Hiya Guys
Just completed a scenario which I won, but came away with a lot less points than I could have done. Instead of sitting on an objective from which the enemy had been cleared, racking up the points, I kept my General with his troops who were still fighting. In my opinion this is more realistic as the Officers surely wouldn't have just left their troops in the midst of battle.
Am I correct playing this way, or should I just try and get as many MV's as possible?
Cheers
Objectives or Reality?
Re: Objectives or Reality?
My orders are always to destroy the enemy forces in the field.
I guess points are for bragging rights, but who really cares, unless you are trying to win a scenario and move up to the next one.
I guess points are for bragging rights, but who really cares, unless you are trying to win a scenario and move up to the next one.
Re: Objectives or Reality?
I would personally say it depends on the scenario also. Consider a defensive scenario, if you advance further than your orders state then you may expose the rest of you're line to an attack. Even if you don't see one or one wont occur during you're scenario I don't like getting to aggressive on defensive battles because I feel like if I do I'm opening up our line for a Chickamuga style disaster by being to aggressive.Hiya Guys
Just completed a scenario which I won, but came away with a lot less points than I could have done. Instead of sitting on an objective from which the enemy had been cleared, racking up the points, I kept my General with his troops who were still fighting. In my opinion this is more realistic as the Officers surely wouldn't have just left their troops in the midst of battle.
Am I correct playing this way, or should I just try and get as many MV's as possible?
Cheers
Re: Objectives or Reality?
In a different scenario my orders instructed me to stay where I was. I did so, and got attacked by an advancing enemy, so I fought a defensive battle. But once I had managed to rout the attacking force, I had an objective marker quite a way in the distance. I didn`t receive any other orders, so should I have stayed where I was, or advance to the objective?
I would personally say it depends on the scenario also. Consider a defensive scenario, if you advance further than your orders state then you may expose the rest of you're line to an attack. Even if you don't see one or one wont occur during you're scenario I don't like getting to aggressive on defensive battles because I feel like if I do I'm opening up our line for a Chickamuga style disaster by being to aggressive.
Cheers
-
Little Powell
- Reactions:
- Posts: 4884
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:25 am
Re: Objectives or Reality?
Always read and pay close attention to the scenario intro. This is where the historical background is shared, and where you get your orders. If you can accomplish what you are ordered to do, then you have won the day.. And this often reflected in your points. However there are exceptions where you'll come up short (some unit was captured, fell off the OBJ and lost critical points etc.) and this is where the gamey factor comes in. But again, if you accomplish what you were ordered to do and feel like you have won the day, then you have.
The full CSA Army scenario in Antietam is a good example of this. It's incredibly difficult to reach that 40,000 Major Victory score.. But if you can survive the battle with at least somewhat of a fighting force left holding your ground, then you have won the scenario... Which is what Robert E. Lee and the ANV did historically. Yes, they were beaten to a pulp and the battle was officially a Draw.. But surviving the onslaught brought against him while outnumbered 2 to 1, and holding his ground, was a victory in my book.
The full CSA Army scenario in Antietam is a good example of this. It's incredibly difficult to reach that 40,000 Major Victory score.. But if you can survive the battle with at least somewhat of a fighting force left holding your ground, then you have won the scenario... Which is what Robert E. Lee and the ANV did historically. Yes, they were beaten to a pulp and the battle was officially a Draw.. But surviving the onslaught brought against him while outnumbered 2 to 1, and holding his ground, was a victory in my book.
Last edited by Little Powell on Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Marching Thru Georgia
- Reactions:
- Posts: 1769
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:56 pm
Re: Objectives or Reality?
Little Powell wrote:
Many of the scenarios are very well constructed as present players with interesting tactical problems that are not so easy to solve. They lose much of their interest, IMHO, when trying to reach some artificial score that requires silly behavior such as sitting on an objective with a certain number of men for a certain amount of time, or the necessity of hopping from one objective to another as soon as one pops up in order to get the required number of points, (a 19th century version of whack-a-mole).
However, if players approach these battles as the real commanders did, people will find these scenarios to be very challenging in many cases, with a high replay value regardless as to whether they have random variants included inside them. For instance, the Pipe Creek scenarios illustrate very simple tactical problems, but solving them in 19th century fashion makes them a fun challenge. The Chancellorsville scenarios that require fighting retreats demonstrate just how difficult it is to disengage, fall back and resume the fight, especially if the player does not turn off the foliage and commands from saddle level. Just getting out with a majority of your forces is quite an accomplishment.
Forget about the scores and enjoy the scenarios.
This is good advice. I ignore the scoring and use two criteria to determine victory or defeat; have I securely attained the objective using tactics from that period and do I still have a viable fighting force once the battle is finished. This is not as easy to meet as it might seem, as the AI tends to fight to the last man.But again, if you accomplish what you were ordered to do and feel like you have won the day, then you have.
Many of the scenarios are very well constructed as present players with interesting tactical problems that are not so easy to solve. They lose much of their interest, IMHO, when trying to reach some artificial score that requires silly behavior such as sitting on an objective with a certain number of men for a certain amount of time, or the necessity of hopping from one objective to another as soon as one pops up in order to get the required number of points, (a 19th century version of whack-a-mole).
However, if players approach these battles as the real commanders did, people will find these scenarios to be very challenging in many cases, with a high replay value regardless as to whether they have random variants included inside them. For instance, the Pipe Creek scenarios illustrate very simple tactical problems, but solving them in 19th century fashion makes them a fun challenge. The Chancellorsville scenarios that require fighting retreats demonstrate just how difficult it is to disengage, fall back and resume the fight, especially if the player does not turn off the foliage and commands from saddle level. Just getting out with a majority of your forces is quite an accomplishment.
Forget about the scores and enjoy the scenarios.
I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.
-
scottishsoldier
- Reactions:
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:47 am
Re: Objectives or Reality?
I've often wrestled with this issue.
In trying to "beat the game", in TC2M and SOW, I've done the "gamey" thing for the points. But I've often thought that the best way for a scenario, or SB battle, to end would be for the AI to start to retreat at a certain point, to preserve its forces. That would be the "realistic" outcome. Or alternatively, in a scenario or SB battle where the human player is badly outnumbered, or starts with some positional disadvantage, a victory condition might simply be to hold, or retreat, while maintaining an intact or relatively intact force after a given time.
Since the Sid Meyer Gettysburg, and in this series,I've found the AI tendency to fight to the last man bizarre, and reminiscent of the Monty Python "King Arthur" sketch. Any army outside the 300 Spartans would generally withdraw to fight another day.
I don't know how difficult that would be to programme, but it would be a fantastic alternative to VP's and "points". There would presumably be a points calculus going on in the background, based on losses and ground gained or lost, but if the effect in play was simply the reaction of the AI opponent at some point in the battle, or a final outcome reflecting a player making the best of a bad situation, that would be another move towards "realism" and away from "gaminess".
Imagine the buzz of suddenly realising that the enemy is pulling out, and the challenge...a very real one in terms of the historical reality.....of achieving a Cannae in a winning position...something the historical armies found very difficult if not impossible.
In trying to "beat the game", in TC2M and SOW, I've done the "gamey" thing for the points. But I've often thought that the best way for a scenario, or SB battle, to end would be for the AI to start to retreat at a certain point, to preserve its forces. That would be the "realistic" outcome. Or alternatively, in a scenario or SB battle where the human player is badly outnumbered, or starts with some positional disadvantage, a victory condition might simply be to hold, or retreat, while maintaining an intact or relatively intact force after a given time.
Since the Sid Meyer Gettysburg, and in this series,I've found the AI tendency to fight to the last man bizarre, and reminiscent of the Monty Python "King Arthur" sketch. Any army outside the 300 Spartans would generally withdraw to fight another day.
I don't know how difficult that would be to programme, but it would be a fantastic alternative to VP's and "points". There would presumably be a points calculus going on in the background, based on losses and ground gained or lost, but if the effect in play was simply the reaction of the AI opponent at some point in the battle, or a final outcome reflecting a player making the best of a bad situation, that would be another move towards "realism" and away from "gaminess".
Imagine the buzz of suddenly realising that the enemy is pulling out, and the challenge...a very real one in terms of the historical reality.....of achieving a Cannae in a winning position...something the historical armies found very difficult if not impossible.