Blood in the Run questions

[UglyElmo]

THanks for the info. Though I think a penalty might be appropriate to discourage people like myself from being tempted to use them . . . It's kind of like a fat man in a donut shop, how can one not be tempted to snatch a donut (or two) and "use" them at their discretion?

[DrMike1997]

What would help, not only in this scenario but in the game overall would be if you continued to get credit for a vp even if you push past the spot but still tactically control the spot. Using this scenario as an example: Meridith takes the vp in the woods and pushes Archers boys onto the farm. Right now the best thing to do is to stop pushing because you will move off the vp site and lose points. In reality the best thing is to keep pushing and back the rebs up against Cutlers' (?) brigade on the ridge resulting in the complete rout of Archers brigade. We shouldn't be penalized for doing to good a job!

Unfortunately, for reasons that were always above my pay grade This could not be fixed in early iterations of this game and I doubt it can even with the upgraded engine

[Nikolaj]

DrMike1997 wrote:

What would help, not only in this scenario but in the game overall would be if you continued to get credit for a vp even if you push past the spot but still tactically control the spot. Using this scenario as an example: Meridith takes the vp in the woods and pushes Archers boys onto the farm. Right now the best thing to do is to stop pushing because you will move off the vp site and lose points. In reality the best thing is to keep pushing and back the rebs up against Cutlers' (?) brigade on the ridge resulting in the complete rout of Archers brigade. We shouldn't be penalized for doing to good a job!

Unfortunately, for reasons that were always above my pay grade This could not be fixed in early iterations of this game and I doubt it can even with the upgraded engine

I was thinking the same thing. Isn't it just a matter of giving the VP's every minute to the last player who controlled the site? Although I suppose such a change might mean that the ai would need some work, too.

[Ingles of the 57th]

Hi Dr Mike

The suggestions regarding the "ownership" of a VP site are interesting but very fundamental to the entire game concept. What is suggested is that a site has to be "lost" by superior enemy numbers moving in. It will not revert to neutral simply because your troops have moved off or an enemy force has infiltrated in insufficient superiority to control the VP absolutely themselves.

This I think would enliven the game quite a bit. Leaving the VP to take on targets of opportunity is more true to real life. The choice would be the player's entirely and I would need to think very hard before doing it, if there was an outside chance of losing it to a nearby enemy.

I dislike those sterile battles where you win an objective early, know you are going to win the game by just sitting there ....... and might as well go off and make a cup of tea while the battle plays out.

Once you have taken a VP with a brigade, why not let it then be holdable subsequently by a single regiment without an "officer" sprite? The regimental commander is perfectly capable even though he doesn't warrant his own sprite. Look at Chamberlain and the 10th Maine.

The loss of just a single detached regiment would still leave the Brigade enough residual strength to beat around the area a bit, support a flanking unit or, glory be, move on to occupy another objective.

I haven't thought this out fully regarding the possible anti's but I think it is a useful discussion. I have always thought that the regiment, the soul of the army, was underrated and devalued in this game.

Geoff Laver
Late of Her Majesty's 57th Regiment of foot.

[Mayonaise]

I guess i should have read this thread as well, as I was refering to this exact same scenario with teh same frustration. I care little for objectives other than they give me guidance of what direction I need to go. Once I am there, I assess the tactical situation and act accordingly. Doing this often wins you the battle, but loses you the "scoring game". In a recent play of this scenario, i ended with 300 some points even though I completely routed the brigades of both Davis and Archer, including several captured regiments. The victory mark is 3,000. Note: this included holding the objective points.

I realize it would be impossible for the game to subjectively determine victory, but the current system is questionable.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

DrMike1997 wrote:

What would help, not only in this scenario but in the game overall would be if you continued to get credit for a vp even if you push past the spot but still tactically control the spot. Using this scenario as an example: Meridith takes the vp in the woods and pushes Archers boys onto the farm. Right now the best thing to do is to stop pushing because you will move off the vp site and lose points. In reality the best thing is to keep pushing and back the rebs up against Cutlers' (?) brigade on the ridge resulting in the complete rout of Archers brigade. We shouldn't be penalized for doing to good a job!

Unfortunately, for reasons that were always above my pay grade This could not be fixed in early iterations of this game and I doubt it can even with the upgraded engine

Yes, this has always been a pet peeve of mine in TC2M. Your example above pefectly illustrates why. It shouldn't be a programming issue, since the VP has only 3 states, owned by the good guys, owned by the enemy, owned by nobody. Whoever owns it last, continues to own it until somebody comes along and changes matters.

Norb, please consider changing this.

[Slick Wilhelm]

One thing I'm still fuzzy on is why the objective flags go back to being white after I control them.

I played this scenario for the first time last night with the beta patch, and was able to capture the woods, and eventually push the rebs all the way off of the left side of McPherson's Ridge.

The objectives turned from white to an American flag when I captured them, but then went back to white. Is this expected behavior? It concerned me enough that I kept trying to "capture" them again, even though I controlled the whole area.

Anyway, at the end of the battle I was awarded a major victory with 3015 points. But it would be important to know whether I have to keep a unit nearby an objective in order to keep acruing points, or if that is not necessary.

[Shirkon]

Slick Wilhelm wrote:

One thing I'm still fuzzy on is why the objective flags go back to being white after I control them.

I played this scenario for the first time last night with the beta patch, and was able to capture the woods, and eventually push the rebs all the way off of the left side of McPherson's Ridge.

The objectives turned from white to an American flag when I captured them, but then went back to white. Is this expected behavior? It concerned me enough that I kept trying to "capture" them again, even though I controlled the whole area.

Anyway, at the end of the battle I was awarded a major victory with 3015 points. But it would be important to know whether I have to keep a unit nearby an objective in order to keep acruing points, or if that is not necessary.

You have to continue to control them once you take them otherwise they will revert to no one controls them. To keep getting points you need to keep the required number of men within the control range of the VP.

[scottishsoldier]

Go to the farm VP with a regiment, the rest of the Brigade clears out the woods VP, at bayonet point, as quickly as possible, the Iron guys will win melees at high morale, then move to it with your fifth regiment. You'll hold that VP until it disappears, by which time you'll have 3000 plus, then slink off to the rear.

Gamey.

[Jubal Early]

I also noticed that the victory flags disappeared I’ve played the scenario a few times best score 680 and it was a defeat but I couldn’t understand why because when the time was up the enemy were in total retreat in fact routed and almost out of sight and I was in total control of the victory areas at the woods and the road.