Scourge of War Boards

Amish John wrote:

ADukes wrote:

As mentioned earlier, is that the way how it should be.

It seems like if I'm the division commander and I tell Devin's regiments to use a fence for defensive cover I would expect them to use the cover offered and stay where I placed them, at least until they've sustained losses or have a drop in morale and fatigue.

I agree. They run away pretty much as soon as they spot the enemy. Prticularly the weak regiments of the second cavalry brigade. Those guys could do with a commissar.

Amish John wrote:

ADukes wrote:

As mentioned earlier, is that the way how it should be.

It seems like if I'm the division commander and I tell Devin's regiments to use a fence for defensive cover I would expect them to use the cover offered and stay where I placed them, at least until they've sustained losses or have a drop in morale and fatigue. I've just tried this scenario a couple times briefly, but I can't get these pig headed cavalrymen to do what I want. I place them and they move. I dismount them and they mount and charge. And then Gamble walks his horse right over and into the reb battleline. I'm surprised Buford didn't join the artillery. I'll practice this scenario more in the next couple days. I probably just haven't figured out yet how all this is supposed to work. Anyone having better luck with it?

Amish John,

I took command of Devin's regiments and they performed just fine. Actually, I was quite impressed with how they held off the rebs and conducted a withdraw for nearly 30 minutes without ever breaking. In fact, the continued their slow withdraw until they ran out of ammunition, at which point I had to pull them out of the line, but I was already receiving infantry reinforcements by that time.

I was afraid that when I took command of them that they would stay in place until they broke (which is not what I wanted), but instead they took it upon themselves to slowly pull back.

Rich Mac wrote:

Amish John wrote:

ADukes wrote:

As mentioned earlier, is that the way how it should be.

It seems like if I'm the division commander and I tell Devin's regiments to use a fence for defensive cover I would expect them to use the cover offered and stay where I placed them, at least until they've sustained losses or have a drop in morale and fatigue. I've just tried this scenario a couple times briefly, but I can't get these pig headed cavalrymen to do what I want. I place them and they move. I dismount them and they mount and charge. And then Gamble walks his horse right over and into the reb battleline. I'm surprised Buford didn't join the artillery. I'll practice this scenario more in the next couple days. I probably just haven't figured out yet how all this is supposed to work. Anyone having better luck with it?

Amish John,

I took command of Devin's regiments and they performed just fine. Actually, I was quite impressed with how they held off the rebs and conducted a withdraw for nearly 30 minutes without ever breaking. In fact, the continued their slow withdraw until they ran out of ammunition, at which point I had to pull them out of the line, but I was already receiving infantry reinforcements by that time.

I was afraid that when I took command of them that they would stay in place until they broke (which is not what I wanted), but instead they took it upon themselves to slowly pull back.

Rich, Thanks for the insight. I'm just touching the surface of the new game and have much to learn regarding controlling the troops. If there was no frustration in playing the role of a commanding officer it wouldn't be realistic.

I have replayed this scenario twice more and have had no more CTD's... just a random event probably due to XP64.

Unfortunately, Devin's regiments must all be TC'ed in order for them to participate in the battle. I too would expect that as division commander, if I give him an order to stay and fight, that is just what he should do without micro-managing everything. Ideally, a scenario should set the table with an initial disposition of forces and an initial strategy, but then allow the player to use his own ideas as to how those forces should be fought. Simply recreating what happened in 1863 isn't very interesting, at least for myself, we already know how that battle turns out.

Marching Thru Georgia wrote:

I have replayed this scenario twice more and have had no more CTD's... just a random event probably due to XP64.

Unfortunately, Devin's regiments must all be TC'ed in order for them to participate in the battle. I too would expect that as division commander, if I give him an order to stay and fight, that is just what he should do without micro-managing everything. Ideally, a scenario should set the table with an initial disposition of forces and an initial strategy, but then allow the player to use his own ideas as to how those forces should be fought. Simply recreating what happened in 1863 isn't very interesting, at least for myself, we already know how that battle turns out.

Yes, the Devin retreat thing was a controversial subject in testing. The scenario used to be WAY too easy (getting ridiculous scores every time). Then we had to decide how to make it easier without losing the historical accuracy. Since historically, Devin wasn't heavily engaged in that portion of the battle, the scenario designer set him up to be very "skittish", hence the retreating.

Marching Thru Georgia wrote:

I have replayed this scenario twice more and have had no more CTD's... just a random event probably due to XP64.

Unfortunately, Devin's regiments must all be TC'ed in order for them to participate in the battle. I too would expect that as division commander, if I give him an order to stay and fight, that is just what he should do without micro-managing everything. Ideally, a scenario should set the table with an initial disposition of forces and an initial strategy, but then allow the player to use his own ideas as to how those forces should be fought. Simply recreating what happened in 1863 isn't very interesting, at least for myself, we already know how that battle turns out.

I concur, completely! I almost always play as a meeting engagement with no victory points. Rather, the success of either force dictates success.

J :woohoo:

Marching Thru Georgia wrote:

I have replayed this scenario twice more and have had no more CTD's... just a random event probably due to XP64.

Unfortunately, Devin's regiments must all be TC'ed in order for them to participate in the battle. I too would expect that as division commander, if I give him an order to stay and fight, that is just what he should do without micro-managing everything. Ideally, a scenario should set the table with an initial disposition of forces and an initial strategy, but then allow the player to use his own ideas as to how those forces should be fought. Simply recreating what happened in 1863 isn't very interesting, at least for myself, we already know how that battle turns out.

Very good points. As you play through the scenarios I think you will find many that line up as per your preferences. This scenario was a bitch to balance and score because the repeaters were so lethal, so extreme scripting gyrations had to be implemented to make it work, or the Rebs would have been annihilated every time.

Also, there are numerous randoms here and with all the scenarios to increase replay value, so, play on, check out the orders, and keep providing good usable criticism. Cause this game and it's future scenarios will evolve beyond the necessities of a "TC" game, that's a goal we're (The Team) all after, and Norb's AI is moving upward and onward toward that direction.

Man, a LinconesqueBorg "You will be assimilated, and you WILL like it" HEH HEH HEH
First I thought you were a Yank, then I saw....