What force morale and tactical maps represent

[CSO_Talorgan]

OK

Cheers!

[Peterk1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Let me hear your opinion please!

You just did [:D]

[mooxe]

ORIGINAL: Pvt_Grunt

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.

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.