The outcome of a battle seems completely unattentive to what actually happened on the field.

[Little Powell]

It is possible to have maps larger than they are now. But combining all 4 current maps into one map, that would be HUGE! But I also remember talk about a "study map" that had the entire area including East Cavalry Field and would be 1:1 scale. But the memory it would take to run that beast, modern computers aren't capable yet. It would be used to just observe the terrain, no gameplay would be possible..

So to have the entire battle on one map, there would definitely have to be some serious work with scaling, (troop ratio 1:100 or maybe even eliminating regiments all together) which would take away from the realism of this game.

[GShock]

Any news on the setting to reduce the regimental displayed men? I would really like to increase the rest of details but I need such option first. 1:10 would still do.

[Janh]

Little Powell wrote:

It is possible to have maps larger than they are now. But combining all 4 current maps into one map, that would be HUGE! But I also remember talk about a "study map" that had the entire area including East Cavalry Field and would be 1:1 scale. But the memory it would take to run that beast, modern computers aren't capable yet. It would be used to just observe the terrain, no gameplay would be possible..

So to have the entire battle on one map, there would definitely have to be some serious work with scaling, (troop ratio 1:100 or maybe even eliminating regiments all together) which would take away from the realism of this game.

Yes, that could be an issue, but I would not mind scaling back to the TC2M 1:4 ratio which was perfectly fine. And the amount of detail (objects) on the map could also be severely reduced, especially fences etc. After all there is a balance between the "big picture" feeling, and the level of detail. I for my part gain more through a less detailed, more abstract 3 day scenario where most of the less important buildings and farms are missing, but I can shuffle whole of Longstreet over to Wolf's Hill, or send him together with Johnson and Anderson for a flank attack a mile south around Big Round. It leaves a lot more space for maneuvering and possible outcomes if you (or AI as well) can decide whether after a failed attack on Little Round on July 2nd you can still shift all forces towards the south, or whether you order Slocum and Sykes to counterattack Early on the right flank...

I think it would be entirely impossible to script carryover scenarios for all the possible pathways that this long battle could take, but you could turn AI into a dynamic beast that could give you "hell of a time" if the proper scripting commands would be there...

[gbs]

This thread has been hijacked a bit but, back on subject, I too have not been able to get a victory at McPherson. I realise that the need is for speed and I agree that that is historically acurate. The two batteries at the farm stop my infantry in it's tracks. This is just a game though and I now am learning how to play it. The key I think is the use of arty as an offensive weapon. I will try to move my batteries up as quickly to point blank range of the yanks on the hill and their batteries there. That may be the only way to move them out quick enough to have enough time to gain the points for a victory.

I'm learning. I have always used arty the way I did in WWII games or CM where I kept them back and hit from long range. In this game arty, up close, is the most devistating weapon on the field. I can't tell that anything happens at longer ranges.

[Little Powell]

gbs wrote:

This thread has been hijacked a bit but, back on subject, I too have not been able to get a victory at McPherson. I realise that the need is for speed and I agree that that is historically acurate. The two batteries at the farm stop my infantry in it's tracks. This is just a game though and I now am learning how to play it. The key I think is the use of arty as an offensive weapon. I will try to move my batteries up as quickly to point blank range of the yanks on the hill and their batteries there. That may be the only way to move them out quick enough to have enough time to gain the points for a victory.

I'm learning. I have always used arty the way I did in WWII games or CM where I kept them back and hit from long range. In this game arty, up close, is the most devistating weapon on the field. I can't tell that anything happens at longer ranges.

The last time I played this, I tried to challenge myself by not moving the arty up to point blank range. I moved them a little closer, but still far from cannister range.

Here's what I did:

I first TC Archers brigade and start moving them to attack Cutlers brigade at McPherson's farm.

While they are advancing, I move Davis' brigade to take the other OBJ ASAP. Those 150 points a minute are valuable. Try to avoid the detached Union regiment near the Battery, and of course avoid the battery.. So move around to the left of the rest of the brigade guarding the OBJ.

As soon as those regiments are routed, you will have taken the OBJ by then. Keep davis and one regiment there to gain the points, then immediately move the other regiments to support Archer. By this time, Archer will be fighting hard, and you can sandwich in the Union forces there. It shouldn't be long and Cutlers brigade will be routed.

Also by this time, the Iron Brigade will be giving you hell, so setup along the fence line on the Chambersburg Rd. while holding the OBJ and fighting off the Iron brigade.

So the key is, use Davis to support Archer (but still hold Davis OBJ, only needs one regiment and the OBJ will also disappear eventually... Then you can send that rested regiment to support Archer). Once you have the McPherson's barn OBJ, the Iron Brigade shouldn't be too much of a hassle to fight off. In fact, the last time I played it, they moved to attack, but stopped short.. I actually held the OBJ unopposed at first, but decided to counter attack them. I think I came out with a 8,000+.

Hope that helps.

[GShock]

It is unfortunate but at present time, you must remember that troops on the offensive will be cannistered while your artillery in the back can't hit crap (including the Union Artillery) and it's a matter of ammo not of accuracy.

There seems to be no other way in these cases but to deploy your artillery right behind the lines and then when your lines advance, move the guns one by one just within cannister range. At that point you will be shooting the enemy guns and regiments and at the same time cannistering everywhere and, because you have much more guns than the Union, you will easily capture the objective but then you must face the counterattack which is, according to me, the place you really see how GOOD this AI is.

Keeping a keen eye on your guns, keeping them refilled with cannister ammo and helping your troops into covered ground will help a lot. There are a few spots around the objective where terrain is perfect for artillery because it's a bit higher. If you set your troops ahead of these small heights you'll have a huge advantage.

It's not such a hard scenario but it is quite tricky for newcomers. This is one of those scenarios that will dramatically change once the artillery is fixed. Do mind that arty leaders will switch their stance on HOLD. Better move the guns manually one by one and mind the cannister range is 200yds. If you go closer, your gun will be routed by musket fire... and if you are farther, other ammo will be used and your guns will be useless (it's a devastating problem for this game).

Hope that helps, I got out with 9000+ points.

[RebBugler]

Rebel M wrote:

Mind you, I'm far from giving up on the game since it's still obvious it's a great game at the core - BUT - I'm having serious issues with how the heck the game decides the outcome of a battle?!

I've been playing the McPherson Ridge scenario a lot of times now, and finally got reinforcements up which I used to win what I percieved as a limited but surely solid victory - 1000 casualties for me against 1500 for the combined commands of Buford and Wadsworth - the enemy driven from MCPherson Ridge in disarray.

However, the game decides I'm defeated. Uhm, well...guess my "defeated" rebs will have to step back down and leave the ridge to the bluecoats once they rally...heh.

Nah, I'm not buying it. You surely have to agree with me that something's amiss here?

If you inflict 500 more casualties than you take, have your command mostly intact - in fact, I couldnt count a single routed regiment on my part - and hold the objective - surely you should be awarded with at least a minor victory?



Are you looking into this, team?

OK, let's see if I can steer this one back ON THREAD

Without objectives, determining a Major Victory is fairly simple...200 points per brigade per half hour play is what I use as a standard. This sometimes changes due to certain scenario criteria...overwhelming odds for example.

Throwing in objectives, and how you use them, is the difficult part in determining a Major Victory. First off, the designer must be a very strong player. The designer must determine how long it will take to secure an objective, and how long that objective can be held, as per his ideas (difficulty level) of what a Major Victory performance is. These objective points are added to the brigade formula and that's the total that's determined to be a Major Victory.

There are many types of objectives to use, so there are many options available to the designer to make his scenario work, Major Victory wise.

Now, Rebel M, did you secure the objectives fast and hold them, maintain a good brigade points ratio as discussed? If so, I think you should achieve a Major Victory here. Otherwise, feedback.

[MarkT]

Of course in real life, the winner of a battle is subject to opinion.
There are many factors that determine a win or lose.

If casualties only determine a battle, The Confederacy won the war hands down, ya'all :laugh:

In a game, as Randy has said before, It is the feeling that you won, but the score shows otherwise.

I personally someday would like to try to write a few scenarios with no "flying OBJs" and no points. Just follow orders...
Start it with a message, End it with a message.

No enemy casualty counts... Just follow orders.

A general would know if he won or not.

Mark

[Little Powell]

Agreed, victory has very little to do with casualties. Historically, troops were ordered to "take that hill", "take that position", etc. etc... "I don't care how or what the cost, hold this position".... Casualties were irrelevant.. And it's realistically depicted in this game.. Take or hold an objective and you will win.

[RebBugler]

MarkT wrote:

Of course in real life, the winner of a battle is subject to opinion.
There are many factors that determine a win or lose.

If casualties only determine a battle, The Confederacy won the war hands down, ya'all :laugh:

In a game, as Randy has said before, It is the feeling that you won, but the score shows otherwise.

I personally someday would like to try to write a few scenarios with no "flying OBJs" and no points. Just follow orders...
Start it with a message, End it with a message.

No enemy casualty counts... Just follow orders.

A general would know if he won or not.

Mark

That is a neat idea for a different style of play. :laugh: