Time again: Rushing the flag? [Archive]

Palantir

06 Dec 05, 20:44

Since this was brought up to me it's time to review the ever popular event of "Last turn Rushing of the Flag!"

When or is it ok to do so?

We are not talking about a flag that has & is being fought over for turns on end by both players and is in question of firm ownership & control. And during the last turn players try last ditch efforts to gain control of it.

What is being asked about here are those flags that are held by one player and on the last / next to last turn the opposing player rushes whatever he has on hand at the flag in hopes that by sheer "weight" will trip the flag to neutral or his way & thus changing the final victory level. The defending player knows his opponent is massing troops and waiting and waiting then on that last turn the mass rush is unleashed. Almost everytime quantity here beats quality in CM in the short run.

More precisely in question are those flags that in "reality" serve no tactical purpose what-so-ever: those flags "sitting out on the open," or that worthless VF shack.

Also thrown into the equation is: would soldiers (US/UK/Ger) rush into the middle of no-where or even make a suicide rush into the open & told "survive for just 60 seconds!" Or would a tank commander race up to a tree even when he knows AT weapons are aimed at him just hoping to survive for 30 more seconds?

This question of course admits that such "rushes" are perfectly legal :whist: and also that the defender "might" have done a better job at defending the flag...

Myself- in a game that is clearly won (TOT/MAJ victory) and against an opponent that I've been chatting & joking with I see nothing wrong with saying "I'm going down fighting!" Knowing that the game is lost anyway no matter who holds that one flag. (But if he has been massing troops for just the last turn rush- that would still irritate me)

However, in a game that is has a MIN Victory going and against an opponent that has an all or nothing attitude or is more concerned with "wins" than fun or does it just to screw up the score bothers me.

It's a: "you didn't try to take or control the flag for 29 turns but in the last 1 minute you'll try with a kamikaze charge?"

Also if the charge is obviously doomed to failure due to the defenders (or terrain) if given 1-2 turns to eliminate all the attackers and the attacks only goal is to last 1 minute then that is (dare I say it) a gamey tactic.

I would just make sure to mark that player off my "to play" list.

Thats enough :blab: for now, & don't get me started on "quantity vs quality" in CM.

ER_Chaser

06 Dec 05, 22:10

I think it is all about house rule on this issue. For every single game I played, I asked my opponents on this issue specifically beforehand. As long as both sides obey the same rules, I am fine with either way.

Lurker

06 Dec 05, 23:29

I agree that it's an irritating tactic to be subjected to. I'm sure there are many justifications on both sides of the issue though.

For instance, it's still just a game and no matter how realistic the play is it will always be far removed from RL. On that note one may argue that whatever is within game parameters is "fair game"?

Establishing agreed on rules ahead of time may help, but I don't always remember to address end-game flag rushes beforehand. Like you pointed out (Kerry), it may be difficult to determine what is a legitimate attempt to snatch a flag and what is just pure gamey-ness.

In my early CM days I had difficulty judging what it took timewise to attack a flag and occasionally found myself running out of time in what I considered to be a potentially strong attack. As a result I sometimes had to push in the last 5 to 7 turns before the bell sounded - as if RL commanders had stop-watches to determine battle's end. This probably appeared as a flag rush to those opponents. Confounding the situation would be if my attack was delayed due to my opponents interference, or my waiting to remove a particularly pestiferous object before proceeding, all of which meant more delays before I could continue on to the flag.

Then again, there's the virtue of patience with hopes your opponent will compromise himself if you toss him a proper bone, but this will mean costly delays if you wait too long.

It may be better to probe ahead if you are defending a choice VL in order to find nasty massed units. If OBA is timed well, these masses can turn into massed graves! :p

Variable endings may be the best answer. Question: does a game that runs overtime always run a full 5 extra turns, or can it stop sooner?

jaegertech

06 Dec 05, 23:50

Unforgivably lame. And easily countered. Yay for variable match length.

Palantir

07 Dec 05, 01:47

Game endings- manual: "a max of 10 (extra) turns or 25% of the original battles length which ever is less."

I've only seen the extra "5" turns so the "varibile" ending usually isn't.
Instead with "varibile" you just get an extra five if you can contest one flag.

Since most games are 30 turns you get the +5.

Palantir

07 Dec 05, 02:40

And easily countered.
Not entirely true, depending on a number of factors, terrain, unit #'s etc. :)

Ex.
It's late in the game and your sitting pretty holding most of the flags and a victory is secured. :whist:

You have already secured an off-to-the-side open field small VF, placed a guard & then moved on to the next "bigger" objective. In the mean time your opponent has slipped "some" units (or one fast AFV even) around a wooded hill & the "last turn" rushes thru the woods out into the open field & gets LOS on the flag 50m away. Now can you can move any units back in support in 1 turn (then again if it's a small VF & you have captured all the Large VF's how much would you have risked to "over hold" a 100 vs 300 point flag?)

Just to flip a flag to "contested" on the last turn (fixed game turns) may be & usually is the only point of the rush. You both know that with a few more turns you could have the small VF surrounded and blast anything by it to bits. But the point isn't to hold the flag & defend it for turns on end, but to contest ownership (with a chance to actually capture it as a bonus) for 60 maybe 120 seconds.

If the defending units are say a worn out Ax Plt of 3 vet units and the rush is by a fresh Soviet conscript formation of just 8 units then 5 of the Soviet units (depending on a huge # of factors of course) could easily make it to within their "control/strength range" of the flag since CM does the 1 on 1 shooting act & stays locked on the target & 5 are "free" to move ahead.

You have to remember that to gain "control on the flag/contest ownership of it" units don't have to be on the flag or even near it: within 50-80m & having LOS on it can be enough depending on their "strength."

So, you might be defending that "open field flag" from trees 15m away when the rush comes from 50m away. All they have to do is get LOS control/strength on the flag from 20,30,40,50 even 80m away with a bunch of units (they don't even have to make it near the flag! :crosseye: ). And presto, the flag flips to contested even though you are "holding it."

Sure your defenders are shooting the heck out of the green/conscript rushers (they are vets don't you know) but the rushers don't care, can you eliminate (yes eliminate not break or rout) all 8 in less than a minute?

And heck- if they go into split-squads just before rushing out of the woods you could have 16 units with 13 of them running "free" for the flag. They don't care if they break or rout they just need to get within strength range before doing so & that could be 80m from the flag you're gallantly holding. :eek:

Legal but gamey :hmmm:
Most certainly an opponent I would probably not play again.
(Conscripts / split-squads / last turn rush = :gas: :bye1: )

Neilm85uk

07 Dec 05, 04:36

jaegertech

07 Dec 05, 07:33

Not entirely true, depending on a number of factors, terrain, unit #'s etc. :)

I meant by demanding variable match length. The rusher can't be certain if the troops only have to survive one round or another four. I don't know why, but I seem to see a greater variation in match length than just "+5."

Twotribes

07 Dec 05, 07:41

Assumptions can be a bear. How does one know that the timing of the attack wasnt because of restraints on the opposing player as he carefully manuevered his units into position? I would say one is going to lose a lot of caual players if they assume every late rush is due to gameyness.

As for having played for a few games, even then you cant be sure it isnt how that player times his approaches or is careful of how he approaches, OR how he considers the need for units to gain a victory area.

Full Monty

07 Dec 05, 11:44

You've made me a bit nervous now, that I might be a gamey bar steward. In an ME QB I have launched an attack with six minutes to go, after only sporadic exchanges of fire before this. Basically because I haven't got used to timing the movement of troops and also every time I prepared to attack my opponent, either through great skill or luck, he has preempted me. Am I the anti-christ?? (in CM terms at least) I already know in more general terms :devil:

Since most of the games I play are 'variable' length (I've seen 37 and 38 in a 30+ incidentally) this isn't an issue. In a fixed length game quite frankly it's part of the game and I will 'rush the flags'. Equally I have no problem with my opponent doing it.

Also thrown into the equation is: would soldiers (US/UK/Ger) rush into the middle of no-where or even make a suicide rush into the open & told "survive for just 60 seconds!" Or would a tank commander race up to a tree even when he knows AT weapons are aimed at him just hoping to survive for 30 more seconds?

As a counterpoint to this, what RL commander knows that a battle is going to finish in exactly two minutes? A fixed length game is very artificial and imho it's quite fair to use equally artificial tactics. Having VLs also contributes to the artificiality of a game, necessary as they may be. I suppose I'm less concerned than some about the 'sim' side of the game and more with the 'fun' aspect. No criticism intended, it's the way it is. Vive la difference :laugh:

Palantir

07 Dec 05, 20:42

Timing of attacks is a tricky thing, but "rushing the flag" is fairly obvious.
Some attacks take forever to setup and against a good defense / scenario it might take nearly all game to get the necessary units into place.

But when units just sit for turns on end with no effort to take positions, move or fight for terrain etc and then "suddenly" they erupt from where ever on the last turn that would be rushing the flag.

There is a big difference if you can detect that the "attacker" is moving units around / bringing up more units / scouting out the defenses / fighting for "stepping stones" / setting up the attack etc and then he launchs it 3-4 turns from the end. This would indicate to me that he was planning to actually take & hold the flag, not just contest ownership.

Plus if you can see enemy units heading your way & that they won't arrive until near the end that wouldn't be "rushing the flag."

He's coming, you see him coming, he knows that you see him so you should have time to prepare for the attack.

I'm in a similar situation now, but can't comment on it for fear of giving away too much info to my opponent!

Most of this can be "disfused" if you and your opponent have been chatting throughout the game.

Ex- "You're killing me! My only hope now to not be totally defeated is to capture one flag- which one it will be you'll just have to wait & see."
So now you have been warned that your opponent will try and capture a flag anyway he can. Sure he may rush a flag but heck he just told you he would, it's up to you to defend them adequately now.

liuzg150181

08 Dec 05, 05:41

Interesting debates and here's my late and puny 2 cents reply:
Normally i dont deliberately go for flag,instead i opt for the subjugation of enemy units,what use is the rushing tactics to the flags at last minute when you have no or insufficient unit to accomplish it? :laugh:
However there are of course exception to this,one of which being that i am vastly out-numbered,the quality of the units could not compensate the gap and i am already having the flag(s) at the start.One of the CMBB battle-"The Last Stand" is a good example of this exception. In this case my only hope is to build layers of defense,while stationing units in terrain suitable for launching a surprise, in hope of holding on until the last minute.
Nevertheless i dont view the rushing tactics to the flags at last minute as anything bad,in fact IMO if it is done properly and subtlely i would say it would be a tactical brilliance~~~ :)

Palantir

08 Dec 05, 15:14

Nevertheless i dont view the rushing tactics to the flags at last minute as anything bad,in fact IMO if it is done properly and subtlely i would say it would be a tactical brilliance~~~ :)

Ah, but the key words in that entire comment were "if done subtlety."

The "rushing the flag" action has nothing to do with tactics but everything to do with ONLY contesting ownership of said flag. This action is: When it is clear that if given 1-2 more turns the defender would eliminate all "rushing units." The rushing units are in fact on a suicide mission but gain a "victory" if they just live 60 seconds.

If this "tactic" is used in the first 80% of a game then it's probably designed & planned to take & actually HOLD the flag & not a "rush" but an attack utilizing terrain & cover with the intention of living after you get "to" the flag.

What player (I know there are some :nuts: ) would rush units to sit in the open around a / near a flag 25% into a game knowing that in the next 1-2 turns all of them will be eliminated? But this is an acceptable "tactic" on the last turn?

"If done subtlety." Ok here's an example of a good tactical "rush" on or close to the last turn.

In a game I'm currently playing:

I took 1/2 a village & the flag, my opponent made a massive attack and routed/threw me out of the village & into deep woods. For the next 7-8 turns(?) we shot back & forth and now after eliminating the only armor in the area with 8 turns left I've reorganzied & am counter-attacking, (all inf for us both now) driving back into the village. We're now in a running gunfight back to the flag and this will most certainly turn into a massive last turn rush/battle for the rubble it stands in.

So: we can see what is taking place- both of us are moving units to gain control of the flag (it's neutral now) and based on distance/terrain to the flag we're going to have to decide when is the best time to make our charges (rush) across the open spaces to gain possession of the house/wood around the flag. Obviously a last turn charge that gains control of the flag would be best. However by then there may be so many units with LOS/strength on the flag that actual possession will be meaningless.

In this instance a last minute rush by my opponent would not bother me because I know it has not been planned in "advance." It may take up to the last turn for either of us to get up enough troops to make an attack for the flag. Plus if I hadn't counter-attacked he would never have needed to even think about rushing back for that flag. (My opponents crew sitting there "holding it" has already lost possession of the flag because enough of my units have LOS "weight" on it already.)

Also something key in this example- the flag is already "neutral" and both of us want ownership of it. So this isn't a "rush & live for just 60 seconds" action. This will have to be a "rush/hold/live & eliminate enough of the enemy to gain possession of the flag."

Lurker

08 Dec 05, 18:33

Interesting. The attitudes toward flag rushing seem split more then I would have expected. I agree with your intent Kerry and assumed that most others in the club did as well. I'll have to be on my guard in future games as it seems there are enough who prefer rushing. :)

While I understand the gamey nature of having VLs - the system doesn't provide any reasonable alternative - there's something about a massed endgame suicidal rush that seems over done. I wonder how much of this attitude is motivated by the new WARS ladder rating system where the only thing that counts is winning, and margin of victory or loss has no role? If the amount of penalty for a loss (points subtracted) were scaled to fit the victory/loss margin and a well fought minor loss was not punished as heavily as a bigger loss, would this alter the "neutralize the flags at all costs" attitude? :confused:

Full Monty

08 Dec 05, 20:07

I agree with your intent Kerry and assumed that most others in the club did as well. I'll have to be on my guard in future games as it seems there are enough who prefer rushing. :)

You'll just have to set the game length to variable :)

Incidentally, I think 'regard as acceptable' rather than 'prefer' is a better description of certain members attitudes (well, mine anyway ;) ) to flag rushing.

Lurker

08 Dec 05, 22:33

You'll just have to set the game length to variable :) Alas, my preferred game (cmbo) doesn't have variable endings! :cry:

Mad Russian

08 Dec 05, 22:47

Hi guys. I'm new here on this site, as you can tell by my extremely large number of posts.

Since forming HSG, some of you may have played myscenarios. Hanging around The Proving Grounds, I may have played some of yours.

Being a designer of a considerable number of scenarios, and having playtested countless others, I feel uniquely qualified to discuss this particular issue.

As a designer of well over a hundred scenarios, I have only on a few rare occassions used a fixed game ending. For the most part, it is to deter the "Rush to the Flag" syndrome, but I also feel that, very few battlefield commanders know with certainty, when an engagement will end.

However, if you are playing one of my scenarios you shouldn't dicsount the value of a VL. That flag may well be worth 2000 points. I've had players not rush the flag because, "it was only one large flag worth 300 points". When in fact, it was one large flag worth 2000 points, and they lost the game because they didn't get it.

A 100 point flag that is sitting out in the middle of nowhere that you may lose a 200+ point tank to get may not be worth it.

It has been my experience that killing units is often worth more than the objectives on the map...unless of course you are playing one of HSG's scenarios and then you never know for sure...

I have played scenarios where I intentionally didn't capture all the flags, because, it was going to put some very high value units at risk to get it.

Ultimately the choice is yours. Is the flag worth the risk? If it is a large flag and there are no small flags on the map you better take it. Dynamic flags only come in large size and you can only get four. As the defender you have no choice but to assume that the flag you don't own is the only one that counts. I think you better rush it.

But when do you do that? I've seen games go for 9 extra turns. A 30 turn game of HSG KH Bloody Road went to 38 turns. Another game I played, stopped twi turns early on variable ending. So when do you charge?

Are the points close? Is the game a draw? Can you kill one of his tanks that is trying to defend that flag and MAYBE flip it at the same time? Is it worth the risk?

Only you can decide.

I can only tell you about playing HSG scenarios. If you play our work then you better be ready for just about any combination the editor can put together. We pride our work on being different. That includes having 12 victory locations on the map, like in Bloody Road, or only one like in T-34 Threat.

If you have only a single unit for your entire command, as in T-34 Threat, do you dare rush the flag? Do you dare not rush it? A good scenario designer will take the "rush the flag" to the nth degree, and force you, the player, to make some hard choices. Which is as it should be.

The real answer about whether you rush the flag or not, is that each situation is different, and often requires a different answer. It's not as simple as, "I think it's gamey and I never do it." If I gave you orders in your breifing to take that bridge, and you didn't, because you didn't "rush the flag", you may well lose the scenario, because that bridge VL was worth more than your whole OOB. On the other hand, if you have 12 VL's on the map and you control 8 of them and rushing that last flag available could cost you 300-400 points in losses, maybe you should pass on that last one.

Your choice. IMHO, that's what makes CM so great.

Good Hunting.

MR

Full Monty

08 Dec 05, 23:18

Alas, my preferred game (cmbo) doesn't have variable endings! :cry:

Ahhhh :cheeky:

You'll have no worries playing against me then, I only play CMBO if absolutely necessary :D

NiG

09 Dec 05, 04:01

Mad Russian

09 Dec 05, 07:40

You seem to have slightly missed the idea of a flag rush. The idea of rushing a flag within the normal turns of a game is not the problem, but you talk of losing valuable units in doing so.

The frowned upon aspect of the 'Flag rush' is when it is done on the last (or penultimate) turn. You overwhelm the flag with units and the game ends before your opponent can knock them out. So although we all know that AFV will be eliminated within 30 seconds of appearing (or inf units) there sinmply isn't enough game time left to actually carry out the task by the defender.

This doesn't win the flag for the attacker (in normal cases) but it does deny the defender the VPs.

You don't even need to overwhelm the flag to do this, a single operational unit within the flags control area is enough to tip it to 'contested'. Had a game recently where I controlled the major VP with 2 platoons, mortars and MGs - but when the end came there was one panicked enemy squad just close enough to prevent my VPs... :blab:. Wasn't a flag rush, but the game ended three turns early (!) as I was just setting up to run the unit off.... :mad:

...just a clarification :halo:

In all seriousness though... I'm afraid it's a part of the game and very hard to control. The only way to deal with it is to plan a counter early and wait...:hush:

I think I understand perfectly what the problem is.

You were given orders at the start of a scenario. Take the objectives. If, at the end, you don't have one(or more) you have to try to get it in a single rush. Either to own it outright or deny it to your opponent.

When the game is set for fixed turns this works pretty well. But you don't really have that option if the game has variable ending.

For the most part, there won't be a mass exidus rush at the flag. If you have the overwhelming forces you refer to, then, you really wouldn't have to rush the flag in the first place. I'm talking about taking a squad or two, and trying to rush them across open ground that 1 turn ago you wouldn't have done. I'm talking about your precious Panther, having to try shoot and scoot on that JS-2 sitting by the flag, that has already killed 2 other panthers that died trying the same thing.

Is it worth it? You tell me if it's gamey to try to force the issue for a flag worth 2,000 points to try to take it in what you think is the last few turns of the game.
The problem is that you will NEVER know that a flag is worth 2,000 until the end of the game. This happened in a playtest for one of my scenarios. After the guy lost he told me," if I had known it was worth 2,000 points I would have tried for it at the end." The problem is you don't always know.

Personally, I think it's normally worth the effort. Remember, way back at the beginning, you were ordered to take the objectives. All of them not just a few.

There are thousands of historical events of just such things happening.

Omaha Beach, Remagen Bridge, Battle of the Bulge, Goodwood, Reichswald, Stalingrad, and every little farm and hamlet in between.

What I see here are the defenders crying out...not fair to try to take the objective from me in the last few minutes of this battle! As an attacker I tell you all's fair in love and war.

I tried to show you, apparenty I didn't do too good a job at it, that there can be very good reasons to rush the flag and some not so very good reasons to do it. It all depends on the situation.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Rushing an objective is a normal part of tactical combat. IMO, that makes it not gamey in CM. What has been missing is the defenders response. The Germans for one always planned for immediate counterattacks on any major positions that they lost.

Doing that in CM can be hard. How do you keep a reserve available? It's not easy, but, that's why they pay you the big bucks! :devil:

Good Hunting.

MR

NiG

09 Dec 05, 12:20

Palantir

09 Dec 05, 13:30

Is it worth it? You tell me if it's gamey to try to force the issue for a flag worth 2,000 points to try to take it in what you think is the last few turns of the game.The problem is that you will NEVER know that a flag is worth 2,000 until the end of the game. This happened in a playtest for one of my scenarios. After the guy lost he told me," if I had known it was worth 2,000 points I would have tried for it at the end." The problem is you don't always know.

Started a new post in the design section- multiplile VF's.

:)

Palantir

09 Dec 05, 13:55

Is it worth it? You tell me if it's gamey to try to force the issue for a flag worth 2,000 points to try to take it in what you think is the last few turns of the game.
Of course it's worth it no matter the value of the flag, "flipping" any size flag is worth it if you are following the rush the flag "event." You're already losing so who cares if you lose more units, even a panther.

And what is even funnier is- if the flag is "fat" or large it makes the whole point of rushing that flag even more "worthwhile." :laugh:

:hmmm:
I guess one point that has been overlooked in this discussion is that the LEVEL of Victory is what is important & we are talking about concerning rushing the flag, not simply if you win/lose. In tournaments where the victory / point level per round is used then every flag (100/300 pts) is important and if you can deny your opponent a flag that may very well tip a MAJ victory (73-27) to a TAC (66-33).

What I see here are the defenders crying out...not fair to try to take the objective from me in the last few minutes of this battle! As an attacker I tell you all's fair in love and war.
No, what we are talking about is that the WINNER is saying "what kind of player is my losing opponent (and that is a fact already determined in the game by the last turn) when he will try something to just screw me up and not allow me an opportunity to tactically respond?"

I guess I could simulate a game as an example and see how fair it is, I'll set it up.

"They" get one German plt and 4 Panthers & 4 Tigers / I get 1 Soviet conscript INF BTN.

There are 5 VF locations on the map, 1 small VF and 4 large VF's in a village.

Of course "They" want to win so I'll set 1 Panther and 1 Tiger per LVF location and the one plt at the SVF since it is located in deep woods. "They" now hold all the VF's"

I place & hide 2 INF companys by the 4 LVF's and one Company in the deep woods.

Ready? Oh the game is only one turn long and "Their" 1/2 turn is already over.

GO!
1. I hide my 2 village companies.
2. My 3rd company rushes thru the woods at the SVF, I've split-squaded them so that makes about... 28 units charging "their" four, Good Luck!!

Game is over. Did they hold control of the flag? Did their Panzers rush over to help, where are their reserves?

Oh well "they" hold 4 LVF, 4x300=1200 pts
But oh guess what? That SVF was worth 2000 pts!!

Score- Them 1200 : Me 2000 I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :banana:

I like this "rush the flag" deal, lets play again! :devil:

So that's what we're talking about when we say "rushing the flag," not really fair is it?

That may be extreme and if the SVF is only worth 100 points the "flip" may not even happen but what the heck the losing player doesn't care he's already lost so why not "rush" that flag and hope for the best?

PS- just kidding with you MR! :halo:

NiG

09 Dec 05, 14:10

Suppose you could make all game infinate turns then you end when the first one gets bored enough to surrender ....:nuts:

jaegertech

09 Dec 05, 18:43

Suppose you could make all game infinate turns then you end when the first one gets bored enough to surrender ....:nuts:

Personally, this is why I prefer sub-1000 point games and 45+ turn limits. Usually, the battle is decided before turns are up.

Mad Russian

09 Dec 05, 20:29

...but it just illustrates that you have actually missed the point... :whist:
*i'm trying to be polite here but it isn't coming across* :)

I'm guessing you're new (ish) to CM and perhapse you haven't suffered it yet? But when your opponent does it, you'll know straight away... :mad:

* No, you're being polite. It's coming across.* :)

I'm not sure what you considered newish to CM. Here is a little of my background and you can decide if I'm newish or just full of BS.

I joined CSDT April of 2003. In September 2003 I formed HSG.

I personally have posted 97 scenarios to the old Scenario Depot. Other CSDT/HSG members posted another 61. I playtested all of mine and all but a very few of the rest. HSG scenarios were downloaded 50,219 times for an average of 129 per day. We had 7% of the CMBB scenarios at the site when it crashed and had recieved 22% of all CMBB reviews. At the same time we had 9% of all CMAK scenarios on the site and had gotten 20% of all CMAK reviews.

I have been involved at The Proving Grounds (which specializes in playtesting scenarios) since October 2003. While at TPG I have playtested countless other designers scenarios. At the Proving Grounds I have written 17 articles on scenario design tips, 8 articles for playtest tactics (how to improve your game skills) and done 16 armored unit histories of various countries for players looking for TO&E ideas for their own designs. I have answered countless questions and given advice to CM scenarios designers around the world.

I played in the ROWIV tournament and am currently running the King of the Hill Tournament at The Proving Grounds and supporting it completely with my own scenarios. (That wasn't supposed to happen.)

I've only owned the CM games a bit over 2 years now so by a lot of peoples standards that makes me newish to the game. I will however put my CM accomplishments up against anyone's for the same time frame.

You can believe me when I tell you, that I know what rushing the flag is, and that I have experienced it on many more occasions than I care to think about. That is why, personally, I use variable ending scenarios, unless there as an absolute reason I should end it after a spcecific time period.

So in answer to your comments:

You can decide if I'm newish to CM or not. Depends on what standards you are using. By some standards I certainly am. Being a prolific designer doesn't necessarily mean that you know what you're talking about. It just means that you are a prolific scenario designer. The poll is still out whether I know what I'm talking about or I'm full of BS.

I have experienced flag rushing. Both using it and having it used against me on countless occasions. I have probably played CM scenarios close to a thousand times, either mine or other designers and I have looked at rushing the flag
in-depth. You can read on my other posts how I feel about it, no need to reiterate it here.

Good Hunting.

MR

Mad Russian

09 Dec 05, 20:40

PS- just kidding with you MR! :halo:

I see how this works...you can resist everything but temptation... :devious:

Good Hunting.

MR

Lurker

09 Dec 05, 20:51

One person's cheesy end-game flag rush is another's justifiable and desperate effort not to lose even though they know they've had their butt kicked. All honor is tossed out the window! :cheeky:

So if all players reserve some cheap fast light armor and good smoke capability and smoke the hell out of all VLs they don't own at game's end and rush them, then one piece of light armor is bound to survive at each and thereby neutralize everything they didn't earn. :halo:

Hmmm, if we all start playing that way then things could get interesting!

The safest solution is a radius of solid control arould each VL you believe you own so to ward off the late flying cheese. :blab:

NiG

10 Dec 05, 06:52

* No, you're being polite. It's coming across.* :)
...oh goody! :o

Credential accepted too... :salute:

Seems like you're quite active but we all seem to be in agreement that the tactic exists and there are limited solutions to it. Some are by scenario design and others are by defense solutions. We can't stop it so we have to deal with it!

After all how do you determine what is a gamey rush and what was a legitimate attack that maybe went wrong? and of course the complainant will always be the defender/loser. :violin:

BTW - there was never (on my part) any thought that there was any BS in what you were saying MR you seem to be quite knowledgeable on the historic aspect of the setting.

liuzg150181

10 Dec 05, 08:15

Interesting comments afte me,especially "Mad Russian"~~~ :smoke:
Ah, but the key words in that entire comment were "if done subtlety."

The "rushing the flag" action has nothing to do with tactics but everything to do with ONLY contesting ownership of said flag. This action is: When it is clear that if given 1-2 more turns the defender would eliminate all "rushing units." The rushing units are in fact on a suicide mission but gain a "victory" if they just live 60 seconds.
Ah,but the point is "if they just live 60 seconds",which means there is still a chance to flop,but then does its failure lies on the suicide units' error or the defenders' superior maneuver,or both?

If this "tactic" is used in the first 80% of a game then it's probably designed & planned to take & actually HOLD the flag & not a "rush" but an attack utilizing terrain & cover with the intention of living after you get "to" the flag.

What player (I know there are some :nuts: ) would rush units to sit in the open around a / near a flag 25% into a game knowing that in the next 1-2 turns all of them will be eliminated? But this is an acceptable "tactic" on the last turn?
Is it possible to execute a preemptively strike against them? :D

"If done subtlety." Ok here's an example of a good tactical "rush" on or close to the last turn.

In a game I'm currently playing:

I took 1/2 a village & the flag, my opponent made a massive attack and routed/threw me out of the village & into deep woods. For the next 7-8 turns(?) we shot back & forth and now after eliminating the only armor in the area with 8 turns left I've reorganzied & am counter-attacking, (all inf for us both now) driving back into the village. We're now in a running gunfight back to the flag and this will most certainly turn into a massive last turn rush/battle for the rubble it stands in.

So: we can see what is taking place- both of us are moving units to gain control of the flag (it's neutral now) and based on distance/terrain to the flag we're going to have to decide when is the best time to make our charges (rush) across the open spaces to gain possession of the house/wood around the flag. Obviously a last turn charge that gains control of the flag would be best. However by then there may be so many units with LOS/strength on the flag that actual possession will be meaningless.

In this instance a last minute rush by my opponent would not bother me because I know it has not been planned in "advance." It may take up to the last turn for either of us to get up enough troops to make an attack for the flag. Plus if I hadn't counter-attacked he would never have needed to even think about rushing back for that flag. (My opponents crew sitting there "holding it" has already lost possession of the flag because enough of my units have LOS "weight" on it already.)

Also something key in this example- the flag is already "neutral" and both of us want ownership of it. So this isn't a "rush & live for just 60 seconds" action. This will have to be a "rush/hold/live & eliminate enough of the enemy to gain possession of the flag."
Oh ok,i already get your point,though in a way i saw the seizure of a flag at the last turn also as a method of timed attack~~~

Mad Russian

10 Dec 05, 10:45

Oh ok,i already get your point,though in a way i saw the seizure of a flag at the last turn also as a method of timed attack~~~

A timed attack is a good way to look at this. A CM battle or operation doesn't just STOPwhen you get to the last turn. For us it does. On the ground in real life it wouldn't. The fighting would slowly wind down or one side would pull back. Maybe both sides.

What is looked at as a gamey tactic, of rushing at the end of the game, in a real life stituation would continue on and there would not be an abrupt ending.

If the attacker is rushing the flag, what is the defender doing? Is he counterattacking to regain lost postitions? Isn't that what is supposed to happen? At ANY TIME during a game aren't you supposed to get the objectives? Or hold them? Was the game over when I took the flag? If the game was over when I got then you have a beef. If the game still had even one second to go the fight is still on.

This conversation is like saying, that throwing a Hail Mary pass at the end of a football game, is unsportsmanlike conduct. Maybe, but that pass still wins the game doesn't it? Was it a normal pass that in the 3rd quarter you would have cheered for? So why is there a stigma about doing it at the end? Because you just SNATCHED something away!! YOU STOLE OUR VICTORY!!! Nobody stole anything, you gave it away. You stopped playing 3 seconds too soon.

Like I said before, if you play against me and I need that last flag, I will more than likely rush it.

Good Hunting.

MR

Nemesis Lead

10 Dec 05, 12:54

I agree that flag rushing is gamey, but this is a game that revolves around victory points and so it is unfortunately necessary.

Another way of looking at it--it actually hurts the "flag attacker" who has to rush in the first place and expose himself to heavy losses. Hence, in my mind flag rushing is really neutral and if anything helps the "flag defender."

This raises an interesting point in CM that I posted a while back on the Battlefront Forum. CM battles are actually far shorter than real life battles. Let's say you have a 2000 point a/d game (in real life a battalion sized engagement). Most people set that up for 35 to 45 turns or 35 to 45 minutes. In real life, this battle would take 3 or 4 hours. WW2 real life fighting consists of lots of creeping and positioning followed up by very short and intense engagements OR long range exchanges of fire that went on for hours. There were lots of delays as ammo was brought up, casualites were evacuated, key units were slowly brought into position, commanders thought things over, reserves were committed, telephone wire was layed, etc.. A commander would almost never say "you have to take that position in about 30 minutes, if it takes you 31 minutes you have failed" (a notable exception might be capturing a bridge intact).

The downside, however, is that no one in his right mind will set up games for 180 to 240 turns (3 to 4 hours)!

Hence, about the best thing that you can do (as someone mentioned) is make the games as long as possible while also balancing the desire not to have a PBEM game that lasts three months. The longer the game, the more attrition rather than flag rushing will decide the outcome.

Defenders who hate flag rushes can also consider more forward, mobile defenses. Crush them at mid-field and don't give them the opportunity to even get close to your flags! Some of the best players that I know do this (unfortunately often at my expense).

I hope this helps.

Jay

jaegertech

10 Dec 05, 14:17

This conversation is like saying, that throwing a Hail Mary pass at the end of a football game, is unsportsmanlike conduct. Maybe, but that pass still wins the game doesn't it? Was it a normal pass that in the 3rd quarter you would have cheered for? So why is there a stigma about doing it at the end? Because you just SNATCHED something away!! YOU STOLE OUR VICTORY!!! Nobody stole anything, you gave it away. You stopped playing 3 seconds too soon.

Please show me a SINGLE battle in WW2 where a time limit ran out and everybody stopped fighting.

The point of CM (and I don't know why this apparently isn't the bleeding obvious) is to create a realistic tactical simulation of WW2 combat in various theaters. The time limit itself is inherently unrealistic and only comes into play so much because people keep trying to cram battalion sized fights and maps into company sized time limits.

Try this on for size: (Points/20) * Size = Turn Limit

Size is map size
Small: 1.1
Medium: 1.4
Large: 1.7
Huge: 2.0

Yes, this means that very large point totals get the maximum 120 turn battles. How many regimental sized engagements do you know of that were over in under two hours? Playing long matches like that will certainly teach you about husbanding your ammo supplies.

Mad Russian

10 Dec 05, 14:58

Please show me a SINGLE battle in WW2 where a time limit ran out and everybody stopped fighting.

The point of CM (and I don't know why this apparently isn't the bleeding obvious) is to create a realistic tactical simulation of WW2 combat in various theaters. The time limit itself is inherently unrealistic and only comes into play so much because people keep trying to cram battalion sized fights and maps into company sized time limits.

Try this on for size: (Points/20) * Size = Turn Limit

Size is map size
Small: 1.1
Medium: 1.4
Large: 1.7
Huge: 2.0

Yes, this means that very large point totals get the maximum 120 turn battles. How many regimental sized engagements do you know of that were over in under two hours? Playing long matches like that will certainly teach you about husbanding your ammo supplies.

Every battle ever fought in the history of the world ran out of time. What causes that? The commander on one side or more rarely on both sides decides that they have had enough. The fight is over. For whatever reason all fights come to an end. You as the commander may or may not bein control of when it ends or even know why it ends at that moment.

You can read of countless situations where an attack hasn't gone well and the commander changes his mind. Bradly at Omaha Beach comes immediately to mind. The commander on the beach had no control over how long that battle was going to last. A few more minutes, and I don't remember off the top of my head how many but less than an hour, and Bradley was going to stop attacking Omaha Beach. All troops were to be diverted to Utah Beach. Then, all at once, the troops began moving inland and he let the attack continue.

You see, in CM battles you are not normally the commander in charge of how long your particular battle goes. The company sized fight is NOT exclusively controlled by the company commander. He has to report to somebody that can tell him to stop attacking right now! In most cases if ordered to stop attacking you would.

IMHO, CM is not a realistic tactical simulation of WWII, for a variety of reasons. Time compression, limited leadership modeling, command-communication- control almost entirely missing except in the most base elements, exaggerated hit-kill results, death not possible, no association with the pixel army, etc...

I do think CM is a great game series though! It has it's strength's and weakness' like all games but I think it gets more things right than anyother I've played.

IMO, points is a very poor measure to use in CM. I see points per side used for everything from determining which games to play all the way down to the number of victory flags to place and everything in between.

What makes a point system way out of line is the costs for things aren't the same.

Take a scenario with 1000 points for the Germans all armor.

Is there any reason that you can think of that a points rule should be used for
31 PzIB's(978) vs 5 PzVa Early (1009)? It doesn't make sense to me that people want to count points. A force of 31 vehicles on the map isn't the same as a force of 5. How can you choose which scenarios you will play based on that? How can you base any other measure on that? When you count points it is only relevant if it is compared to a particular time frame. 1000 points of 1941 tanks very obviously isn't 1000 points worth of 1944 tanks.

According your calculations I would twice as long to play a battle with 10 Panthers as I would with 31 PzI's. Game turn lengths really doesn't fit with this thread though.

Sorry for gettig sidetracked.

Good Hunting.

MR

Palantir

10 Dec 05, 15:31

I agree that flag rushing is gamey :)
Another way of looking at it--it actually hurts the "flag attacker" who has to rush in the first place and expose himself to heavy losses. Hence, in my mind flag rushing is really neutral and if anything helps the "flag defender."
You miss the point- the defender has lost the game already & really doesn't care if he loses more! But his best chance to lessen the defeat level is flip the flag from his opponent to neutral or capture it if lucky.
Defenders who hate flag rushes can also consider more forward, mobile defenses. Crush them at mid-field and don't give them the opportunity to even get close to your flags! Some of the best players that I know do this (unfortunately often at my expense).
Again you missed the point of this thread- if this was the case a "flag rush" would not be even possibile. We're not talking about how to defeat a flag rush before it happens or prepare better to defeat one but about that it has ALREADY happened. :whist: Thus all of the circumstances are already in place to make a flag rush possibile, that is the question being discussed.

Although... I like this entire discussion!!! :thumup:

Lurker

10 Dec 05, 18:45

A CM battle or operation doesn't just STOPwhen you get to the last turn. For us it does. On the ground in real life it wouldn't. The fighting would slowly wind down or one side would pull back. Maybe both sides. Exactly.

What is looked at as a gamey tactic, of rushing at the end of the game, in a real life situation would continue on and there would not be an abrupt ending. Again, exactly. And based on your previous statement, the RL battle would continue and the suicidal rush would end in just that - suicide of the rushers! What RL commander is going to do that when up to that point it is obvious he cannot take that objective? Would he sacrifice his troops so he could say "they survived and contested said objective for a 90 full seconds"? Or at the precise moment they rush would he send a dispatch to his senior officer claiming that 'our troops are currently contesting objective X but it appears as if they will not hold for long. Request reinforcements immediately'. :cheeky: Technically he wouldn't be lying but it certainly would be stretching the truth to its limits.

AT ANY TIME during a game aren't you supposed to get the objectives? Or hold them? Yes, but the idea is to hold it for more then a few seconds. Why not employ that tactic earlier in the game if it is so favorable :p (don't bother to answer that one)?

Nobody stole anything, you gave it away. You stopped playing 3 seconds too soon. Seriously? The defenders know they repel that attack if the game continues, but they cannot do much about the time running out. That hardly constitutes a give-away IMO.

IMO, points is a very poor measure to use in CM. I see points per side used for everything from determining which games to play all the way down to the number of victory flags to place and everything in between. What else can we use? Points are used for determining all sporting events, chess matches, etc. It's a scaled abstraction, which seems fitting to me.

As to long games, I have no problems with them. Trying to squeeze a large engagement into a mere 30 to 45 minutes means using tactics you probably wouldn’t use if you had more time. It may take an hour just to get everything into position and areas softened up. I don't understand an aversion to long games. Is the desire to have a faster result more important then way the battle is conducted?

IMHO :whist:

Mad Russian

10 Dec 05, 20:15

So then Lurker when would you have the game end? How would you do it if you don't set a time limit? Last man standing wins?

For me personally, the end of the game represents the losing side calling off the fight. Which ever side that may be. So I don't have a problem with the game ending when it does.

"That was the Colonel on the radio. He says pull back."

"No, we are so close to getting that intersection!"

"Sorry, he says that you are to pull back to your original positions. That is an order."

Game over. Flags rushed or not.

I was referring to OOB point sizes not Victory point sizes. Sorry for the confusion.

Good Hunting.

MR

NiG

11 Dec 05, 03:50

That's the idea....

Non of this turn limits lark, how about you simply play the game with unlimited turns and when the game decides there is an outcome you get a message saying "you have been ordered to pull back"... you lose!!

Unfortunately, this doen't help anyone... :cheeky:

The reason this doesn't happen is because we all are pretty much gung-ho about our games. (i.e. those aren't real lives out there and nobody gets killed so who cares?). If we we're all true generals in WW2 and we treated our forces like we do I really expect we'd not be in the job very long...

Hey, the AI could end the game with a "your men have mutinied... you lose!" :laugh:

Lurker

11 Dec 05, 10:20

Non of this turn limits lark, how about you simply play the game with unlimited turns and when the game decides there is an outcome you get a message saying "you have been ordered to pull back"... you lose!!Actually the game does have that feature. One side can be auto-surrendered by the AI when the morale gets too low. But I wasn't speaking of endless games. Just longer ones based on purchase points and map size. If we we're all true generals in WW2 and we treated our forces like we do I really expect we'd not be in the job very long... I'm not so sure about that NiG. I understand some Russian commanders and Commissars were quite ruthless with their troops; human wave assaults, hold to the last man in hopeless situations, etc. If anything, I think the typical CM Russian commander isn't nearly that brutal! :)

Berkut37

12 Dec 05, 07:50

Gamey tactics are always going to get people steamed under the collar. Be it suicidal recce, hugging the map edges or desperately rushing flags as the game nears its end. In the SP series, the infamous reload cheat always got me :mad: :argh:

er hem...

These represent weaknesses in the game design. These games are not 100% realistic, your digital soldiers always do what you order, no matter how insane.

general: Private!
private: Yes General
general: I need someone to seize that bridge, but we're a bit rushed for time. Get in that jeep and drive like blazes, I'm sending some tank crews who bailed as support.....good luck
private: Yes sir! thank you sir!

I personally find the idea of VP flags a touch gamey, it would be better if they held little point value or none at all, simply there to show you the main objectives for the mission. But...they do and we have to live with it.

In the end it's not worth losing sleep over. When we decide on pbem tcp/ip games just insert a random end. Have a gentlemans agreement about gamey tactics that will not be accepted. or Use predesigned maps that have few or no VP flags at all.

at the end of the game swap passwords, and you can have a lively what if discussion about what would have happened had the battle continued :D

As always, feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly :thumup: