't be any VL creep at all.

You only should get awarded extra VL's if the other side has a morale failure.


Was this a single battle op or GC?

[xe5]

GC.
 
FM wasnt an issue in this case as there were only a couple of brief firefights towards the end of battle.
It was particularly apparent because Im using the Grog's Rules (ver. '09) and only issuing orders to my teams in the Deploy phase.
When my movement is so limited, Im all the more conscious about the waypoint pathing Ive pre-set.
Consequently Ive had  plenty of opportunity to observe, and utilize, the effects of movement cancellation due to fire attacks.
If only the AI made better use of this nicely done feature instead of persisting in its bone-headed pathing into kill zones. 

[CSO_Talorgan]

ORIGINAL: xe5

the Grog's Rules (ver. '09) and only issuing orders to my teams in the Deploy phase

?

[RD Oddball]

hehe don't ask.  It's an old fart thing.[:D]

[Perturabo]

*Asks anyway[:D]*

[CSO_Talorgan]

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

don't ask.  It's an old fart thing

I'm an old fart too, you know!

[RD Oddball]

Yeah me too.  Some of those among us just like to show it off by how long they've been playing CC. [:D]

[CSO_Talorgan]

Have you anything to add to this:
 
http://www.closecombatonline.com/ccwiki/index.php?title=Extra_rules
 
?

[xe5]

hehe...I recall dreaming a few of those up way back in the CCretaceous era

The Grog's Rules '09