Would it be possible to bump up the objective appearance times? I was considering asking for all to be up by 1 hour prior to game end but that could be silly if someone only plays an hour-long game. Could it be set so that they all appear within the first 15-20 minutes, or does it have to be set agaisnt the end of the scenario?
While waiting can introduce some interesting tactical situations, it can also often simply usher in waiting, with all of the battle occurring after the majority have appeared. Just a thought.
Suggestions
-
SouthernSteel
- Reactions:
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:07 am
Re: Suggestions
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Jefferson Davis, 1861
-
KG_Soldier
- Reactions:
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:43 am
Re: Suggestions
Right now, all objectives are visible with 40 minutes left in the battle.
So. . . you want to move it to 50 minutes?
So. . . you want to move it to 50 minutes?
-
SouthernSteel
- Reactions:
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:07 am
Re: Suggestions
Yes, I know - I think it needs to be bumped up because most of the time there is still waiting around for the first 50 minutes (albeit with some maneuvering about, but still often contingent upon the objectives appearing). I was under the impression that several others were inclined to agree with me on this, but perhaps they have changed their minds.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Re: Suggestions
I don't know that it would help any.
Even after all objectives appear, often we'll wait til the very end of the game before attacking, in order to have a good chance of neutralizing the objectives right before the game ends. This is silly but it works, and I'm not sure how to prevent it.
Having the last objective appear 40 minutes before the end means that because you don't know where it will be, if you're actually trying to win, you may want to move forward earlier in the game and hold more ground rather than sitting back on a hill and waiting. Of course many people either don't realize it, or just don't want to do it, so we still have situations where we sit for a long time.
Perhaps a better solution is to play 80 or 70 minute games so there's less time to wait in the first place.
Even after all objectives appear, often we'll wait til the very end of the game before attacking, in order to have a good chance of neutralizing the objectives right before the game ends. This is silly but it works, and I'm not sure how to prevent it.
Having the last objective appear 40 minutes before the end means that because you don't know where it will be, if you're actually trying to win, you may want to move forward earlier in the game and hold more ground rather than sitting back on a hill and waiting. Of course many people either don't realize it, or just don't want to do it, so we still have situations where we sit for a long time.
Perhaps a better solution is to play 80 or 70 minute games so there's less time to wait in the first place.
Last edited by Garnier on Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
KG_Soldier
- Reactions:
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:43 am
Re: Suggestions
No. . . I agree with you. I have no problem with them all having show up by 15 or 20 minutes into a game. But there are drawbacks as well. The problem with them showing up too early is that one side may decide they have no chance and simply not fight. That was happening before Garnier made them appear over the course of the game.
Last edited by KG_Soldier on Tue May 03, 2011 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Suggestions
I have a suggestion....
Cavalry.
It's no secret among the group, especially with the older players, that I like the cav. I know it's also not everyone's cup of tea. After thinking about it awhile, I may have come up with a way for Garnier to implement it into the campaign, if he's interested.
If it is possible, and if he's willing to program it, have the option on the Division Administration page, to deactivate an infantry brigade in order to bring an equivalent cavalry unit into battle. This way, those of us who want to play with mounted troops could, and those who do not, don't have to worry about it.
Also, I will agree if anyone wants to point out that cavalry could be viewed as more powerful than infantry, given equally sized units, even with infantry having longer ranged weapons. So I would also suggest that be taken into consideration by the OOB balancer. On top of that, I would have no problems with overall unit sizes being smaller at both the squadron and regiment level (or regiment/brigade to use infantry organization terms).
I think the addition of cavalry into our battles will add another dimension to the game and make things a bit more interesting. Plus, when they are used to scout ahead, they can be shot at and engaged, unlike when people use their commanders to scout (which I think we should come up with some ground rules about, but thats another topic).
On a slightly different, but related note, what do people think of adding a third, full sized brigade to the divisions? Or another way of looking at it, the total number of regiments each division has, since some divisions already have three brigades. So instead of having 10 regiments, upping it to 15, divided into 3 or 4 brigades, which would make it a little more realistic i think.
Anyways... Your thoughts gentlemen?
--
Muleskinner
Cavalry.
It's no secret among the group, especially with the older players, that I like the cav. I know it's also not everyone's cup of tea. After thinking about it awhile, I may have come up with a way for Garnier to implement it into the campaign, if he's interested.
If it is possible, and if he's willing to program it, have the option on the Division Administration page, to deactivate an infantry brigade in order to bring an equivalent cavalry unit into battle. This way, those of us who want to play with mounted troops could, and those who do not, don't have to worry about it.
Also, I will agree if anyone wants to point out that cavalry could be viewed as more powerful than infantry, given equally sized units, even with infantry having longer ranged weapons. So I would also suggest that be taken into consideration by the OOB balancer. On top of that, I would have no problems with overall unit sizes being smaller at both the squadron and regiment level (or regiment/brigade to use infantry organization terms).
I think the addition of cavalry into our battles will add another dimension to the game and make things a bit more interesting. Plus, when they are used to scout ahead, they can be shot at and engaged, unlike when people use their commanders to scout (which I think we should come up with some ground rules about, but thats another topic).
On a slightly different, but related note, what do people think of adding a third, full sized brigade to the divisions? Or another way of looking at it, the total number of regiments each division has, since some divisions already have three brigades. So instead of having 10 regiments, upping it to 15, divided into 3 or 4 brigades, which would make it a little more realistic i think.
Anyways... Your thoughts gentlemen?
--
Muleskinner
Last edited by Turbotay on Tue May 03, 2011 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Suggestions
If cavalry is added that's how I'd do it. It would have to be a bit more complicated though. It would probably work like this:
1. The host can disable cavalry as an option. This way if it turns out way too exploitable, I don't have to do anything to stop it.
2. Cavalry are brought in roughly equal amounts on each side in a battle. This means if one player on each side chose the cavalry option, they will bring cavalry, but if all players who want cav are on the same side, no cav is brought. This would prevent games where by accident one side has lots of cavalry which will strongly favor one side or the other, we don't yet know which way.
3. Cavalry would come in smaller amounts than infantry. The idea being that if you bring cavalry, your division will be less powerful, but will be useful still.
This is not to say I'm about to add cavalry. I'm working on another game currently. I'd want a lot more opinions before I'd do the work, as it would be a good deal of work and probably result in bugs to be fixed.
Could you handle X Navy Squeal charging cav through or around your lines to steal your cannons?
As for bigger divisions, that's an easier change to make, here are some considerations:
1. Bigger battles. This can be good for small games but in the large ones it may get too big, I don't know. Depends on the computers involved.
2. I already use the sprite ratio to adjust size for large and small battles, so for instance a 1v1 might use sprite ratio 2, which means regiments look bigger, while a large (I think over 40,000 troops) battle uses sprite ratio 5, so regiments are smaller. This is for performance and to keep the varying sized battles closer in terms of what you see. Additional regiments wouldn't necessarily affect this, but would we rather have more small units in a big battle, or fewer large units? I don't know, it's a matter of opinion.
3. Regiment numbers will necessarily be higher. 150th Virginia anyone? (this is a peeve of mine)
4. Losing troops will be less painful because you'll have more to lose, that maybe weren't in battle anyway. This is another opinion matter.
A possible idea is to somehow make the third brigade only available if enough other players vote to let you have it? This way, say I was a terrible player but always wanted more men, you all could say no if you didn't want me ruining games.
1. The host can disable cavalry as an option. This way if it turns out way too exploitable, I don't have to do anything to stop it.
2. Cavalry are brought in roughly equal amounts on each side in a battle. This means if one player on each side chose the cavalry option, they will bring cavalry, but if all players who want cav are on the same side, no cav is brought. This would prevent games where by accident one side has lots of cavalry which will strongly favor one side or the other, we don't yet know which way.
3. Cavalry would come in smaller amounts than infantry. The idea being that if you bring cavalry, your division will be less powerful, but will be useful still.
This is not to say I'm about to add cavalry. I'm working on another game currently. I'd want a lot more opinions before I'd do the work, as it would be a good deal of work and probably result in bugs to be fixed.
Could you handle X Navy Squeal charging cav through or around your lines to steal your cannons?
As for bigger divisions, that's an easier change to make, here are some considerations:
1. Bigger battles. This can be good for small games but in the large ones it may get too big, I don't know. Depends on the computers involved.
2. I already use the sprite ratio to adjust size for large and small battles, so for instance a 1v1 might use sprite ratio 2, which means regiments look bigger, while a large (I think over 40,000 troops) battle uses sprite ratio 5, so regiments are smaller. This is for performance and to keep the varying sized battles closer in terms of what you see. Additional regiments wouldn't necessarily affect this, but would we rather have more small units in a big battle, or fewer large units? I don't know, it's a matter of opinion.
3. Regiment numbers will necessarily be higher. 150th Virginia anyone? (this is a peeve of mine)
4. Losing troops will be less painful because you'll have more to lose, that maybe weren't in battle anyway. This is another opinion matter.
A possible idea is to somehow make the third brigade only available if enough other players vote to let you have it? This way, say I was a terrible player but always wanted more men, you all could say no if you didn't want me ruining games.
Re: Suggestions
Would it be possible to make the balancer even divide (when possible) the number of players requesting cavalry, so that we wouldn't end up with instances of 3 people wanting to use it, and they end up on the same side.
As for your Seal question... I'm not too worried about it. He has said himself he hates cavalry, so I doubt he'd use it. And anyone charging a cav unit passed the lines to get to the guns would still receive a large amount of rifle fire, and then canister, before getting to the guns, and more than likely the unit would retreat before doing much, if any, harm. Until the base game itself is changed so that units are solid objects that cant be run through, this tactic will be used by gamey players, even with infantry.
I think, when most people talk about making division bigger, its not just for cosmetic reasons. So using the sprite ratio changes for bigger battles is fine. I believe most people want the possibility of more units to maneuver with.
As for losing troops would be less painful with bigger divisions... this is the reason why I've always been against running so many turns. I think if the carry-over system itself was more consequential, it would change a lot of people's playing styles, and force people to think ahead, and become better players. I'm not really a fan of the "march out and shoot for an hour till someone routs" style of play we have now. If everyone knew that replacement troops are a day or two (or three) away, they might disengage the fight, and seek a more favorable ground on which to fight, and there would be more moving and counter-moving before the big fight.
I wouldn't mind your idea on voting for the third brigade to be added on a player to player basis, but I think it might lead to hurt feelings and calls of cliquishness. An idea I've had on the subject is set it up so that each player needs to score a certain number of points (or enemy casualties) in order to be able to bring more troops in future games. It could be multi-tiered, so that we all start off with 2000 max, then once we hit the appropriate point total, we get an additional 750 troops, for example. This way, the ability to lead more troops lies almost completely in the ability (or lack thereof) of each player. This would also be another goal to strive for, and another way to 'train' people to become better players and more to be tactically minded.
As for your Seal question... I'm not too worried about it. He has said himself he hates cavalry, so I doubt he'd use it. And anyone charging a cav unit passed the lines to get to the guns would still receive a large amount of rifle fire, and then canister, before getting to the guns, and more than likely the unit would retreat before doing much, if any, harm. Until the base game itself is changed so that units are solid objects that cant be run through, this tactic will be used by gamey players, even with infantry.
I think, when most people talk about making division bigger, its not just for cosmetic reasons. So using the sprite ratio changes for bigger battles is fine. I believe most people want the possibility of more units to maneuver with.
As for losing troops would be less painful with bigger divisions... this is the reason why I've always been against running so many turns. I think if the carry-over system itself was more consequential, it would change a lot of people's playing styles, and force people to think ahead, and become better players. I'm not really a fan of the "march out and shoot for an hour till someone routs" style of play we have now. If everyone knew that replacement troops are a day or two (or three) away, they might disengage the fight, and seek a more favorable ground on which to fight, and there would be more moving and counter-moving before the big fight.
I wouldn't mind your idea on voting for the third brigade to be added on a player to player basis, but I think it might lead to hurt feelings and calls of cliquishness. An idea I've had on the subject is set it up so that each player needs to score a certain number of points (or enemy casualties) in order to be able to bring more troops in future games. It could be multi-tiered, so that we all start off with 2000 max, then once we hit the appropriate point total, we get an additional 750 troops, for example. This way, the ability to lead more troops lies almost completely in the ability (or lack thereof) of each player. This would also be another goal to strive for, and another way to 'train' people to become better players and more to be tactically minded.
Last edited by Turbotay on Tue May 03, 2011 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
SouthernSteel
- Reactions:
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:07 am
Re: Suggestions
Keep in mind, though, that if we continue to tighten down the sight range, more troops will become increasingly difficult to manage. If we end up at, say, 50, most people (possibly even myself) won't be wanting any more than a brigade to command.
Still, I don't have a problem at all with introducing Cav. I don't know at all how you will be able to stop officer scouting. Lower sight range will help, but that's the only thing. An honor system is, as we've discussed, right out.
The only way I see currently to stop column charging is not so much to have units be solid and impassable as to have units take a bigger morale hit when they isolate themselves like that. Units in column ought to take heavier casualties as well, but as that may well prove to be a difficult thing to implement, the troops ought instead to take a bigger morale hit for being close to the enemy without firing back. Even Seal won't be able to column charge if his troops simply refuse to go.
I'm also in favor of some other changes, but those are often left at the option of the host, so hopefully they will choose a way that most can enjoy.
Still, I don't have a problem at all with introducing Cav. I don't know at all how you will be able to stop officer scouting. Lower sight range will help, but that's the only thing. An honor system is, as we've discussed, right out.
The only way I see currently to stop column charging is not so much to have units be solid and impassable as to have units take a bigger morale hit when they isolate themselves like that. Units in column ought to take heavier casualties as well, but as that may well prove to be a difficult thing to implement, the troops ought instead to take a bigger morale hit for being close to the enemy without firing back. Even Seal won't be able to column charge if his troops simply refuse to go.
I'm also in favor of some other changes, but those are often left at the option of the host, so hopefully they will choose a way that most can enjoy.
Last edited by SouthernSteel on Tue May 03, 2011 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Re: Suggestions
The best solution I've heard to fix the column charging BS is to have units simply go into line formation once they are within a certain distance of an enemy unit. I know that would have to be something Norb and crew do in a patch. I find the current style of "TC > Column > Run to the flanks" to be very unrealistic and gamey. Yes, we all do it to some extent, but that doesn't mean we should.