Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I just happen to think that the Historical Ratings are pretty much all incorrect and non-historical and so I don't like to use Historical Ratings ON, because I think the ratings are wrong and that they are not historical.

Hey thanks!!
Six of us worked on, and researched them for about 3-4 months for Enhanced but, I guess we all are idiots, and just wasted our time because you think they are all wrong.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

After re-reading the Extreme Challenge thread, and these other collateral ones, I dawned on me what the problem might be: The interpretation that this Challenge campaign is for everyone. Let me try to explain what I see as the problem.

This campaign system is designed to allow two human players to compare how they play the campaign, without actually facing each other. In other words, Player A plays this campaign against the AI, as does Player B, and when both are done, they compare End Results to see who is the better player. The restrictions imposed are designed to "level" the field not for the AI, but for the individual players. And this system is best used in a tournament-style challenge, where 2 or more human players wish to know how they rank against each other as "campaign players", not PBEM players.

Unfortunately, most players out here don't really care how they "stack up" against another human when it comes to playing against the AI; they want to know who's better at H2H meetings, with no AI involved. And this campaign does not do that; result, most players don't see it as a challenge for the player against the AI.

A true Challenge Campaign, against the AI, without involving other players, would require the use of the following settings:

AI Advantage - ON
AI Level - 200
Reduced Squads - ON
Reduced Ammo - ON
Weapon Breakdowns - ON
Vehicle Breakdowns - ON
Mines - ON
Command & Control - ON
Use the Hardx2 setting for all battles
Select one of the 6 major nations for your HQ, but then only buy allied equipment (if British, only buy Indian, for example)
Set Spotting to 70% for Player 1, 100% for Player 2
Use Historic Ratings as designed

There may be some other settings that would make the Challenge more challenging to veteran players, but these are most of the important ones.

Flashfyre,
I will address your comments (quoted above) point by point.

Point #1
Fact is, my five friends and I in the Austin/Dallas area DO in fact compare campaign scores against the AI. That is why this campaign format was developed in the first place. We also play PBEM against each other. But there are many real-life reasons why we can't always play PBEM and so this campaign format works as a substitute.

Point #2
Unless all competing players are playing the same nation using the same baseline standards, then it is, as you noted, impossible to compare campaign scores. And since my friends and I DO compete using this campaign format, then we all have to play the same nation using the same baseline standards.

Point #3
When playing the campaign format in a competitive format (like my friends and I do), the chosen nation MUST be Axis and not Allied. Why? Because when playing the Axis, then the AI gets progressively stronger as the campaign goes on. When playing any Allied nation, the Axis AI gets progressively weaker as the campaign goes on. So, the greater challenge is to play the Axis. And getting my friends and I to agree on anything is difficult enough, but trying to get them to all play the Italians or the Romanians or the Hungarians, etc., would be nearly impossible. So, it comes down to the Germans or the Japanese. The Germans offer more variety (in terms of number and types of opponents, weather conditions, terrain, etc.), so the Germans were chosen by a vote (not much of a vote really, it was unanimous).

Point#4
My friends and I do in fact increase AI Level over the course of the campaign in a stepped, incremental fashion. There is always a fine line between challenging and impossible. Starting out with an AI Level of 200 is something my friends would never have agreed to. When dealing with any group, compromises must be made.

Point #5
Reduced squads is something that I am opposed to on just about every level imagineable. Reduced squads only reduces the men in "infantry" type units. It doesn't reduce the number of tanks in a tank company, it doesn't reduce the number of guns in an artillery battery, it doesn't reduce the size of artillery or tank crews. In other words, I consider it a ridiculous and useless artificial construct. And since it also reduces the AI's units, then it doesn't give the AI any advantages. Indeed, reduced squads probably hurts the AI more than the human player. Silly, and I will never use it.

Point #6
Reduced ammo definitely hurts the AI more than it hurts the human player since the human player knows how to use ammo trucks and ammo dumps and the AI does not. Again, silly, and I will never use it.

Point #7
You suggest using Historical Ratings as designed. As I've mentioned before, I don't believe that the Historical Ratings are historical. In fact, I think that they are wrong and not historical at all. However, the reason that Historical Ratings are turned OFF in this campaign format for the first two battles is to give the competitors some leeway and variety in their choice of core units. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the way this campaign is scored, it makes little or no difference what troop quality you choose for your core. Nobody seems to believe this. I stated it over and over. I'll say it again. I've played this campaign many times and I've tried cores from 50 to 110 in initial troop quality and there is not a huge difference no matter what initial troop quality you choose. The reason for Historical Ratings OFF for the first two battles is NOT to give competitors an advantage (because it doesn't). The reason IS because it allows competitors some latitude in the KIND of core they want to build. Choose a low initial troop quality and you can build a heavier battle group, choose a high initial troop quality and your core will be light and weak. I assure you, if you pull an Assault battle in your very first battle and you chose a high initial troop quality for your core, then you will likely get slaughtered.
Note that after the first two battles, Historical Ratings only have relevance for support troops, and so turning Historical Ratings ON after the first two battles actually handicaps the players since the German Historical Ratings decline over time, meaning that their support forces get weaker and weaker during the campaign. This is yet another reason why this campaign format works best with the Germans (and not the Japanese, whose units aren't so much affected by Historical Ratings over time).

Point #8
All the other stuff (hard battles, AI advantage, etc.) must be set as a baseline standard and agreed to by all participants. As I've noted before, it is not easy to get a group of participants to agree to many of these things. And if you think dealing with me is difficult, you should see my friends.

Point #9
However, the fact that we have actually managed to develop a working campaign challenge that we (my friends and I) are actually willing to use in a competitive way is, to me, a significant achievement. This campaign format does indeed work as advertised. It is indeed more challenging than it seems to be. There are many subtle refinements that have been added over time that are not obvious. But the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It works and it is NOT easy.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: Alby

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Flashfyre,

While you are here. I've just finished some experimentation with the Enhanced FV.1 Long Campaign and there is a problem with the Soviets. When playing the Soviets in an Enhanced FV.1 Long Campaign, they always deploy on the west side of the map and the Germans deploy on the east side of the map. I think this is backwards. Is there a way to fix this?

Enhanced has nothing to do with which side of the map you get.
it is either a bug in the long campaign code, or because you are player 1 as Soviets.
same thing happens without Enhanced too.

Alby,
You are correct. I forgot that I was Player1.

[Riun T]

An even better Idea, lets both start a long campaign set to what FLASHFYRE just posted and screenshot the progress from each others force and TELL everyone beforehand what kind of force we choose and WHAT victory conditions WE were looking to accomplish with each battle,,, my reason for this is twofold, #1 because even the casual players in these forums have had the AI's version of the end battle scores results post a draw and know full well that your remaining forces and position to the VH's,left your side totally dominating the battle with much less costing casualties my RUSSIAN vs finnish screenshots sorta showed that!!starting on page 4 of these very forum AAR's. #2 Upon self evaluation Im more of a catigory 2 player like yourself, than I thought, and if u would read a couple of posts before in the thing about longs that gunny started you'd notice this by the mixture I fought with, and can't see anymore hard feelings being generated by us both playing Flashes impartial settings, them we can't accuse eitherone of us with any discrepincies.
Wadda you think???
 

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: Alby

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I just happen to think that the Historical Ratings are pretty much all incorrect and non-historical and so I don't like to use Historical Ratings ON, because I think the ratings are wrong and that they are not historical.

Hey thanks!!
Six of us worked on, and researched them for about 3-4 months for Enhanced but, I guess we all are idiots, and just wasted our time because you think they are all wrong.

Alby,
The simple fact that the Depot and Matrix have different "Historical Ratings" proves that the ratings are subjective guesses and not "historical". Indeed, they shouldn't even be called "Historical Ratings". They should be called something like Standardized Ratings.

Further, not only are they only guesses, they are also political. It is not politically correct to rate one nation's Historical Ratings significantly higher than another because you then upset a lot of people.

Further, any attempt to quantify an entire nation's Historical Ratings into a single yearly "average" can only result in a terrible oversimplification of that nation's combat effectiveness.

Further, the only actual serious historical study I have seen on the subject (Dupuy's Numbers, Predictions, and War), has not been well received by many opponents. I've read Ellis's Brute Force, I've read most of David Glantz's studies, I've read Dupuy, I've read a LOT of German (translated) operational studies, etc. And as far as I can tell, Matrix's (and your) Historical Ratings are at best politically correct, oversimplifed (on a yearly basis), anecdotal, compromise guesses. I'm not calling you an idiot. You have attempted something I wouldn't even think about trying. I absolutely could not do better than you have. My point is, its not your effort I have troubles with. I simply believe that it is a problem that CANNOT be resolved. Not by me, not by you, not by anybody. So, while I may applaud your efforts, in my mind they were doomed from the start. But no, I'm not calling you an idiot.

[vahauser]

Riun T,

I propose the following initial preferences.
Do you agree?

[FlashfyreSP]

My point was that your Extreme Challenge campaign is designed for people who want to compare their results against other humans (like you and your friends do). I'm saying that that is a rare occurance in the SPWAW community as a whole, and therefore your campaign system has limited appeal to the community. Perhaps if there were some 'ladder' system for campaigns, the way there are for single PBEM games, then this system would be worth looking into.

One point on the Historical Ratings: you may not agree with them, but they ARE there. And they are one of the ways to emulate the differences between armies; they may not be perfect, but more than a little thought and discussion went into the numbers. And I wouldn't say they are "politically correct"; that implies we 'soft-balled' some nations. We did not. Nations whose armies had suffered significant events during a previous year show a change in their overall Experience and Morale levels.

When you set the Preference Rating to a number, you set that number for all 4 of the ratings: Leader Experience/Leader Morale/Troop Experience/Troop Morale. And, the value you set also determines how much your units cost; below 70 and you pay a fraction of the OOB cost for every unit, over 80 and you pay a fraction more.

Reduced Squads does just what it says: reduces the number of men in each squad (not vehicle, artillery, or other unit, only squads) to provide some variation in the number of men required to "kill" to disperse/destroy a unit.

Just because you consider some of the realistic Preferences silly doesn't make them so; turning many of these off makes the game nothing more than a souped-up Chess game.

My suggestions were on a way to make the Campaign challenging to the rest of us, those who don't care how well you or your friends did when playing the (admittedly) random Long Campaign. There are ways to make the AI more of an opponent, but not many; legacy of the 12-year old code and 6-year old combat routines.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

My point was that your Extreme Challenge campaign is designed for people who want to compare their results against other humans (like you and your friends do). I'm saying that that is a rare occurance in the SPWAW community as a whole, and therefore your campaign system has limited appeal to the community. Perhaps if there were some 'ladder' system for campaigns, the way there are for single PBEM games, then this system would be worth looking into.

One point on the Historical Ratings: you may not agree with them, but they ARE there. And they are one of the ways to emulate the differences between armies; they may not be perfect, but more than a little thought and discussion went into the numbers. And I wouldn't say they are "politically correct"; that implies we 'soft-balled' some nations. We did not. Nations whose armies had suffered significant events during a previous year show a change in their overall Experience and Morale levels.

When you set the Preference Rating to a number, you set that number for all 4 of the ratings: Leader Experience/Leader Morale/Troop Experience/Troop Morale. And, the value you set also determines how much your units cost; below 70 and you pay a fraction of the OOB cost for every unit, over 80 and you pay a fraction more.

Reduced Squads does just what it says: reduces the number of men in each squad (not vehicle, artillery, or other unit, only squads) to provide some variation in the number of men required to "kill" to disperse/destroy a unit.

Just because you consider some of the realistic Preferences silly doesn't make them so; turning many of these off makes the game nothing more than a souped-up Chess game.

My suggestions were on a way to make the Campaign challenging to the rest of us, those who don't care how well you or your friends did when playing the (admittedly) random Long Campaign. There are ways to make the AI more of an opponent, but not many; legacy of the 12-year old code and 6-year old combat routines.

[font="Times New Roman"]FlashFyre,

As I noted in my reply to Alby several posts up, the fact that Matrix and The Depot do not agree on what the "Historical Ratings" are (or should be) does, in fact, prove that those ratings are NOT historical at all but are instead subjective guesses.

I think my biggest problem is that they are called "Historical Ratings" when they in fact are not. When something is called something that it isn't, then we have a lie. And if people believe that lie, then we have a problem. Thus, it pisses me off to use "Historical Ratings" when I know they are NOT. But if we could somehow do away with the term "Historical Ratings" and instead replace it with something like "Standard Ratings", then not only would I applaud and support that setting, I might also be more willing to use it.

Regarding Reduced Ammo and Reduced Squads... All I am saying here is that using either or both of these settings does NOT help the AI at all, and I can make a case that using those settings actually hurts the AI more than it hurts the human player. That's all I'm saying. If people want to use those settings for added "flavor", I have no problem at all with that. Just don't try to tell me that using those settings makes the game more challenging in a Long Campaign, because they don't.

Regarding manually setting troop quality... With True Troop Cost ON (which is the only way I play), then whether you set troop quality manually or not makes no difference in terms of how units are priced. I'm not sure I explained myself clearly here. If you don't understand what I meant here, then let me know and I'll try to explain it differently.

Man, I really like your idea about a Campaign Ladder. To me, that is worth some serious looking into...[/font]

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: vahauser


As I noted in my reply to Alby several posts up, the fact that Matrix and The Depot do not agree on what the "Historical Ratings" are (or should be) does, in fact, prove that those ratings are NOT historical at all but are instead subjective guesses.

there was no disagreement between Matrix and Depot.
Mike Wood the programmer for SPWAW, alone did the 8.403 ratings.
Six of us did the Enhanced ones.
alot of gamers did not like the fact that the minor nations ratings made them near unplayable in 8.403, so we bumped them up so they were more playable.
you make it sound like there is some big disagreement on the ratings between Matrix and the Depot, when in fact there was not.
There was never any disagreement, if anything one guy liked his ratings, and 6 others thought they could be changed a little.
you are making it into something it simply is not.
But I am done talking about the ratings.
Unless you have ever delved into them, experimented and tested how changing them effects gameplay, arty response times...etc etc..
then simply stating they are wrong is quite a bold statement.
over and out.

[vahauser]

Alby,

I've been playing this game since it came out over 10 years ago. How can anybody play this game for over 10 years and NOT know how all the ratings work?

But you just said it yourself.
"A lot of gamers did not like the fact [my emphasis] that the minor nation ratings made them near unplayable in 8.403, so we bumped them up so they were more playable."
That right there is a political decision and NOT an historical decision. And it yet again proves what I have been saying. They are NOT "Historical Ratings". All I want is for the term to be changed from "Historical Ratings" to "Standard Ratings", or something like that.

And even if, as you claim, Mike Wood himself did the ratings for 8.403, I still claim that neither he, nor you, nor I, nor Moses, nor Jesus, nor ANYBODY can do truly "Historical Ratings". It still comes down to subjective guesswork, political compromise, and yearly oversimplification, based primarily on anecdotal evidence (since the actual historical data needed to do truly historical ratings simply does not exist).

All I want is for the term to be changed from "Historical Ratings" (which they are not) to "Standard Ratings", or something like that, which is closer to what they really are. Calling them "Historical Ratings" is a lie.

[vahauser]

azraelck,

I've done a lot more thinking about it since my epiphany a few days ago.

I'm willing to back off my Either-Or statements regarding Cat1 and Cat2 players.

My thinking has evolved past that.

Here is what I now believe.

Imagine a continuum:


Category1 <----------------------------------------------------------> Category2


The more towards Cat1 a player tends, then the more he wants the game to mirror his (not necessarily somebody else's) vision of WW2 history. The more towards Cat2 a player tends, then the less he cares about any historical vision whatsoever.

What I was calling Cat1 and Cat2 a few days ago, I now believe was simply expressing players in terms of either extreme end of the continuum.

Now, my personal theory as to why there are so few Cat2 players on these forums...

Cat1 players (especially the extreme ones) have a strong personal vision of WW2 history. They seek to validate their vision on forums like this one. That's my theory. So, the Cat1 guys come to this forum to debate and discuss their visions of history.

On the other hand, the Cat2 guys (who don't care much about visions of history in terms of SPWAW) are too busy playing and don't care much about talking. [Actually, not entirely true. Cat2 players do find LOTS to talk and argue about, just not visions of SPWAW history.] Hence, most Cat2 players don't spend much time on forums like this.

So why does a pretty extreme Cat2 player like me hang out on this forum? Mainly, to gain a competitive advantage. How is that, you ask? Well, by surfing forums like this one, maybe I can pick up new tricks and new loopholes that I can exploit and abuse in my next game.

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Alby,

I've been playing this game since it came out over 10 years ago. How can anybody play this game for over 10 years and NOT know how all the ratings work?

But you just said it yourself.
"A lot of gamers did not like the fact [my emphasis] that the minor nation ratings made them near unplayable in 8.403, so we bumped them up so they were more playable."
That right there is a political decision and NOT an historical decision.

10 years?
you have been playing the game a few years longer than it has been available then.
[:)]
Bumping up the minors was not political, it was historical, the Romanians, Hungarians and Italians, did not turn and run with the first shot fired from the enemy, which is what was happening before we bumped their ratings up, which now makes them at least try to fight, which is what they historically did.
bye....

[vahauser]

Alby,

Steel Panthers was released in 1995. 

From the Wikipedia:
"The original three-part Steel Panthers series was developed and released by Strategic Simulations, Inc. from 1995 to 1997, with design and programming by Gary Grigsby and Keith Brors."

So, yes, it's been around for at least 10 years.  And I've been playing it from the beginning.

Look.  Here is another fact.  Every single major revision that this game has undergone has seen significant changes to the "Historical Ratings".  Every single one of them.  What does that tell you?

I'll say it again.  I don't care that we have the ratings.  What I DO care about is calling them "Historical".  They are not.  That is not an opinion.  That is a fact.  They might be the result of hundreds of expert manhours of thought and inspiration (and I don't doubt that), but they are still "best guesses" or "best estimates" or whatever else you want to call them.  But whatever you call them, it is a lie to call them "Historical".  Why does this upset you so much? 

All I want is for the term to be changed from "Historical" to "Standard" or something like that.

[Alby]

1995, thought you were referring to SPWAW only.
my bad.
What upsets me is that we researched what happened to a particular nation in a particlular year, and adjusted ratings acordingly, or we determined whether an army had a standing army at outbreak of the war.
For someone to just say they are all wrong, just because they think so.
We did research this stuff for months.
just becaause the button says 'historical ratings' does not make them all wrong.
perhaps it should say "country training"


oh well.

[vahauser]

Alby,

Geez, man. That is NOT what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that they are "all wrong". I'm just saying that they aren't historical. They might be extremely good guesses. I applaud your efforts. I have no doubt that you did the best you could. I mean that sincerely. But they aren't historical.

Here is what I mean.
Imagine the following. . .
Imagine you and FlashFyre and Mike Wood and whoever else you want to join you. You guys take your ratings into ANY major Department of Military History of any university in the country (or the world for that matter). And you present your research and your findings. And you conclude your presentation with the words, ". . . And that is the historical reality. We have determined a truly historical method of rating each of 27 major nations' combat effectiveness for each year of WW2."

Now. Tell me how the professional military historians who just listened to your presentation are going to respond. I suspect that they are going to want some pretty convincing evidence that you have indeed determined the true historical reality. Can you provide them with that absolute truth?

I am not opposed to your research and your effort. I am only opposed to calling the results of your research and effort the historical reality. Calling something historical that is not historical is wrong. Your research and effort is not wrong. That part is commendable. But calling the results historical when they are not IS wrong. That's all I'm saying.

All I am saying is I want the term to be changed from "Historical Ratings" (which they are not) to "Standard Ratings", or something like that.

[FlashfyreSP]

One last point before I head off to India for a month:

True Troop only adjusts the "value" of the units, not how much they cost you to buy them. The "value" is how much they are worth to your opponent when destroyed. The 70 Rating is the 'benchmark' rating; at this level you pay 100% of the OOB Cost to buy a unit. Reducing to 65, you only pay 75% of the OOB Cost, even if the unit ends up with a Rating of 70+. Here's the breakdown of Formation Costs by Rating level:

Basically, the Unit Price that is set in the OOB is adjusted, up or down, if the Base Rating in the Preferences is set to 80 and above, or 65 and below. The chart below shows the Formation Cost for a German Light Panzer Section of 3 PzKpfw II F units. The Unit has an OOB Cost of 55 points; the Formation Cost is 165 points. Maximum rating is 120, minimum rating is 30.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; RATING__COST__% OF OOB COST
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 120_____198___115%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 115_____198___115%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 110_____198___115%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 105_____198___115%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 095_____198___115%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 090_____198___115%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 085_____180___110%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 080_____180___110%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 075____165__100% Baseline
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 070____165__100% Baseline
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 065_____123___075%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 060_____123___075%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 055_____114___070%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 050_____114___070%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 045_____105___064%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 040_____105___064%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 035_____105___064%
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 030_____105___064%

To further break down this, the following is a list of the 3 units bought under each Rating, their end Experience rating, and the Value they are worth. Note that some units have Experience ratings above or below the next 'step' from their Base Rating; these units can be considered "bargains" or "ripoffs" accordingly.

120:
118/124/112 XP
92/97/88 Value

115:
109/105/111 XP
85/82/86 Value

110:
100/105/108 XP
78/82/84 Value

105:
108/113/102 XP
84/88/79 Value

100:
99/107/94 XP
77/83/73 Value

95:
86/103/90 XP
67/80/70 Value

90:
85/86/90 XP
66/67/70 Value

85:
90/80/78 XP
70/84/61 Value

80:
78/84/82 XP
61/66/64 Value

75:
72/66/80 XP
56/51/62 Value

70:
77/78/61 XP
60/61/47 Value

65:
73/56/64 XP
57/44/50 Value

60:
60/61/63 XP
46/47/49 Value

55:
52/54/50 XP
40/42/39 Value

50:
57/42/42 XP
44/33/33 Value

45:
40/45/41 XP
31/35/31 Value

40:
35/46/49 XP
27/35/38 Value

35:
28/32/42 XP
22/24/33 Value

30:
39/32/27 XP
30/24/20 Value

Overall, 12 Units were "ripoffs", and 11 were "bargains".

[vahauser]

FlashFyre,

Turns out that I think we are both saying the same thing.

In any event, I agree with you completely about what you just posted regarding unit costs.

Best wishes on your trip to India.

[Riun T]

Hey guys, and FLASH don't end up like Steve erwin and find yourself on one of those indian cobras or something and hopefully we'll have this Forum cleaned up by the time u get back, VA can u see by the rates settings&nbsp;with the &nbsp;experience #'s combined and charicteristics ON, and reduced squads OFF in the year of&nbsp;39 and RARITY OFF, WHY I was sort of bitching about the massed pzrIVc's against the Poles that u showed us?? and how I thought u where a bit more DASTARDLY,in your use of force than the poles could handle for 39{referance Flashes values}, AND I FINALLY found where the referances for the 21 turn retreat in delays is,,, that AZ and I where thinking u should have played to...... its in some of the mini campaigns first&nbsp;text screens that inform u of the beginnings mission objectives and sometimes little movie in the left upper corner&nbsp;while a voice recites the same script.THATS where we head the delay should withdraw.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

[Alby]

you mean this one Riun...

"Your orders are to slow the enemy's attack. Destroy as much enemy equipment as possible without suffering losses."

there is also this one..

"The enemy is trying to break through our lines with a large force in your sector. Hold your ground and delay the enemy."

[:)]

[Riun T]

Thats exactly what I mean thanks Alby[;)] and if you weren't supposed to exit, why does it say in the portions of the manual I screenposted that u get +3 victory points per unit that u exit after the battle????