Question about "retreating" screenshot

[Hancock the Superb]

Exihibit C: New Game B)

[ironsight]

I'm excited to see what they can come up with.

I think we all feel that way! Just hope all this anticipation, maybe expecting too much doesn't end up in disappointment. From what i've seen and heard so far, i think the new game will exceed most expectations with disappointing maybe a few.

Anyhow see'n i'm a pessimist by nature always expecting the worst, i'm seldom disappointed. B)

By the way Norb, pessimists make the best Test Engineers, "That dam thing don't/will never work and i'm gonna prove it"

[norb]

ironsight wrote:

Greg, others,
The VP concept! Short story, i hate it! But thats just me, some people like Chevys and some like Fords while yet others swear by Toyotas. This is why i'm a big believer in user options, options and more options.
For me personally, VPs lend themselves more to a game atmosphere than the realism of an 'elite-level' battle simulator. If it were'nt for the couple of non-VP battle options in OP, i doubt i would play the game as much as i do.
I'm more concerned with routing, casualty ratios, points scored, occupying the enemies initial ground and basically clearing them off the map than i am worrying about the constraignts of securing some artificial VP.
Having said that, admittedly i can see the importance of the VP concept in multi-play although other metrics could concievably be used to determine winners such as casualty counts, points scored, etc.

Very interesting that you think that way. This is an argument that I used to have with my former partner all the time. In the end, I made sure the engine supported both ways because I realized that players would be as varied as we were. So that's why the open play has no vp and with vp options.

[Gfran64]

Hey Ironsite,

I'm with you. I'd much rather play without VP's and just deal with the situation as it unfolds. That being said, the VP's can really steer the engagement, especially for people who are new to the game. Many of us started playing SM-G and SM-A and were used to the VP's. So coming over to CWBR and TC2M many of us didn't need to be coaxed into the engagement. We knew where to go and what needed to be done so the VP's could get in the way at times. Like why do I have to keep most of a brigade back at this crossroads if the enemy is in full retreat. I could use those guys up front and just keep a company/regiment there. I mean there's nobody around for a mile in any direction. But for the first time player, I think they might get lost without the, "Shining Star."

As far as multiplayer goes, depending on how it's set up. I could really see one of those Little Rascals fights breaking out. Just 2 large armies circling each other neither really doing anything. Saying, "You lie down!" "No,You lie down!" You may need a VP in the middle somewhere just to drive the fighting, you could make it not even worth that much. I also think in MP it would be neat to have a random map and OOB engagement. How cool would it be to know absolutely nothing, or at best very little, about your opponent/terrain as well as your own troops. If you are playing the Union side in most OOB's you have the advantage in numbers. With a random OOB's you might have 10K less troops than the other guy or you might have 10K more. That, I think, is a good test of skill.

Regards,

Greg

[ironsight]

Greg wrote:
...I'd much rather play without VP's and just deal with the situation as it unfolds.....Like why do I have to keep most of a brigade back at this crossroads if the enemy is in full retreat. I could use those guys up front and just keep a company/regiment there....

All i can say is Yeah, the VP concept to me approaches a kiddie arcade game instead of an adult high end battle simulator. I'm afraid though us non-VP'ers might be in the minority. For NSD marketing purposes, i can see the absolute need to hopefully satisfy both ends of the VP vs. non-VP specrum.

For me its All about clearing the enemy off the battle field with minimal casualties. And on those rare occassions where i accidently enable a VP battle, i just ignore the VP sites! Keeping a thousand or more troops around a VP site twiddling their thumbs while the rest of my army could sorely use em is......:woohoo: IMHO that is.

Norb wrote:
This is an argument that I used to have with my former partner all the time. In the end, I made sure the engine supported both ways because I realized that players would be as varied as we were. So that's why the open play has no vp and with vp options.

Thank you!;)
By the way, if you don't mind me asking, how is your old partner doing with his medical condition?

[Hancock the Superb]

Why do you use 1000 troops. I'll usually detach two regiments (that is enough) and keep a calvary or battery commander there and I can do as I will!

Though I always drive for the VPs!

[Ephrum]

Greg and ironsight,
VP's were very useful for me when I first started playing TC2M. One thing I did learn from them, was how to deal with a bad terrain location, like heavy woods, the bottom of a hill,...etc. And when I began trying attack engagments, the VP was useful. I would look at the mini-map, locate the VP, and choose what roads best suited a given attack stratagy. Of course, I only used defend and attack VP's. The multiple VP engagment types', really do feel like an arcade game.
However, all that being said, that was in the beggining. Now in OP I don't use them anymore. Without them, the game got a little tougher, but more fun. Like you guys, and no doubt others, now I can concentrate entirely on the enemy, and move my troops with complete freedom. It does seem more realistic now, and I don't feel shackled to a specific part of a map.
VP's are a useful option for beginners. And I think it would be good to have the option in multiplayer. I can see how both, VP's and no VP's, could make for interesting battles.

I know I'm pretty much repeating what both of you have said. Just adding my two cents' to the discussion.

[ironsight]

Hancock wrote:
Why do you use 1000 troops. I'll usually detach two regiments (that is enough) and keep a calvary or battery commander there and I can do as I will!

Its been a while since i played a VP battle, but i seem to remember the number of troops required to hold a VP site can vary depending on the size of the battle chosen.
And in larger battles there can be multiple VP sites.
Reb regiments during the war were typically smaller than yankee remiments keeping in mind the official definition of a regiment is 1000 men.

Also i remember early on that detaching regiments or giving HOLD orders to a Brigade Commander to gaurd a VP usually backfired. Detatched regiments sometimes wandered away from the VP perimeter seeking their Brigade(a bug?). And if the Division Commander isn't TC'd, the VP gaurding Brigade Commander could be ordered to go off and deploy somewhere else. Really frustrating because the clock timer resets!
The only sure fire way i've found to hold a VP site is to TC the Brigade Commander with the smallest brigade smack dab in the middle of the VP site. But the downside of that is since he's TC'd, the area has to be watched carefully against an enemy sneak attack against the VP site.
Thanks Hancock, you just reminded me what a needless PITA these VP battles are!

[Gfran64]

Bingo,

We have our winner!!!:)

Greg

[norb]

ironsight wrote:

Thank you!;)
By the way, if you don't mind me asking, how is your old partner doing with his medical condition?

We only exchange emails now when business requires it. We don't really get into personal details, so I don't really know. He's been fighting this on and off for as long as I've known him, and I believe since well before that.