Question about "retreating" screenshot

[Hancock the Superb]

I tc those detached regiments, which normally constitues of 500 men. I play around when there is no battle going on with what regiments I can use to hold the VP.

[ironsight]

Hancock, the big big problem with TC'ing regiments is they will not automatically wheel to aim at an enemy's red halo. TC'ing em will work fine if there's never gonna be no enemy around. But if enemy cavalry or infantry units are lurking nearby hidden in the woods, those TC'd regiments are useless to protect the VP sight unless the VP is babysitted constantly during the battle.

One of the last VP battles i played this exact scenario happened. Fortunately, i held a small brigade to gaurd the VP with only the Brigade Commander TC'd and his regiments successfully fought off a massive enemy cavalry attack. When playing VP battles i also keep one unlimbered battery at the VP. Good thing too cause an enemy brigade was right behind their attacking cavalry. Luckily i was able to notice all this from the sounds of my cannister and brought up some scattered regiments in the area on the DQ for support. I'll admit, there for a while i thought i'd lose that VP it was that close.

[Hancock the Superb]

Generally a good reson why you shouldn't let the enemy FLANK you!

[ironsight]

Generally a good reson why you shouldn't let the enemy FLANK you!

Truer words never spoken!
Hancock, however here's my dilema. I usually play the Corps Commander with 5 or more Divisions generaly TC'd to the practical hilt. Babysitting the VP for 'hidden in the woods type' enemy sneak attacks at the probable cost of letting the rest of my army go to cannister heaven is one of the major reasons i don't play VP battles.

Myself, i'd much rather concentrate on kicking the entire enemy army off the map with minimal casualties than have those arcadish 10K VP points!
On the other hand, VP battles might be tolerable if one plays a Division or Brigade Commander and is ordered to defend the VP but what fun is that?

[Hancock the Superb]

Ok. Tips for you. When you play as the overall commander in an Open Play, you leave the fewest troops there, then spread your troops away from there, down the roads. Try and locate the enemy with your calvary. Then, since the enemy sees your calvary, he will consentrate there, leaving you with flanking paths and everything, because the AI in TC2M doesn't think that well, I've found. Especially on Normal. (No offense Norb. Something to think about, though. A large scale flanking manoever.)

[norb]

No offense taken at all. It is my goal to make it the best and I can't do that if I get offended at any criticism. I'm happy with the fact that it's one of the best ever for this game type, but best certainly does not mean perfect.

[Hancock the Superb]

Good, because this one will be perfectB)

[ironsight]

Hancock,
i'm gonna geuss you probably don't play many large OP non-VP meeting engagement type battles. If you did you would know your Divisions are typically already spread out from one side of the map to the other at game's start.
With this type of meeting engagement battle, the enemy is in your face fast, sometimes REAL fast.
Also if you played this type of battle you would know there's zero need to find the enemy with cavalry. Its obvious early on where they are, too early sometimes. And there's no time spent marching my Divisions halfway across the map to 'find' the enemy although i occasionally play those battles too if i've got the time which i usually don't.

These are my favorite OP battles which i just about always play mainly because the smoke 'n booming starts within a few minutes after starting the game and with no goofy VP timer clock/perimeters to defend and spend crucial time worrying about! When i get an early victory, i don't even wait for the Victory/Defeat page to pop up. Instead, i'll go directly to the stat pages to evaluate points and casualty ratios. As i said my objective is to drive the enemy off the map, i've got blinders to any other superfluous distractions such as VPs. For me i consider TC2M more as a battle simulator rather than a game.

There's no amount of convincing that would get me to predominately play VP battles.
Been there, done that already thankyou.

[69th NYSV]

Since we've drifted to VP vs non-VP....

The way I see it is VP's are good for directing a battle a certain way, like recreating a specific battle scenario. They are basically "bait" to entice the player or direct the AI. VP's certaintly have their place and use. But this all is probably obvious.

I also agree with ironsight that the non-VP battles, either instant action or search and destroy, are more "realistic", for lack of a better word. Victory in the ACW was given to whom ever held the field last.

[ironsight]

69th NYSV,
yep, as i said earlier, some people like Chevys and others like Fords. I really can see and understand why most prefer playing VP type battles, they're just not for me personally from what i want to get out of TC2M.
I hope the new game includes at least a couple OP non-VP battle options and maybe a new OP instant battle (in progress) option similar to some of the scenarios. Whether it will or not, i've no clue at this point. Don't even know if OP options will be available though i sort of remember Norb saying they will.