Ground held % stat.

[Gunner24]

Is it correct to think that the three arms, Inf, Cav and Artillery "own" a certain area around the unit if the other side does not also cover that area......so gaining the % ground owned stat in F7 ?.

The ground stat is often about the 20% mark, no matter how much ground is held by one side, because a lot of ground is not deemed to be controlled by either side - even when the LOP in the rear has no enemy units threatening it, like the Russians in the picture.

I would suggest that ALL the ground in your side's rear that is NOT owned by the enemy should be taken into account for this % stat.

[Hook]

The game only says "Ground", it does not give further meaning to the word.

What you're seeing is the amount of ground physically controlled by units on your side, and it's probably determined by the sight distance for that unit.  If you want to control more ground, send out a few cavalry units. 

In real life, if you didn't have a unit on the ground in an area, and you couldn't see it, you wouldn't know if the enemy had one there.

At first, I thought about how you might extend the control areas to cover every piece of ground that wasn't controlled by the other side.  It's doable, but will produce some bizarre patterns.  And if you're playing historically, the percentages won't change that much.  And in the end, it doesn't matter, because just controlling ground won't win a battle that's otherwise being lost.  I found that out recently in a MP game when I sent out cavalry to control as much ground as possible, but it wasn't affecting the victory conditions.

It did produce one amusing result.  CvC thought one of these cavalry units was going to try to take his LOP, which was unguarded, and he pulled his Imperial Guard out of close reserve to move them back to the LOP, effectively taking them out of the battle. 

Hook

[Gunner24]

  If you want to control more ground, send out a few cavalry units.

They have a greater area of control than Arty and Inf, so it may work.

I see what your getting at in your reply, but if that is all correct then what is the point of this stat ?.....why is it there ?.....as things stand, no matter how well you win, or how badly you lose this stat is pretty much the same - around 15-25%.

Has it been seen higher than 25%, even after a massive victory ?.

[Gunner24]

I have been playing MP for some time now and I'm sure this "ground" stat could be improved and made more usefull.

As it stands now anyone who is playing MP with real people will know it is not easy to win with level CEH forces.  The LOP can be taken by one Regt that breaks through to the rear, so the easy way to stop this is to mass troops near the LOP and not worry about giving up 80+% of the map to the enemy.......in this position the LOPs can be well defended without having to worry about an enemy breakthrough, there is enough room on the map to build a great defence around the two LOPs.

I can not help thinking that if one side has 80+% of the map that really should help in the "winning" calculation - but does it ?.

Even if you have the 80+% the stat will only say about 15%......so that appears to not help in the "winner" calculation.

In my very basic picture, if the Russians mass shown in the red positions, and the French have all the rest of the map, and lets say loses are about equal, is it not "fair" to say the French should have won ?.

[Broadsword]

Good point.
But...This is one reason why I've always found the idea of MP games with equal forces to be pointless and boring.
The entire point of warfare, then and now, has been to maneuver so that the enemy faces an unfair fight.
Most real battles had a clear attacker and a clear defender, and a situation that made it pretty clear who needed to do what.
It takes a much better general to make the best of a bad situation.
A "victory," in that case, might be simply to end with fewer casualties  and a better position than the historical outcome.
So, HWLG and its battles will benefit most from the context of a campaign level.
Failing that, perhaps it should be agreed beforehand in an MP battle that one side is the attacker and the other side the defender. Maybe it's better to ignore the game-calculated percentages and just have some agreed-upon victory locations, as I think you've tried to do with some custom maps.

[Gunner24]

I agree with most of your comments, but not this one :

This is one reason why I've always found the idea of MP games with equal forces to be pointless and boring.

The MP games have been brillent, with not a bad one to be seen anywhere.

I'm not complaining about anything in HWLG, only asking a question, looking at the map, and given equal loses, which side has "won" ?.  The ground stat appears to be "wasted" right now and seems to not have any bearing on the result, with many "draws" that appear to be a win to one side or the other, all because the LOPs were not taken I assume.

NBC have the GaW Campaign now, and that is producing equal, and some very UNequal battles, each of which have there own kind of challange.

have some agreed-upon victory locations

It is very hard to get people interested in MP to start with, and the more "good" idea's you add in the more it looks like it puts people off.  Some who are interested just want to fight, and not worry about "extra" stuff going on.  It is very hard work getting people to even try MP, let alone get involved on a regular basis. 

There are a whole load of different things that can be done to make things more interesting, but there's no point in wasting time on them if people don't want to join in.  Right now it appears best to keep things as simple as possible, and hope a few more join in, then we can expand the "detail" later IF people want that.

[Broadsword]

There are a whole load of different things that can be done to make things more interesting, but there's no point in wasting time on them if people don't want to join in.  Right now it appears best to keep things as simple as possible, and hope a few more join in, then we can expand the "detail" later IF people want that.

Yes, this probably is the best way to go about it. My biggest issue is time zones -- being at GMT -8 (US Pacific Time), I'm usually on Xfire looking for opponents when most of the HWLG players (in Europe) are in bed. I can't make a commitment to join a clan or devote multiple hours to a MP game on a weekend, so all I can do is jump online and hope to find someone available at that moment -- or just be content with solo play. I'm afraid my chances of finding spontaneous opponents will remain slim until we get a lot more people around the world signed up and appearing regularly in the xfire lobbies.

[Gunner24]

I'm afraid my chances of finding spontaneous opponents will remain slim until we get a lot more people around the world signed up and appearing regularly in the xfire lobbies.

Yes, that's what we need, people looking for a game, logged in and ready to go.......in different time zones.

Back on topic, why does the ground stat mostly say about 15-20% for both sides no matter how much of the map you control ?.

[JMM]

Hummm
I can add a coefficient to take account of the % of map you control.. but it's not in the sprite of battles of this epoch...
You talk about attacker/defender.. but I am no sure there are a lot of battles where one of side was defender when the strengths were balanced.

That said, for the gameplay, it' s clear that this adjustment will be a good improvement. It' s easy to win if you keep a defensive behaviour.

OK.. I'll modify the rules to avoid this kind of tactical plan 

Clear?
JMM

[Gunner24]

Thanks, I think it could help resolve some battles, giving more "wins" and less draws.....and it can not do any harm.

The even CEH battles are great fun, each side trying to find a gap to take advantage off and both sides trying to advance and not "sit on hills" but if it becomes EASY to sit on hills/villages near the LOPs then the games may bog down and become less interesting. 

NBC normally advance, as we don't like sitting about on hills doing nothing.

[AJ]

But...This is one reason why I've always found the idea of MP games with equal forces to be pointless and boring.

in the NBC GAW Campaign series in progress, many Battles are unequal, I had to fight against a 208 CEH with a 147 CEH. The next battle is equal 250 V 250 but everything depends on how a team moves on the Campaign map. We all seem to be moving to gain a CEH advantage. link to Campaign here http://napbc.freeforums.org/the-nbc-gaw-hwlg-mp-campaign-f122.html

My biggest issue is time zones -- being at GMT -8 (US Pacific Time), I'm usually on Xfire looking for opponents when most of the HWLG players (in Europe) are in bed.

Here's one advantage with the Club/clan system. For instance I know that NapLrd in Turkey, Bibouba in France and Ges in Utah, are usually around every weekday at 0500 - 0600 pst for games. Gunner 24, DougieJ, Ges, Smoke, Oho and myself are around nearly every day at 1200 - 1300 pst. We are usually on Xfire in the "nbc multiplayer lobby' so add that room to your Xfire favorite list.

As an NBC member you are welcome to join in Current position of Campaign map attached