Objectives

[Garnier]

I don't see any benefit to having minor objectives. They take just as much work to hold, but they give less options to the attacker than even objectives. You could simply have two objectives very close to each other, and that becomes the major objective making all the rest minor.

[Beef Stu]

to be honest, predetermined objectives are silly and from what i have read i may stay clear of MP because of them.

what would be great is a system like Civil War Generals 2(great game from sierra/impressions 1997). objectives(victory locations) would appear where units were heavily engaged. the more the area was contested the more it was worth. a predetermined objective equals a predetermined battle to me. great if you want to reenact exactly what happened in a certain battle but horrible if you want to write your own history.

a supply line objective sounds historically accurate but lets face it, predetermined objectives make the battles too gamey. random ones popping up wherever sounds even worse.

would it be possible to have objectives show up in places being fought over like in cwg2 ? or possibly commanders get the option to choose a objective location at the start of the match?

don't mean to offend anyone just my 2 cents.

[KG_Soldier]

Your loss Beef. We have had hundreds and hundreds of great MP games. We've been trying different ways of using objectives since the patch came out, not because we weren't enjoying the games, just trying to enhance them.

"[W]ould it be possible to have objectives show up in places being fought over like in cwg2?"

The objectives are where the fighting takes place, so. . . . And back when we first started, we played without objectives, but too many players sat on the high ground behind stone walls and waited for someone foolish enough to attack. Having objectives show up where the fighting is would encourage players to sit on good ground and hope someone attacks.

[Garnier]

Objectives are unrealistic in that sense, but they're necessary to compel action in the limited time we have to play.

A realistic way in that sense, would be to have the union get lots more troops and just lose if the time runs out and they haven't destroyed the confederate army. But we don't have time for this.

[Beef Stu]

"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."

i guess what i don't get is why people would want to fight a battle... then not fight.

one of these days I'll get into MP, but i cant guarantee I'm gonna concern myself with objectives when there's yanke.. i mean enemy's to kill

[Garnier]

i guess what i don't get is why people would want to fight a battle... then not fight.

A lot of us prefer winning to losing, myself included, and in a no-objectives game, attacking is the best way to lose.

Not everyone's like that, but enough of us are to make objectives necessary.

[Beef Stu]

you can put realism in the game but you can't take the game out of the realism .

[SouthernSteel]

"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."

i guess what i don't get is why people would want to fight a battle... then not fight.

one of these days I'll get into MP, but i cant guarantee I'm gonna concern myself with objectives when there's yanke.. i mean enemy's to kill

You probably oughtn't to quote Patton in a Civil War discussion. 80 years, tanks, and airplanes later, this is an easier statement to make. Military genius for centuries (and arguably still) is to have the strategic offensive and the tactical defensive. Plenty of worse people to have quoted, but still.

The reason we fight and then don't (always) go straight forward to get our troops slaughtered is because we have introduced elements of carry-over, where your actions in one battle directly affect your troop quality and numbers in the next battle. Honestly, we're really lenient in the way we do that as well, otherwise people would have their divisions wrecked after a battle or two.

A lot of people have that idea, but after they play a battle or two become noticeably more conservative in their tactics (Seal being the most blatant exception).

you can put realism in the game but you can't take the game out of the realism .

I'm afraid I don't follow this at all.

I prefer winning to losing, sure, but only when my actions directly determine that outcome. Too many players are all too willing to do anything to win, whether they admit it or not (and I may fall under that umbrella on occasion as well, can't say one way or the other offhand - certainly my brain doesn't work that way). That means finding any means possible to gain an advantage. There I think "game" (ie gamey tactics, moreso) and "realism" are nearly mutually exclusive terms. I will always opt for the latter.