Scenarios

[dale]

First let me say that I am so anxious to try this game that I have ordered a new computer just so I get the full effect of the game's graphics.

I am wondering how you are handling the choice of scenarios. I would love to have at least one all day long scenario for each day , so that the game has a sense of continuity. Second, I would love to be able to play the the whole 3 days of battle as a choice as well. (My one disappointment with TCSM was the cutoff of the larger scenarios at 4 hours.) Fortunately, Gettysburg does compartmentalize into small unit actions so that 30 minute or 1 hour sections could be done as stand alones. If the whole story can be done in 20 scenarios will they be linked so that the casualties taken and inflicted in one carry over to the next one?

Perhaps it can not be done in this game but I would love to be able to play a semi role playing game where you take on the organic of being a single unit (whether it would be a single brigade, or even up to a whole corps for the entire battle. Your rating will be based not only on objectives taken or held but also on whether you can preserve your unit as a fighting force.

[Jim]

Long scenarios are difficult because the AI has a mind of its own. Often by an hour or so the virtual battle has diverged quite significantly from the historical version. The battle could have migrated half way across the map, or not. This means that the scenario author has no way to know, for example, where to send reinforcements.

We may add enhancements to work with this more extended situation but for now we are concentrating on making the more basic functions work really well.

-Jim

[dale]

"Long scenarios are difficult because the AI has a mind of its own. Often by an hour or so the virtual battle has diverged quite significantly from the historical version. The battle could have migrated half way across the map, or not. This means that the scenario author has no way to know, for example, where to send reinforcements."


Can the scenario save the file at the end that will include the unit strengths of each unit that finishes? Is is possible that you could play an all day or multiday as a series of one hour scenarios where each is linked? For example, during Heth's attacks early on Day 1 he loses 1000 men and one of Archer's regiments has surrendured en masse. Can a following scenario using Heth's units start with the ending saved file OOB of the previous scenario in the chain? Thus Heth's units could be used at the strength reduced during the player's earlier scenario. If this could be done then you would have natural chapters in a continous read of one part of the battlefield. Your AI would still be refreshed with the designer's input but the OOB would be adjusted due to the experience of the player from a previous scenario.

[norb]

We did have this in previous versions of the engine and I have brought that into the new engine. It's called carryover and it's something that is implemented by the scenario designers. Basically you start out with what you had left over at the end of the last scenario. Wrangler made a huge use of this feature in the TC2M scenarios.

[estabu2]

I thought this was one of the great features of TC2M. You actually had to think about going full-bore right into the guns. You had to use your men more tactically and probe more to find a weekspot to attack. I remember in one of the C.O. scenerio's having two regiments with around 50 men and they were suppose to defend a point. It was a small, thin line.

[dale]

I thought that it was happening in TCSM but it was hard to validate the carryover because I was replaying the scenarios trying to get a better score. I wondered which OOB it would use for the starting figure, whether it was the first time the scerario was completed or the last instance of it or the highest score.

Next, what would happen if an infantry unit overruns and captures an artillery battery? Would that battery still show up in the following scenario? Could it be used as captured artillery to augment an existing battery within the same corps or division?
Is the strength of the infantry permanently reduced by 15 men for each gun captured?

BTW, I would love to have an option NOT to capture an artillery gun, because of the demoralizing effect it would have on the unit capturing it due to the requirement of manning with a crew 15 men which the system computes as a loss of 15 men. Is there a way to allow the pieces to stand unmanned until the tide of the melee combat sweeps past the guns and then you could send a GREEN or FAIR rated unit over to man them? Maybe there could be an option to use an artillery trained unit to man them (but that would take a lot of OOB research to figure that out).

[norb]

If it demoralizes, it was a bug. That should not happen. There should be an option on whether or not you want to make the capture. It should also be harder to capture guns since it was so easy to spike them.

[dale]

I just got through playing Wrangler's Deluxe Hood scenario for TCSM. Anyone who has not played it yet should definitely put it at the top of their list. It is played with a full moon, limited visibility, no use of the strategic map, no top down view, cannister sparks fly when the metal strikes, bugles and the rebel yell present, and campfires burning. Wow! It is to me the best mod scenario and (possibly the best of all for TCSM) that I have played because of its immersive value.

I think I like division level scenarios the best anyways because they are the most manageable and still you have flexibility. I also like using the combined arms aspect, which you cannot get at the brigade level and at the corps or army level gets lost in the priorities of just moving large formations.

I think one of the ways to make a harder level game that is still historical in terms of loss tables is to limit the view of the player to an elevation of a commander at horseback level. This throws the more experienced player deeper into the "historical" perspective without skewing the firing and loss or the morale tables (which I hate as a gamer). Further denying the use of the strategic map was brilliant on the part of Wranger because it is a crutch that we all have used that was not really available to commanders. Another degree of realism that would make a more difficult level would be for the player to only have access to a map that was available to the commanders at the time of the battle. Many battles of maneuver turned because one side knew the terrain and roads better than the other side. (The Seven Days Battles were fascinating because neither side had accurate information about where the roads went or even the names of the roads. In some cases guides could be provided, acting like couriers, to shepherd a commander forward. The SOUND of battle itself could be a cue for the tactical commander about which direction to head if there was a fork in the road.)

[Janh]

This one is a truely good suggestion. I have started limiting the view whenever I play a long time ago, and indeed you start to feel the lack of overview. I works better on the defensive, though, since AI handles that better. Its lack of aggressiveness, or sometimes "overaggressiveness" pursuing enemys with single isolated units requires more frequent adjustments. Limiting view is still awesome if you only have a handful of BG's (1-2 Divs) to command.

For the overview maps it would be nice to have two options:
1. The "satellite map", such as in TC2M
2. Just an image of a historic map, maybe the J. Hotchkiss one.

The overview maps could also use new features, that would help to manage larger battles:
1. Zooming
2. Troop symbols indicating their alignment/orientation
3. Ability to select and order troops just as in the 3rd person view (Ideally one could then even fight the battle just on the 2D map). However, if one only had the historically inaccurate maps and would order troops around, AI would have to make adjustments according to the terrain. I.e. if a hill is a little of from the position on the 2D map, where you just ordered your division to move and defend, AI should possibly move those few hundred yards and find the best position nearby. This would also add to the historical feel, since oftentimes units did so and superiors thus found them in spots where there were unexpected (see Seven days...)

Maybe something for a future patch...
Jan

[estabu2]

dale wrote:

I think one of the ways to make a harder level game that is still historical in terms of loss tables is to limit the view of the player to an elevation of a commander at horseback level. This throws the more experienced player deeper into the "historical" perspective without skewing the firing and loss or the morale tables (which I hate as a gamer).

I really like this idea. Could be a possible Grognard difficulty setting or something. Remove the distance to enemy unit, only the minimap, and all view is from a first person view of your commander.

It wouldn't be good for the average gamer to be stuck at ground level, but for those who want a good challenge, JC, it would be excellent and very immersive as you pointed out.