Scourge of War Boards

Ironsight

First,I'm still of the mind that a captured wagon is best used for your own purposes and kept on the map.
Secondly the wagon system could be eliminated all together and replaced with a virtual supply system that could be determined by the chain of command or location on the map of units to supply depots. Or by other means. I like the wagons.
Thirdly, You could capture a wagon get the points for it, then diband it afterwards, if it's going to be a pain in the ass. (Need dsband button)
Fourth, After resuppling all my troops,guns and whatever just before a carry over scenerio ends, (killing the clock let's say), only to find these same units low on supplies the next scenerio bums me out, which at time I want to blowup the wagons.
Fifth, If you are capturing/killing wagons you pretty much have a handle on the battle anyway. More so against the AI.
Sixth, Yes, I agree that adding demensions to the wagon/other aspects of the game would be more entertaining, there's no doubt about it.

At your service, Hoistingman4

I agree the 'option' of whether to capture or destroy a wagon would be entirely up to the player, the type of battle he's fighting, current deployment, strategy, etc.
In a carry over scenario, the wagon would probably be captured and kept around just in case.

I myself exclusively play non-VP OP battles as i'm not into long drawn out campaigne type scenarios although i've gone through all the TC2M scenarios and for some reason just don't get a big kick out of battle chaining.
After playing literally hundreds of large OP battles i've yet to even come close to emptying a supply wagon. And since i am an OpenPlayer, I'd just as soon see the fireworks or torch the wagon. On the otherhand if the enemy blows or captures a friendly wagon then capture would be the priority. It also would depend on how well the battle is playing out.

Still sometimes its nice to have several wagons supporting artillery when its scattered all over the map. Thats where the 'option' strategy to blow or capture would come into play.

As for the artillery's AI potentially destroying a useful enemy wagon wandering around in friendly territory, well that was indirectly the concern/suggestion which started this here thread.

You just gave me a thought. Can you have chain battles in Open Play? I do like games with preset goals historical, or near historical/variants, somebodyelses designed battle. Haven't tried Mods, but leaning that way depending how the next game (GB)is set up.
A few years ago I bought a GB game by talonsoft, stayed in the wrapper till the other day, it was mildly entertaining, however it provided a view of the GB battlefield, after playing all the scenerios, I'll never touch that game again, it was lifeless compared to TC2M.
The thing about VP points (TC2M) is once they are entered as your score on the scenerio selection pages, you are stuck with that score, unless you get a higher one. What you can't do is go back to zero, I haven't been able to do it. If anybody knows how, let me know.

Thanks, Hoistingman4

Can you have chain battles in Open Play?

No, they're a one time win or lose battle. Thats the beauty of them IMO, once the battle is over, its over, there's no more baggage to worry about. Sometimes if the exact battle parameters are played over again, the battles take on a similar initial approach but always end up different. The other thing i like regarding OP battles is they can start really fast with the enemy usually down the player's throat within minutes from game start.

The thing about VP points (TC2M) is once they are entered as your score on the scenerio selection pages, you are stuck with that score,

I can't even remember the last time a played a VP point type battle. Points! VPoints are for pinball machines and football games, not battles, IMO that is.
There were no stinkin points allotted the contesting sides during the Civil War...just casualty ratios and who ended up occupying the field and who ended up retreating from the field.

One of the great things about TC2M is the option to play with or without Vpoints.
I prefer to use the game as more of a true battle simulator rather than with an arcadish element is all.

I think i might be in the minority as far as a strict OP gamer...to the others who like playing victory points, may the force be with you!

I actually liked the scenario scores for a couple of reasons. One is that I actually wanted to "beat" the game in the sense that you had to win all the scenarios to do it. The second reason is that it forced me to try lots of different strategies and tactics to better the previous score. Scenarios that were actually very hard (for me) such as Hatch's attempt to get through Stuart's calvary on the last day were puzzling until I figured out the best way to use "Fair" infantry and the worthless Union calvary. If I did not actually need a good score in this scenario to win the game it would have been relegated to the dust bin. So by having to play well every scenario it gave the whole game more life.

Have any of you ever played Panzer General by SSI? I think it came out at least 10 years ago --maybe more. It was game that had linked scenarios where your basic units (if they survived) were brought back as the core of your force for the next battle. You were able to reinforce your unit with replacements (and dilute its experience) and upgrade the unit's weapons as the war went on. This concept could easily be translated to a Civil War campaign game starting with Bull Run. Each scenario would be a retracing of the units actual battle history. You could also take the career of single officer who in 1861 commands a brigade or battery and then trace it through the Civil War. If you do well in certain scenarios you would be promoted and given more units to command in the subsequent campaign, combining Civil War tactics with role playing.

The idea of a carryover option in OP and/or MP battles is interesting. The code to do that is largely in place, it would just mean having the option to write out the carryover file at the end of the fight.

If you were having a carryover MP battle, what would be a fair way of deciding when the battle was over and the file written out to start with next time?

-Jim

Replaying a scenerio with a new smarter strategy by learning from past mistakes i geuss is one good thing about them.
Its been a long long while now like over a year ago so i forget the name and details of the scenario...I think i was playing Jackson taking on that dam gigantic grand battery of i think Banks. Took me a few tries before i finally captured that grand battery along with all the VPs. Definitely a learning experience.

Myself, now i'm into beating the enemy in my face at the moment rather than beating the game in general. Everytime i win an OP battle, in my mind i've just beat the game.
Having said that, i am looking forward to playing the scenarios in the new game.
When thats over it'll be back to Open Play or ugh is it Sandbox now?

Its great the game is flexible enough to accomodate all these different play types to keep us all happy.

Jim wrote:

The idea of a carryover option in OP and/or MP battles is interesting. The code to do that is largely in place, it would just mean having the option to write out the carryover file at the end of the fight.
-Jim

Hey, Jim ,

The carry over Option in Open Play for all of us single player’s would be a very welcome feature, and could be used as a sort of campaign type game.

I’ll use a Five Map System as an example.

If the Player wins they move from Map three…to Map four, from Map four to map five.

If they lose, they would move from Map three, to Map two, and from two to one, which would be quite interesting, sort of like pushing the enemy backwards, or trying not to be pushed backwards.

A very interesting concept, to say the least.

davinci

Jim Wrote:The idea of a carryover option in OP and/or MP battles is interesting.

Jim, interesting! but at the same time that got me a little confused.

By definition at least in TC2M, an OP battle is a random standalone independant battle. Are you thinking about chaining an OP battle to another future OP battle? :S

Davinci, i think you just might of answered my question. I agree, it would be an interesting option. I like your idea of map jumping too.

Far as when the battle ends, as is now, time limits and which side has the highest overall points.