Objectives

[SouthernSteel]

can you make one where snell loses automatically? and we can force him into it?

[KG_Soldier]

Just roll your guns up. That works better than running away.

[SouthernSteel]

you tried one, I tried the other. You ran to your guns, I brought mine up closer so you didn't have to run so far.

[KG_Soldier]

LOL

I'm talking about Garnier's games, silly.

[Garnier]

So automatic scenario creation and objectives are in.

Currently, here's how it works:

There's a 90-minutes time limit.

There are three objectives. Their timers never run out. The winner is the side that holds more of them at the end of the battle, unless one side gives up the battle before it ends, then the winner is the side that did not give up. If the number of objectives held on each side is equal, it is inconclusive.

The objectives currently need 200 or more men in a 500 yard radius to be held. You'll see if you hold an objective, since it will show your flag on it.

If your side loses the battle, more of your casualties will be killed/missing instead of wounded. Killed are obviously not recoverable, and missing are less likely to be returned to the ranks than wounded.

[KG_Soldier]

Garnier's addition of the scenario generator resulted in two very bloody battles today.

Welcome new players: Participant, H.T. Hays, Tar Heel, and Cleburne.

[NY Cavalry]

I played in three of the campaign games yesterday with obj's and they were all very good. The oobj's work very well to spread out the troops and makes it challenging because each team develop must develop a coordinated plan.

Very good system Garnier has developed.

[Garnier]

Last night I had an idea.

What if you don't see where all objectives are going to be until the middle -> end of the game?

What if a new one appears say, every 15 minutes, so instead of seeing the entire situation from the start, you have to be prepared for objectives to end up anywhere.

This could mean:

At the beginning of the game, you don't know what ground you'll need to hold at the end, so you want to control the middle of the map, in such a way that you have an easier time accessing other parts of the map. If you get trapped against the edge, chances are the objectives will not appear closer to you, and the enemy will win.

You won't know at the start which side can be on the defense.

It may get hectic when suddenly the whole battle plan must shift, and it does seem a little silly to suddenly change your plans due to an arbitrary objective appearing somewhere, but it may make the battles more active and dynamic, which is fun whether or not it's realistic. We don't want realistic battles after all, since they were mainly affairs where one side is entrenched and the other attacks the entrenchments or besieges them.

The biggest drawback I can see is the possibility of one side (who feel they are weaker) avoiding combat and sitting along the edge just in case the objectives might appear where they are. This might happen sometimes, but I have a feeling it won't be as bad as the occasional battle we have now that looks impossible from the outset.

One way to discourage this would be to add a small amount of desertions on the side that loses a battle, so rather than sitting back and taking a small chance of winning, we'll give it a try to have a bigger chance of winning, or at least getting a draw.

Any thoughts?

[KG_Soldier]

I like it.

I think the losing side should take at least 15% casualties.

If you're going to lose 15% minimum anyway, you might as well fight.

[Garnier]

We'll try it with a maximum average of 5% desertions from the losing side. It's inversely proportional in some way to the amount of casualties you take though -- so if a regiment takes 20% casualties in the battle, there will be an average 0 desertions.

Of course it is randomized like everything else.

To compensate a little for this, less of your actual battle casualties will be missing when you lose. This should encourage fighting at least to some extent.

Another change is that it cuts down the infantry strength on the side that starts closer to the objectives. How much it is cut down depends on a combination of the closest division on each side to each objective, and the average distance from all divisions to the objectives.

This typically won't have too much effect on the sides as long as the objectives are somewhat evenly distributed. The greatest effect, if the objectives are much closer to one side, is that this side will have about 15% less infantry strength overall. Typically it will be somewhere between 0-5% decrease for one side.

Now once the objectives are appearing later in the game, you won't be able to tell at the outset who has the strength advantage -- so it will be something you discover, or not, during battle. We can all be McClellan's thinking the enemy has more men than they really do.


I still have to decide the rules for determining when objectives will appear. It's difficult due to the many choices for length of battle and number of objectives, because I'd like to know when they will become visible, so we don't start constantly checking our maps.