Thanks. I'm in the process of making a combat tutorial right now. I'm going to timestamp all the sections in it so you can quickly get to the parts you're interested in.
Regarding dicussion of the faint black squares and their not being able to change hands, i suspect it may be to do with one or both sides having overwatch of that entire square with direct/indirect fire? After all you can't "occupy" a square if you can neither move across it safely or be static in it long enough to dig in etc. Looking at the 2 squares above and the topography and force dispositions its difficult to establish 100% if this is the case in this instance. I've used a similar tactic at mission start. Often in the deployment phase the game engine dictates a defensive position to occupy that is both tactically unsound and possession of it offers no immediate strategic reward or advantage. So i dig my forces in at a position that enables me to completely dominate that area with fire and thus deny it to the enemy without being actually sat on it. My aim is usually to attrit as much enemy combat power in the initial defense phase and then counter-attack late in the mission to get possession of that square before the tactical phase ends. Doesn't always work but i'd say 50-60% of the time it does.
I'm not certain myself, but always thought it had more to do with the timing of unit's movements. My primary reason for suspecting this is because of how often they change. Very interesting strategy with the area denial concept. I don't think I've ever tried implementing it but I will for sure now. It's ingenious. Thanks for the tip.
@@TheWarSimmer Thanks, it wasn't my idea though! I served in the British Royal Marines Commando's for 23 years (86-09), I'm sure it's in the the British Army Command and Staff College Manual somewhere? We practiced it on exercises, back in the Cold War era. As far as the theories on the black squares, you're right i did think more about it after replying and it seems to be less transparent than i maybe thought? Be interesting to get more opinions on it and maybe a more comprehensible response at some stage from Andrey et al?
@@TheWarSimmer My view is that since we play in kind of arbitrary square and there might be a lot of troops just outside it, it is maybe to prevent one side to push where reinforces would normally make stand to stop further push. It forces to take it in a fight where the square moves and incorporates neighboring units.
So 2 questions. I had played a battle where I had taken control of a square and I was checking if there were any enemies left in that square before accepting their cease fire. I had taken heavy casualties and lost 3 panthers which gave them a favour of 2:1. I ended the battle after making sure there were no enemies left on that objective but the battle ended in a minor defeat and gave the enemy the square. Why is that? Is it because I had higher casualties which means that I can't maintain control? Nr 2. If they offer a cease fire, shouldn't I allways be the one to gain to the squares?
In my experience, if you have the most amount of troops in a square when the engagement ends, you get ownership. The location of the objective points seems to be irrelevant for the most part. If you had heavy casualties and just a few units in the square, the enemy may have moved in units without you being able to notice them and thus gained possession (hard to have eyes over an entire square with just a few units). Another MAJOR point. Check the map DURING the battle... if the square has a semi-transparent dark grey square within it, ownership of the tile CANNOT change hands, even if you kill every son of a gun within it and plop an entire company down. You probably knew this, but it's important to check DURING the engagement on the map because sometimes it changes from what the operational map says once you get into battle. As far as a cease-fire, it basically acts as a "end the battle early" button. The battle results will be the exact same as if you just finished the entire 1 or 2 hr engagement.
