Question about "retreating" screenshot

[Gfran64]

I think that for the scenarios the VP's are used to simulate events as they unfolded historically. I think they help the newer player, or the experienced player who is not so familiar with the current battle. What I don't like is having to hold a VP well to my rear or multiple VP's that are not strategically congruent. Maybe it could be worked in that the old VP if held long enough it would disappear and a new one be placed in the enemy's current position so as to keep the battle going forward.

The Antietam scenarios seem to do this to some extent as it seems that the scenario progresses from North to South so do the VP locations. Problem is that if you hold the Northern end of the line while fighting from the ANV side, the VP's move South on you which pulls you away from the AOP. I would think that the better move would be to draw the ANV north toward new VP's placed in the AOP lines and make them gold so the AOP gets no credit for getting it's butt kicked back to where it started the day. This would pull the AVN player off the defensive.

Is this making any sense? I think what I'm saying is that VP's should not be scripted into the battle except for its start. After the intial VP/VP's are captured and held by (player A) they would, depending on how the battle is going, be placed somewhere else relative to the enemy's new location. The new VP/VP's would be gold and no points would be awarded to the enemy at this point. The enemy could re-capture the point once it was turned by (player A) or if (player A) did not attack it within a reasonable time frame.

Regards,

Greg

[ironsight]

Greg wrote: Is this making any sense?

Not really for me at least, because the only Antietam battles i've played have been non-VP OP. I agree that VPs help beginners understand the game, tactics and all. I also agree holding some arbitrary non-strategic VP is a waste of troops when they could be used elsewhere like driving the enemy back to where they came from.
Just about every VP battle i've played, i was genuinely relieved when the timer ran out and i could deploy those troops elswhere in extended play.
The perfect VP IMO would actually be called a KEOBF for Kick Enemy Off Battle Field :laugh: I could live with that and get an extra 10K points to boot for just about every battle! :cheer:

[Hancock the Superb]

I normally play attack or defend, where sometimes, the enemy commander will not come to you, so you hate it since you are just sitting there twiddling your thumbs!

[Gfran64]

Hancock young sir,

How often do you think that is going to happen in multiplayer? Everyone knows that the game is easier to win when playing defensively. You put 2 to 6 guys on one side of a map, each with a division/brigade, and then you have the other team. Good chance that both teams might decide to play defense at the beginning of the game. If the game is 1 hour, it will probably take 10 minutes to set up your troops. 10 to 15 minutes to figure out that the other team is squatting on their half of the map and you on your half. Then 5 minutes for your commander to decide whether to attack or not and get his orders out. Then 10 more minutes to get your guys formed up and on their way towards the enemy. Then you find the enemy and it takes 5 minutes to ascertain his strength and position and you send the info back to your commander. Then 5 minutes to get your new orders. Then 5 minutes to set up your attack. That leaves about 5 to 10 minutes for the attack, provided it was ordered/authorized by your commander. I don't know of a good solution for that eventuality in OP.

Best case scenario is both teams decide to attack right off the bat. That is going to leave about 50 minutes of fighting in a 1 hour game.

Regards,

Greg

[69th NYSV]

One solution is different sized maps. If the map is small then action will start almost immediately, it has to. If the map is large then things will develop slowly.

Another could be an option when the host sets up the game for one side or the other to be offense or defense. This could either just be a reminder of the gentleman's agreement made prior to the battle or something hard-coded that effects starting placement.

But just like other MP games a standard set of tactics will develop over time, for the game in general, and with a subset for individual maps. Just using standard tactics both defense and offense will want to use pickets or push out skirmishers, and scout with cavalry if available. The information gained could change either sides "attitude" toward the battle.

[ironsight]

Greg,
i think you've just made a good case for one of my longtime wishlist items, that is instant battles or a sub category of that, battles in progress randomly set up by the game.
For example, if the game presets the opposing armies in similar formations facing each other all well within or close to LOS then something is gonna happen right out of the gate.
About the only conceivable scenarios which would start immediately would be:
-Both armies attack simultaneously
-One army attacks, the other withdraws or re-deploys for defense in a hurry

I haven't been keeping myself up to date on the detailed mechanics of multi-player features because i won't be able to participate in the foreseeable future with my dialup situation. But if what you've said is the case, namely an hours worth of MPer game time, i'd think it highly unlikely both armies would withdraw or deploy to defensive positions as points need to be quickly scored. Then there's always the likelyhood one player will be more aggressive than the other.

On the other hand if the MP game is gonna be played as a clear cut Attack/Defend VP battle and considering the MP time limitations, i'd also think it would make sense that the game sets up the defending army near or in the VP with the attacking army poised to attack in some sort of assault formation. Also all within or real close to LOS of each other to get things rolling quickly.

At any rate, this MP sounds like its gonna be a lot of fun...maybe one day MaBell will surprise me and offer DSL out here in the boonies.

[Ephrum]

Greg
I think there are a few people here who won't hesitate to go immediately on the offensive. I guess one team could be assigned to attack, and there would be no need for a VP in that event. But I could easily be overlooking something in that regard. (just thinking out loud)

But you raise some good questions about the time factor. Speaking for myself, I'd be willing to play a 3 hr. battle, provided I know the game time, and can make time for it. I suppose the size of the battle, div./crps/army, would also factor into the time given.


It might be a good idea for both teams to have an alternate player on stand by in the longer battles. The reason being that, if a scheduled game draws near, and an assigned team member, for whatever reason, finds at the last minute, that he/she can't play. Then the alternate could step in. Again, I would be willing to Stand by even if it meant, I'm not needed at said game time.

Again, I'm just throwing ideas out there.

[Gfran64]

Hey guys,

You all had great suggestions. Ephrum, I like the alternate player idea. You could also use them for longer battles where us East Coasters had to go to bed, then the West Coasters could pick up the where we left off.

Ironsite, your random,instant (LOS) battle sounds like that would work.

69th, I hadn't considered map size at all. Duuuuh.:huh:

I think the longer battles would lead themselves to better generalship. Frankly, there is just a lot more time for you to make a mistake. I think a slow start to a long battle is not a bad thing at all. It really brings maneuver into play and with the larger engagements it's all about maneuver. You don't really want to fight in a closet so it would necessitate a bigger map. Regardless of what the finished product turns out to be, I'm sure there is going to be a great time had by all.


Regards,

Greg

[Hancock the Superb]

I think that you just have a battle running, and you can chose an untaken spot. So, if someone needs to take off, they can do so, and someone else can get that spot if they login that moment.

[69th NYSV]

I have a feeling a lot of these "advanced features" if they come along will happen at a later time. I think Norb said a group of players would be able to play against the AI, so I'm guessing if a player drops then the AI would take over. That wouldn't be so bad as I seem to remember when players dropped in MTW it screwed up the whole game.