Objectives - To Be or Not to Be...Question for SP Folks

[Damned Black Hat]

Fix bayonets boys, let's break him!

[Mowgli]

Well being in the UK, I tend to spend most of my time in the Sandbox and it all depends on my mood whether I use the Objectives options or not. Some days I have Corp Level Games and others Brigade Level.

I always have balanced forces for a better game but regardless of objectives or final score, I always know whether I have "won" or "lost" depending on the battle fought and who controls the field afterwards.

But it is always nice to have Options.

[SouthernSteel]

well git yer butt online and play with real people ya slacker!

[RebBugler]

At present, we must live with the objective scheme, I feel it works fine if applied correctly and doesn't negate engagement victories. Sure, there's plenty of room for improvement, and as this game evolves, so will the determiners for Victory...I like MTG's ideas.

For me, in scripting historical scenarios, objectives are a must. For WhatIfs, they're optional. To steer variants in WhatIfs, they come in handy.

Already got some real good feedback from this thread, thanks, but no revolution for now, we gotta accept slow change, because changing code abruptly for scoring preferences affects too many things...it's not as simple as just stroking Norb into changing it...though sometimes I wish. :whistle:

[SouthernSteel]

I, for one, have no desire to hear about your wishes of stroking Norb...

[RebBugler]

I, for one, have no desire to hear about your wishes of stroking Norb...

Oops, ya got me...you dastardly southern dude... :woohoo:

[SouthernSteel]

I resemble that remark *hooks thumbs in suspenders*

[Mazikainen]

What about trying to increase the amount of points gained from actual fighting as opposed to holding locations? (Or decreasing the amount of VP:s gained from holding locations for the same effect). Try and find the point at which it is advantageous to press the enemy instead of lazing around the objective. Maybe reduce the points hit from own losses at the same time. The Iron Brigade lost a scary percentage of men during the battle and still I believe they are appreciated for pushing on during the first day?

Or script the objectives so that unless you are the scenario defender, you will only hold a victory location for some minutes before receiving fresh orderd from your superior to keep pressing the enemy back. I think this should be the case realistically at least for the confederates. (Ewell settled for a minor victory score on the first day so he could unlock the second day scenarios)

[Willard]

Reb -

IMO, there are two "big" issues regarding objectives and scoring that are flawed in SOW.

#1 - The objective system doesn't realistically force the action in game. We can use the big Gettysburg Map as an example to illustrate the point. Hypothetically speaking in this example, is the town of Gettysburg really an objective? Well depending upon the level of granularity (tactical, operational, strategic) the answer is different in each scenario. From a tactical standpoint, the town is useless. From an operational standpoint, it has value because it is the crossroads center of the 9 major roads in the region. From a strategic standpoint, there is no value to the town.

The goal of SOW game should be the same as what Lee or Meade had to face. For Lee, it was destruction of the AOP, for Meade it was first, defending DC and Baltimore AND then destruction of the ANV. Setting a VP spot in the center of Gettysburg doesn't lead either "player" to accomplish this task.

Now if you really want objective points to mean something, than the major VP locations shouldn't be in Gettysburg town or Culp's Hill, etc, they really should be on the entry/exit points for the opposing forces on the game map. For the Rebs, that is notionally, the Hagerstown, Chambersburg, Mummasburg, Carlisle and Harrisburg Roads. For the Yanks it would be the Hanover, Baltimore, Taneytown and Emmitsburg roads. As the axis of advances for both armies, in any scenario should either side take those VP locations they would essentially destroy the opposing army as their supply and retreat routes would have been disrupted.

In essence, the Union wasn't defending the town of Gettysburg, it was defending those four roads on its axis of advance. That is where your major VP locations should be located. If you want to use minor VP locations elsewhere, that is fine but the reality is that if the AOP loses 1 or more of those major VP locations than it loses the battle. So if you are looking to force the action on the Pipe's Creek map, the major VP locations are those roads behind the defensive line that AOP used to advance. The Rebs are not going to frontally assualt so there needs to be options for them to manuever - just like the large Gettysburg Map offers for both sides.

#2 - The other big issue is that there is not an overall army "morale" indicator to represent the operational effectiveness of the army during the battle. Simply put, casualties get to obsence levels far in excess of historic norms because players don't have to worry about tomorrow. The fact of the matter remains that once you start approaching 30%+ casualty rates you have a problem and that should be reflected in game with the scoring. Several of the Napoleonic games like Waterloo and Austerlitz used something similar - once your army got decimated to a certain point it didn't matter how many objectives you took. As the example used below, what does it really mean if you take the Angle with Lew Armistead and 10 rebs? It really means nothing!

*S*

Willard

[RebBugler]

Man, thought that coup d'état had killed this thread for useful feedback, but lo and behold, the revolutionary guard has saved the day. Thank you Sirs...Outstanding feedback. :cheer: