Objectives

[Kerflumoxed]

Hope the new campaign is going well. I have tried numerous times to sign on to Mr. Garnier's T/S with no luck. Keep receiving an error message.

Am trying voice.teamspeak.com......port 9175.

Is anyone else having this problem?

THanks

J

[Garnier]

Is there a way to make the objectives pop up between the armies?

Yes there's a way, the problem is with predictability. Once you know where the enemy was, if the objectives are anything but random, you can predict where they'll be, and lose the whole point of them randomly appearing.

Is there any way to have 3-5 objectives, perhaps 1 major and a few minor, appear at the beggining of the battle vice randomly popping up? This would give players the ability to determine right off the bat where the action was going to be fought. I always like the Sid Meier's system as it was laid out right away what you needed to take. Plus with the points being what they were, it would give you the option of holding the minor VP sites and still win without the large VP site.

We've had that before. It got boring because it was usually clear at the outset who had the advantage of terrain, and we had more boring battles back then.

The options I've put in make it possible for the host to set up objectives like those before we had points, that last the whole game and are counted at the end. It's fine to play that way if people like it more.

I don't like chasing objectives around either, but sometimes I think it's more fun than the alternatives that we've tried so far. With all the options now we might hit on something that's more consistent but still exciting to play. But FYI Willard, you only played one battle with it, and it was on a large area for four players, and it also had a bug (now fixed) where objectives disappeared way early.

voice.teamspeak.com......port 9175

Is that info posted somewhere? Because it's wrong. This is the right info.

[giob60]

Historically speaking,Obj.were only strategic i.e:cut supply lines or take some towns or cities or destroy opposing army.In these type of battles I think we could put some obj.i.e rear supply lines(try to cut them and protect one's,normally were main roads)or to fight without them and to calculate victory points based on rout troops and men lost as in a meeting engagement.
I think it should be more realistic.

[Amish John]

Historically speaking,Obj.were only strategic i.e:cut supply lines or take some towns or cities or destroy opposing army.In these type of battles I think we could put some obj.i.e rear supply lines(try to cut them and protect one's,normally were main roads)or to fight without them and to calculate victory points based on rout troops and men lost as in a meeting engagement.
I think it should be more realistic.

Could you call Little Round Top, the high ground at the Peach Orchard, or Power's Hill tactical objectives?

[Jack ONeill]

AJ,

Those would definitely be Tactical Objectives, leading to the larger Grand Tactical Objectives. As an example the Tactical Objective of taking Little Round Top would be part of the larger Grand Tactical Objective of moving into the rear of the Union Army, cutting its Line of Communications, (ie: supply lines or lines of retreat), with the ultimate Stratigic Objective of crushing the Union Army and opening the way to Washington D.C.

Jack B)

[Garnier]

Well in game, tactical objectives like hills emerge anyway because it's important to hold good ground in order to block the enemy from moving. The "Objectives" that we use really don't need to be in realistic locations, the idea is simply to compel one side or the other to attack at any given time, because they need more objectives to win. If an objective is at the bottom of a hill, in a creek bed, the hill itself will usually be fought over because whoever has the hill can take the objective easily, or prevent the enemy from taking it.

[giob60]

OK tactical Obj.but I would suggest to consider 2 or 3 Obj. max and put one team in defense of these and other team attacker.And always one Obj. per side as supply line.Moreover points gained for Tactical Obj.have to be balanced with eventual points lost in the battle due to rout and men lost.
Tactical Obj.points gained have to be less than points due to Strategical Obj. as line of supply,if these Obj. are conquered by opposite side.If these strat. obj. aren't conquered by opposite,no one gain these points.Pratically these Obj.points are gained only if they are conquered.

[Garnier]

I had a new idea that might help do away with the last minute charge for objectives that you have to hold at the end of the game like we used to do.

Once you reach 10 minutes before the end of the game, the objectives change into "hold for one minute" objectives. You still have to count how many each side got, although they'll give a ton of points so it's obvious in the end score who had more.

This way, the only way to neutralize an objective at the end of the game is to rush it 10 minutes before the end and basically stay close to it for 10 minutes.

This period could be changed to 15 minutes if we think it needs more. Currently it's only put in for scenarios, not the customizable setup.

[giob60]

Could be a good idea but I suggest to limit Obj. at 2 or 3 max.So you have to concentrate your army to conquer that.

[Garnier]

I don't like that because it gives the attacking side less options, if there's only one place they can take to win, the defender can put all their strength on it.