Yet Another Scenario Question

[Gfran64]

Hi all,

I have a question regarding the progression of scenarios in the new game. Lets say that on the 2nd day of GB we're playing Sickles Folly/Salient, and we're playing as the AOP. Say I defend the salient really well and manage to drive back Longstreet's attacks. In the progression of the scenarios, will I be placed at predetermined positions or do I get to keep the ground I've held? For the next battle, will I be placed back at the Wheatfield or will it take place at say Pitzer Woods? Take the first day as the ANV. Let's say I finish up firmly in possession of Culp's Hill. Will the scenarios start off with the ANV on Culp's Hill or will they be placed back at their historical positions for the beginning of Day 3?

I'm sure you guys are discussing this. Perhaps it would be possible to have purely historical scenarios intermingled with scenarios based on the outcome of the previous scenarios. I might be fun to give us a choice, in certain situations, if we want to press on or hold our current location. If you consider this, "opening the present before Christmas", I completely understand your silence to this post.

Best regards,

GregB)

[BOSTON]

I'm sure that Greg is refering to carryover scenarios and like him I would like to see what groumd was gained/lost kept for the next sequence of the chain battles. If this improvement (over TC2M) isn't in the stock senerios, would it be possible in OP and MP? Not only the position of the troops be of importance, also the condition (supply/morale/fatigue) of the troops and related Kill/wounded/missing OOP data. Not to mention anything captured that might have some revelence or bearing in the next scenario. The option to do so sounds interesting, as well as Historical.

Hoistingman4

[dale]

Count me in as being all for the idea of true carry-over scenarios. I can see the programming hell that this may entail.

The alternative would of course be a straight play-through that manages the arrival of reinforcements in the area.

[Amish John]

You guys keep this up and Norb won't come back from Spain.

[Hancock the Superb]

I would assume that as long as it was on the same map, that would work easily. However, on a different map (like the carry overs on TC2M) would be near impossible. You would have to put two sets of coordinates on each map, if they even overlaped. Then, you might have troops off the map at anyrate.

[Chamberlain]

I would also enjoy seeing carryovers !!!

:silly: :silly:

Chamberlain

[BOSTON]

dale wrote:

Count me in as being all for the idea of true carry-over scenarios. I can see the programming hell that this may entail.

The alternative would of course be a straight play-through that manages the arrival of reinforcements in the area.

Dale

If what you mean is that the pre-programed reenforcements arrive at a desinated location? Let it be so! For they certainly should be on the same map, it would just be a matter of letting them catch up to the new battle location, which would be a challange for the (moving) player and hopefully less coding for the NSD team. Then again, What about the reenforcements for the AI player? Makes me wonder what coding is all about? It must be be all joy and happiness to hear suggestions like ours. :laugh:

Hoistingman4

[norb]

Great ideas guys, keep them coming. Can't promise anything, but we're listening.

[Jim]

The TC2M class of carryovers will be included among the GB scenarios. Most of these are so far separated in time and space that Greg's question is moot. For example a Day 3 scenario that is a carryover from a day 1 scenario.

The problem with close time carryover with the players units at an ending location from the previous scenario is that there is currently no way to tell where the players units might end up. Enemy units have to appear at some specific location which might be a long long way away if you won and the end of a long series of retreat traps. It is not impossible, but would add a significant amount of additional complexity to scenario coding.

For MP, the possibilities are open, it is possible to save a game and restart it another time. This would be a carryover for both sides resuming at the exact time/place of the save. I would be interested in thoughts as to other ways that a continuing/carryover MP sequence might work.

-Jim

[BOSTON]

Jim wrote:

The TC2M class of carryovers will be included among the GB scenarios. Most of these are so far separated in time and space that Greg's question is moot. For example a Day 3 scenario that is a carryover from a day 1 scenario.


For MP, the possibilities are open, it is possible to save a game and restart it another time. This would be a carryover for both sides resuming at the exact time/place of the save. I would be interested in thoughts as to other ways that a continuing/carryover MP sequence might work.

-Jim

Would it be possible to play SP in the MP mode against the MP AI and get the results like you stated using saves? IN MP would a player have the whole OOP (everything) for a given side available against the whole OOP (everything) of the MP AI? Are MP scenarios preprogramed to start the same way as SP scenarios? Is it manditory to have more than one (live) player in a MP game? Correct me if I am wrong, In MP You can have a freindly AI commander(s) (optional), as well as yourself (and others) against the MP AI. Also, if your the only live player in MP would you be able to use pause? I know Jim said before there would be no pause in MP use, due to problems with other live players, (something like that). Just kicking around a few thoughts on how Mp might be ultillized.

Hoistingman4