Scourge of War Boards

I was playing the Rhodes division scenario today and was taking time to set up my forces a lot more effectively than I did when I played it the first time. Or at least I was trying to do so. O'Neal's brigade was giving me no end of trouble. First, all the regiments seemed to be detached from one another. Reflecting arriving on the field separately? Didn't seem to be the case with anyone else. Regardless, I attached them all and then gave them an order to move in column into the orchard. Next thing I know they have started to form into a line and advance on the Federals. I order them back into column and into the orchard (about 250 yards away from the Union line). I turn my back to get Ramseur organized and bring him up and there is O'Neal, assaulting the Union line again. I finally think to check the orders section and discover that he has been ordered to attack.

Fair enough but here's my question. When you take command of a unit, shouldn't it automatically set any pre-set orders to "none?" What is the point of taking command if the unit is still trying to follow out a pre-existing disposition?

Interesting point, I'll have to think about that and see if there is a good reason not to turn off their orders.

War is hell, Taiaha.

Actually, from what I've read about command frustration in the Civil War, sounds like this is pretty realistic. But I agree with you. If you take command, I think that should reset the unit's orders back to the default setting.

Btw, I LOL when I read the title of this thread. Best thread title I've seen so far!

Heh, this game does a pretty damn fine job at simulating command confusion (or maybe that's just me): it is one of the things that really got me hooked when I first played TC2M. The confusion was, however, "plausible" rather than with some games where it is just the result of bad design or a limited engine.

Norb, if there is a good reason then I'll happily suck it up and figure out new ways to slap my men into line. Just raised it as a question rather than a criticism.

Mostly it's because I don't like doing anything automatically. If someone wanted to TC and then set them back, they would expect them to be in the same state they were before the TC. It's a matter of preference I think.

This exact thing, in the same scenario, is killing me! What do I need to do to resolve this??

Court Marshall O'Neal

This exact thing, in the same scenario, is killing me! What do I need to do to resolve this??

I don't know if this is the best way, but when The Alabama regiments move forward I hit the "retreat" button for each regiment.
This really messes up the timing of the battlescript. By the time they recover and are back in line I have the rest of the division ready to go.

Just achieved a big (for me) victory on normal (19,655) and I'm pleased to say that O'Neal achieved a plus score and will not be court mashalled but will be mentioned in dispatches instead!

After 3 unsuccessful attempts at the scenario I decided to let O'Neil do what he will do anyway and left him alone to do it.

I used courier messages at the very start to order Doles, Ramseur, Daniel and Iverson and their men to move to the Farm objective and then 'hold to the last'. They took the objective 29 minutes in (my score at that point was 5424) and we easily held through sheer weight of numbers.

So victory can be achieved without taking the other objective - O'Neil harrassed the Union forces and lived to tell the tale but of course they held that objective from start to finish with superior numbers.

This scenario has taught me to trust in my brigade leaders or at least these ones!