Possible Pipe Creek bug

[conjotter]

If the designers still monitor these games I have some information about a probable bug in the "No Guts No Glory" scenario of the Pipe Creek game.

I've tried to play the game four times as the union commander, and each time the rebels send most, if not all of their artillery on a flanking movement around the union left.

Absolutely no infantry, no high ranking officers, just lots and lots of guns. It's like the groups of batteries are acting as a detached corp or division.

This makes absolutely no sense and ruins the game each time.

The last time I sent a union brigade forward on the extreme left and the horde of rebel guns move back and forth in confusion.

Any help would be appreciated. I really would like to play this scenario.

Thanks.

[RebBugler]

No bug, by design.

The Rebs are outnumbered and attacking fortified defensive positions, on the HIGH ground. So what's a scenario designer to do to make this scenario competitive? Since the designer doesn't have to adhere to historical events, moving an artillery division to higher ground on the enemy's flank to pound them seemed a good equalizer here. The player would have to send units to break up the artillery and then possibly expose an objective, then the enemy infantry moves in.

Anyway, this is the way I remember setting it up. As far as the artillery horde look, as you must know, controlling unTC'd batteries once they are attacked is almost impossible, I do try to retreat them out of there eventually to set up a new line, but that is also rather futile.

There are several variants, don't think I used this maneuver in every on, but I do remember doing several variants of this maneuver, maybe one of them will make more sense realistically.

The only other way to make this scenario competitive that I could think of would have been to lock down some of the player's troops. Then gradually unlock them as the enemy encroaches on the player's objectives. However, I've learned that player's don't like their troops locked down, they want full control from the beginning to plan their own defensive. So, I opted for this design.

[conjotter]

Thanks for the reply Reb.

I will keep trying in the hope that one of the other game threads kick in and allow the rebs to make a more traditional attack.

This isn't a criticism, but it is my understanding that historically both sides in the Civil War were loathe to lose even a few cannons.

Having artillery brigades attack (not just fire, but advance against an infantry line) on their own over rugged terrain, without some infantry or cavalry in close support, wouldn't likely happen.

But I understand that the designers need to make allowances to achieve play balance.

Regards, CJ

[RebBugler]

Having artillery brigades attack (not just fire, but advance against an infantry line) on their own over rugged terrain, without some infantry or cavalry in close support, wouldn't likely happen.

That's not supposed to happen. The artillery are only supposed to move forward to the objective when it has been triggered by the Reb infantry. So, the artillery in theory would be moving up to where it would have infantry support. Guess you cleared out the enemy infantry before the artillery could arrive, making the scripting look stupid as the artillery advanced into oblivion.

I don't gamble with this type scripting anymore, too many unpredictables. One being pointed out here, guns should never be thrown at the enemy without confirmed support, it just looks dumb.

Thanks for understanding my intentions here.