Scourge of War Boards

Willard makes a good point and I like the idea of placing victory locations behind the enemy lines, not on points of the line. Putting the point behind the enemy's line on some critical road junction or the like means that when you've taken that objective the enemy would be in real danger. A lot of historical wargames use objectives like "side x wins if they can move x points worth of units off the map between points A and B on the map edge."

I think objectives such as this would be possible with the current way objectives are handled and could warrat testing out..

Yeah good idea to have objectives past enemy lines. The only problem with this though, they can't be too far behind the lines. If they are too far, in theory the player can move around the enemy line and grab the OBJ from behind. However there are ways to remedy this. Have the enemy counter attack once the OBJ is taken, or setup the enemy line so that there is no route around it without a fight.

I dare say that it is a poor general who lets the opponent to circle around to the rear. Of course, it's a different issue with AI.

Little Powell wrote:

Yeah good idea to have objectives past enemy lines. The only problem with this though, they can't be too far behind the lines. If they are too far, in theory the player can move around the enemy line and grab the OBJ from behind. However there are ways to remedy this. Have the enemy counter attack once the OBJ is taken, or setup the enemy line so that there is no route around it without a fight.

Breaking the 'line of operation' would require more than just being occupied by a cavalry squadron of infantry regiment. It would have to be a substantial force, (e.g. corps size unit). That's essentially what happened to Napoleon at Waterloo. The Prussian corps threatened to sweep around his right flank and cut Napoleon off.

For smaller, tactical battles, such as brigade or division fights, lines of operation really don't play a part. In this case, flanking the enemy is the best path to success. The AI in SOW is very good at this. The shortcoming of the game is that there is almost no penalty for being flanked, (10% for being fired on from behind). That's a blunder the player at one time could mod out of the game. Unfortunately, no longer.

Yeah good idea to have objectives past enemy lines. The only problem with this though, they can't be too far behind the lines. If they are too far, in theory the player can move around the enemy line and grab the OBJ from behind. However there are ways to remedy this. Have the enemy counter attack once the OBJ is taken, or setup the enemy line so that there is no route around it without a fight.

Make the objective radius bigger and the troop numbers higher and it will fix the problem. Depending upon the size of the map, the VP site could have a 1000 yard radius as that is the default range of artillery. Basically if the enemy can get within 1000 yards of your operational "exit/entry" point - which is close enough to shell - then that would essentially equate to a major disaster for the defending side. I would also recommend that troop numbers to occupy it be increased so you don't have the "1 general and 10 soldiers" effect of taking the VP. The higher the number, the more you will be likely to use historical tactics instead of pointless frontal assaults resulting in higher than historic casaulty ratios. More importantly, by making wider ZOCs for VPs, it will force the action alot earlier in the game and on the map's best defensible ground available.

Man, thought that coup d'état had killed this thread for useful feedback, but lo and behold, the revolutionary guard has saved the day. Thank you Sirs...Outstanding feedback. :cheer:

Willard is your Revolutionary Guard? He shall be swept aside with nary a worry. The revolution is unstoppable!

And I cannot say as to SP, my play time there having been quite limited, but I can say that in MP, any radius over, say, 100 yards means no objective will ever be taken. All the enemy has to do is get moderately close and the objectives goes neutral. I have recently seen objectives with a 200 yard radius (I forget them troop requirement, but several hundred, at least) be tripped by a single enemy regiment sauntering to within 195 yards for the briefest of moments while the objective was stacked with 20 friendly regiments and several officers. That's just goofy.

I have recently seen objectives with a 200 yard radius (I forget them troop requirement, but several hundred, at least) be tripped by a single enemy regiment sauntering to within 195 yards for the briefest of moments while the objective was stacked with 20 friendly regiments and several officers. That's just goofy.

Depends on what kind of objective it is - Army1 or Army2, or, All. Player must know that or it's his fault, not a goofy setup. In this case the player should have expanded the radius he was responsible for with those 20 brigades, keeping the enemy from penetrating his 200 yard radius zone.

Nonsense, it was goofy. I actually don't know within Garnier's setup if that is modifiable by the host or not.

This is an SP thread, whereas, the setup is not an issue.

On the other hand, with MP play, and the power of TC, no radius can be held, and that setup could be classified as "goofy", or impractical.

I have no problem with expanding this thread to include MP objective treatments, let's just make sure we're clear on what's what. I knew that was referencing MP play, but I was referring to SP play with my rebuttal.

Indeed, fair enough. I withdraw my protests in protest.