Still disappointed at 1 feature of the Sandbox battles

[pcelt]

I am not into the multiplayer element and tend to spend a good proportion of my time on the Sandbox battles.My disappointment here is that I know in advance that every encounter is going to be roughly "balanced" in terms of relative strength. Now this is fine in terms of "fairness" but at the same time is very limiting in terms of surprise, and the variety of tactical play decisions available.I used to enjoy (with TC2M) the "Open Play" battles where you could never be sure what sort of challenge awaited you--a much stronger,or stronger or weaker or much weaker opponent or one of similar strength.This provided much tension whilst trying to feel out the enemy and to gain intelligence with cavalry etc to guage the enemy strength.There then came the opportunity to try out a variety of tactics according to whether you were stronger,weaker or of similar strength to your opponent.All of this variety is absent from Sandbox Battles where balanced strength is a foregone known.I do enjoy the opportunity of sometimes trying to find a way of holding out against a superior enemy force or finding the best tactics for routing a far weaker opponent.I dont like to always know that my opponent is always of similar strength.
I am not arguing for a total change of the Sandbox structure--balanced battles are a valuable option for those who prefer this.But I would love to see an additional option (eg "Open Choice") where your opposing force (Division or Corps etc) might be any one of the opposing historical armys divisions or Corps.
I would welcome any other member comments (especially those also familiar with TC2M).If I am a lone voice in the wilderness I'll just shut up.......Cheers

[norb]

You're right! I liked the way that I did TC2M for sandbox, but there were a lot of people that didn't. This needs to be an option and I will see if I can get it into the patch.

[norb]

Remembering more...

The problem was that if I did it like TC2M exactly, it would have always favored one side or the other, can't remember which. So I can't do it exactly like before, but I will add back in that unknown element.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Norb wrote:

The problem was that if I did it like TC2M exactly, it would have always favored one side or the other, can't remember which

The AI was always given an advantage in number of troops. I'd suggest a random option where the AI troop numbers would follow a normal distribution of +/- 50% of the players troops. That way for a majority of play the two sides would be relatively equal, but it would not be uncommon for a large disparity to exist. When playing on the large alpine map, the need for scouting ahead would be an imperative.

[Franciscus]

+1 !

[con20or]

i would love to see a random feature

[Jack ONeill]

Of course the other option is to mod your OOBs to reflect different strengths on each side. I have done so with what I call my "Jackson Series." I took the OOB from "Jackson First Day" and modded it about six or seven ways to get different levels of troop strengths on each side. Also, I have modded Garniers 2nd. Manassas OOB to do the same thing. Yes, you would know the strengths of each side, but not always where the opposing troops were massing.
Example - last night I took command of a small Yankee Cavalry Division, (Duffie's 3 Battalions and Campbell's 4 gun battery), and went swanning off to find the Enemy. Oh yes, Culp's Hill map. Balance of the army went in a different direction. Sent 1 battalion to scout in front of them. The rest of us went merrily on our way until we spied the enemy. Whipped the battery up close, dismounted and began to annoy the Rebs. Managed to delay a divison of Reb infantry's arrival at the other end of the field where the main Yankee force was engaged. Not bad for 250 men and 4 guns. Because I did the OOB, I knew roughly what the size the enemy force was, but not where they were or where they were going. Could have been really annoying if I had plowed into the entire force with my merry little band of pirates.
Just a thought.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

JackB)

[pcelt]

Thanks guys for your comments and views and in particular thanks Norb for agreeing to consider adding to the "balanced" option this "open" and random match-up between units within the Sandbox section.
Further to the reasons in favour of this addition which I mentioned in the first post i should like to clarify that at "Normal" Difficulty level I prefer seeing all the units (brigade. division or corps) at historical size and strength and perfer that there should be no manipulation of these via percentage changes or any other OB refinement. I want to feel I am in command of and facing historically accurate units im these "Open Battle" conflicts.
Admittedly at Gettysburg the individual Confederate Corps and Divisions were usually larger than the individual Union Corps and Divisions.But this was also the case at 2nd Manassas.And what was always an interesting and challenging "OpenPlay" battle at 2nd Manassas was to usually fight defensive-type battles with Union Corps/ Divs and attacking-type battles with the Confederate Divs (as well as with some of the larger and more elite Union Divs).These similar opportunities would be present with Gettysburg.
If this "Open" and historic unit match-up option could be an added choice in the Sandbox Section there would then be opportunities to elect to fight both prepared "balanced" battles or "Open " and random match-ups with historically accurate opponents.
I would very much appreciate this wider range of possibilities in "Sandbox"

NB I have one final wish ( though not essential and it may be a task-too-far).I should ideally like to see in these "Open" Divisional battles an artillery battalion from the Corps Artillery attached to each Division. This would provide more decision-making options and tactical choices for the Div.Commanders .
Many thanks for any consideration given to these suggestions...

[Little Powell]

The request is in. Hopefully we can have three options for sandbox.

1. Historical numbers (Numbers aren't touched, hey are historical)
2. Balanced (the current design)
3. Random (You could have a small force facing double your size, or vice versa.

[pcelt]

Little Powell--many thanks for your response.
But I am a little confused re one aspect of this.I would have thought that (3) is actually contained within (1).When as a player/Commander you select the "Historical" opponent option you will (without prior knowledge of the enemy unit) meet on different occasions,with different battle goals, and in different terrain locations, enemy units which may be larger or smaller than those you command.
It seems to me that (3)is therefore subsumed in (1) and the only necessary fresh option needs to be (1)
If I am misunderstanding the setup you have indicated please clarify for me---but please note I am trying to reduce your workload here by one half.....Im really all heart