Scourge of War Boards

I would advise putting one large regiment in the front, then pile the rest in the breech. Then see how HANCOCK THE SUPERB deals with it!

Hancock the Superb wrote:

I would advise putting one large regiment in the front, then pile the rest in the breech. Then see how HANCOCK THE SUPERB deals with it!

Um........falling out of your chair when I roll over you?:lol:

JC Edwards wrote:

Hancock the Superb wrote:

I would advise putting one large regiment in the front, then pile the rest in the breech. Then see how HANCOCK THE SUPERB deals with it!

Um........falling out of your chair when I roll over you?:lol:

As estabu keeps his guys out of canister range and laughs at Hancock the Superbs effort of dealing the The Mad One.

kellysheroes wrote:

Now just a few questions as I've mostly played...heck it's all I've played is OPEN battles and what I'm wondering is if you will have a more random map generator and/or open battles again? I just like playing with the OOB's on different map situations myself. But, Gettysburg map is one I've always wished for with this engine. I can't wait to deal with Little Roundtop.

Forgot to answer this: There will never be a random map generator for War3D. Our maps are just too detailed. Our roads must connect and our terrain and elevation is too much a part of the factor to be random.

There will of course be sandbox (random battles). I am moving towards what I coded for Waterloo, which I think was very good. I hope to release in an expansion or patch, the ability to choose your forces. Right now it generates them for you. But there are 4 options now, rather than 3 as in the past. There are some things that people just expect in this type of game and this is one of them. It would be taking away half the audience to just have scenarios or just have sandbox. People like playing different ways. Our OOB structure is a little different than I had in the past, but it's still pretty easy to recreate.

Most of the sandbox battle types will be the same, they are pretty standard. I actually got the idea of attack/defend from playing unreal tournament I loved their implementation of this. I want to start the meeting engagement (Line of Site battle) closer. As the LOS battle is to just start fighting, no searching. I have work to do on attack/defend as I although the AI does ok on defend, they really need to attack harder. The strategic AI was never really flushed out in the past, so I have some design work to get these guys hitting hard.

The strategic AI was never really flushed out in the past, so I have some design work to get these guys hitting hard.

That sounds great! Now I'm bound to find out if I'm as good at defending, as I think I am.

And that's bound to change the way I counter-attack.

I thought that were the Ai was particularly adept was the initial charge where the units would have a good chance of maintaining formation (very historical). Where it failed was the sending forth of individual regiments in hopeless slaughter (hmmmm, very McClellian, come to think of it).

BTW how much does the influence of the commanding general in a scenario actually have on the AI of the game?

Lastly, speaking of AI, the Hold command needs to be tweaked. It is frustrating getting your regiments lined up in a perfect defensive formation and then they run around like scared chipmunks when an enemy unit appears on the horizon. You then have to "take command" of every single one of them to restore a line of battle.

The generals have a good amount of influence. How I coded it was to listen to all the testers telling me how guys would act. It seemed that there was no set way. So I created files that could accomodate all types of behaviours, then based on the leaders personality I would randomly choose behaviours that mirrored that personality. Then added in some more randomness for the rare case where they would act against their usual nature, just to keep you on your toes! I didn't want it to be predictable.

I know the hold command is frustrating and it does need to be better. But this is not an RTS, it's a simulation. So if you want to force them to hold, you have to micro manage your guys. That has it's own penalties. If you want to leave it up to their commander to make them hold, then you have to trust their decisions. Every feature I added, I tried to counter. I wanted their to be cost to everything, making every decision one that had to be thought about.

Very interesting concerning the multiple AI files, Norb.

Thank you for your and your staff's thoughtful replies. It's good to know how you think this project through. I have been a gamer since the Avalon Hill board games and I have been quite thrilled at the evolution of the gaming experience for war games. What Sid Meyers did in Gettysburg was a quantam leap that truly put a "you are there" feel to the game. What MMG did in Bull Run was another leap forward--the sounds, mapping and the feel of the game was great. I would leave it at ground level view and just enjoy the experience of leading a column of men forward. The graphic pics of the upcoming Gettysburg have that Wow! look to them. I guess that my prodding questions is so that the realism of the actions of the soldiers (units) continually evolve in this great environment that you have created. A lot of my thoughts are probably pushing the envelope at the tail end of the process of creating a game, but I have come late to this ball and I acknowledge that. Oh, and I enjoy the role of the outsider looking in as the creative process unfolds. Thanks for the peeks through the window.

Dale, by "pushing the envelope" it helps to get features into games that either would not have gotten in or might have been overlooked by the designers. It is not their fault but it is those that play the games that really bring out the good ideas. I myself have really enjoyed reading your views and thoughts because it has put some fresh input into the mix. But there is always one thing to remember with games, realism can only go so far until the gameplay has to take over.

Keep up the good post, they are thought provoking!!!

My push is to get realism into the game in a way that makes the gaming experience more enjoyable for the player. Above all else I want to enjoy the gaming experience, because that is what brings in the mesmerizing quality about the game, which makes it stay on the hard drive forever. A satisfying product for me is one that recreates a battle that leaves you with knowledge of why things happened as they did in the real battle. Even cardboard punch out units in board games are viable if the designer of the game enabled them to recreate some "truths" about the battle. The MMG engine has gone far, far beyond that threshhold and has delved into levels of complexity that is getting closer and closer to the realism of the day of the event. I can be excited by 90% of the product and yet experience frustration with 10%. So my goal and yours would be to whittle down the frustrating parts. No games are perfect, all have needs. The best game sequels are the ones that recognize what works and what needs improving. That is why I think your efforts at Gettysburg are extraordinary.

So here is a short list of what I found frustrating in TCSM:

Units in SM and TCSM would cross over friendly units field of fire all the time. Perfectly set units that had 100% effective firing at the enemy would be negated because some other unit took upon itself to change formation/facing. I think that this could be corrected by making it an AI priority to not to go marching in front of firing friendly units unless the TC button was used to direct them.

Artillery would rout when out of cannister. This has been discussed earlier (see artillery posts). In real life some artillery units would indeed look forward to a hasty exit from the firing line if they ran out of cannister,but there should be an option given to the player whether to retreat those units, especially if shrapnel is still available.

Sharpshooters would do a bayonette charge when out of ammo. Huh? Berdan's sharpshooters were asked to do but one bayonette charge that I was aware of and many threw away their bayonettes after that so the commander would never order that to happen again. Part of the incentive of being a sharpshooter was not having to participate in mad charges that the rest of the infantry would participate in.

I think that this has been discussed and (some have tried to mod it) but there should be a battery retreat to replenish ammo command. The minuteae of individually checking which guns were running low was time consuming in the extreme in the midst of a battle. Does fatigue factor into the firing efficiency of the artillery?

Charges. In TCSM you need two sets of keyboards and four hands to have a brigade charge. There should be two types of charges, the first would be the extreme charge of bayonette only, the unit could not stop and fire at any point until it had engaged im melee attack. In TSCM you could only charge a unit and if that unit's visibility was obscurred at some point the charging unit would stop altogether. Here is another instance where realism is the teacher, commanders would not charge a flag (unit) so much as charge a position. I would like to have the charge order be directed to a spot. This could coincide with the position of a battery, a clump of trees at the center of line (hint), a fortification, etc. The action of the charge would not be completed until the unit became engaged in melee or until the unit broke. Melee would continue in a "chain of events" until all adjacent units were engaged or until the the attacking unit broke. This would also rectify the situation where a charging unit would attack one gun in a battery and not engage the other guns in the same battery. In TCSM it seems that charges are quicker in column formation as opposed to regimental front facings. Is this right?

There should be a brigade charge button that supercedes the "attack" stance button.
How is a Confederate commander going to have a chance in Pickett's Charge if he has to make 10000 men individually charge by regiment. The current "attack" stance allows the AI to push whole divisions to obscure parts of the battlefield, depending on the first enemy unit that becomes visible. Can the attack stance be changed to a territorial objective as well?

Roads. Regiments should be allowed a "follow road" option as well. A "territorial objective" such as a bridge or ford would mean cross by that bridge or ford. Road movement in TCSM is overall pretty good.


Morale. I think (and I may have this wrong) that the morale of one unit does not affect the morale of adjacent units in TCSM. Morale is the key ingredient to all battles. TCSM gets morale right on the individual regiment case but I think misses the bigger picture. Morale has a contagious effect, good and bad. Units that would rout would carry untested units with them in the rout, creating an avalanche affect. On the other hand units that rout would sometimes find themselves next to a steadfast unit that would serve as a rallying point for them so the presence of that unit itself would be all that the routing unit would need to rally its own morale. Other games have used "morale checks" that are probability rolls to determine what happens following every instance of a rout. Every unit that suffers a rout would force all adjacent units to have a chance roll to determine if they rout as well. If they do not suffer a rout then they could "rally" the routed unit by allowing it a second chance at a probability roll.

Morale part 2. Morale can also be affected by the taking of a key spot. In the Victory Point system in TCSM sometimes morale points were awarded to whole commands by reaching waypoints or Victory Point sites. Can morale also be lost by the entire defensive formation by the loss of this site? If a key point is lost for a period of time then the will of the defending troops rapidly erodes. If Pickett had gained the heights of Cemetary Ridge and held out against the first counterattack would the attitude of all the Union forces been "here we go again"? Entire formations may have run if pressed. Panic also gets into the minds of generals, causing them to make wild decisions or to flee themselves. (See McClellan refusing to get within sight of the actual fighting during the Seven Days battles or actually boarding a boat when Malvern Hill was being fought.) Jackson knew this and used the psychology of demoralizing one group to affect the greater number (and A. P. Hill ignored it on Day 1) The scent of blood affects all men, some it infuses with increased vigor and determination, others it destroys as a fighting force. What makes Gettysburg so interesting is that Lee came close to a turning point at one point each day and thus would have won a psychological battle against the AOP. (And as a counterpoint, the AOP had withstood Lee's attacks for two days, thus increasing its overall morale for the third day.) I can not stress enough how this should be emphasized in the game.

Calvary. The way calvary routs in TCSM is beyond frustrating. I am sure that you are working on this. Calvary also did not charge line formations of infantry to the best of my knowledge, especially automatically.

Skirmishers. By 1864 both armies relied on skirmishers to take territory. Skirmishers themselves were used as a force, not just as a screen. I look forward to the changes that you said you were modifying in the skirmishers.

Artillery range. The range and effectiveness need to be refigured. Cannister had a much longer deadly range than 200 yards. Howitzers are worthless in TCSM except as cannister weapons. Artillery counterfire was effective in real battles. Much has already been posted on this. Is the target density taken into consideration on the loss table? Pickett's charge was probably one of the ripest targets for artillery in the war (other than Fredricksburg).

Leaders and leader loss. In TCSM leaders were cut down like wheat in a field. They would inexplicably run 50 yards in front of their men and be lost. They would wander to the rear of the enemy lines at times. The leader should be tied closer to his men unless he individually suffers a morale check. (This would simulate cowardnice or drunkeness, which happened quite often among political leaders.) The value of leadership should be more transparent in the game. It would heighten the play value by adding a tangible factor in the performance of the units. I know that leadership rating is a factor now but it seems be one of the 'under the hood' things that players lose sight of during a battle. (For example, just how much is the star command rating on a unit bar worth in terms of percentages?) Whole games have been designed with the leadership being a key factor in battles. (How is having Robert E Lee as your overall commander quantifiable in the game?) I once went on a tour of the Spotsylvania Court House site where the ranger based his whole interpretation of the battle based upon the pychology of the leaders involved from division down to regiment. It went far in explaining why things happened that day, and why the battle was planned out the way it was. Indeed, Sickles himself would be a great study in this aspect of Gettysburg.