| American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC) http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/ |
|
| Objective points http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10901 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | D. Groce [ Wed May 30, 2007 6:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Objective points |
Has anyone played a scenario without objective points, where damage to the opponent is the only determining factor for victory? Can objective points be turned off, and what are the negatives to playing with no objectives? MG D. Groce 1st Division AoP "Into the breach" |
|
| Author: | mihalik [ Wed May 30, 2007 7:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Any scenario can be modified in the scenario editor to do away with objective points, but historically objectives were the reasons battles were fought. MG Mike Mihalik 1/III/AoMiss/CSA |
|
| Author: | mihalik [ Wed May 30, 2007 8:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Any scenario can be modified in the scenario editor to do away with objective points, but historically objectives were the reasons battles were fought. The main negative I see in the game is that without objectives there is no incentive to defend terrain that was historically important, such as the road to Washington or Richmond. MG Mike Mihalik 1/III/AoMiss/CSA |
|
| Author: | Rich Walker [ Wed May 30, 2007 8:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've designed a few that way. Example: Atlanta 133 and 134. Lately I design many with each side having only an exit hex. Having the exit hex will prevent one side from victory and withdrawing. Lt. Col. Richard Walker I Corps Army of the Mississippi 2nd Brigade, 3rd Division "Defenders of Tennessee" |
|
| Author: | D. Groce [ Wed May 30, 2007 9:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I guess the thing I don't like about some objectives is that an opponent can slip a 25 man cav unit in the rear area of some scenarios and rack up points just by running around and touching some hexes. I find this takes some fun out of the game. It seems some objectives have no tactical value to the scenario, but instead offer cheap points for little effort. MG D. Groce 1st Division AoP "Into the breach" |
|
| Author: | D. Groce [ Wed May 30, 2007 9:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I guess the thing I don't like about some objectives is that an opponent can slip a 25 man cav unit in the rear area of some scenarios and rack up points just by running around and touching some hexes. I find this takes some fun out of the game. It seems some objectives have no tactical value to the scenario, but instead offer cheap points for little effort. I want to say I am not refering to any of my current opponents, just musing. MG D. Groce 1st Division AoP "Into the breach" |
|
| Author: | laubster22 [ Wed May 30, 2007 10:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm playing a Vicksburg scenario via a Campaign where there are no objectives - The Reb Army gets points for exiting, however, so it really does come down to inflicting casualties and preventing escape... 
General Jeff Laub Union Chief of the Army ACWGC Cabinet Member http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/ |
|
| Author: | KWhitehead [ Wed May 30, 2007 1:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Fight the War games were all done without objective hexes but these had an alternate objective, destroying the enemy army. Ideally objective hexes should reflect external or off map influences that give value to some part of the game map above its tactical value. A good example is Cashtown in Gettysburg. It represents the Army's line of communications and access to Army supply trains. If the ANV ever abandoned its control of this area they would have to destroy the AoP or risk being cut off and destroyed themselves. Most objectives, however, exists to force a more historical flow to the battles or to keep one player from taking advantage of the earth is flat and only five miles square and hiding in the corner. My opinion is that objective hexes should have enough VP value that it forces a fight but aren't high enough to give one side or the other a Major victory without them defeating the other army. Particularyly in campaign style games where saving or destroying armies is the real objective. LG. Kennon Whitehead Chatham Grays III Corps, AoM (CSA) |
|
| Author: | bobbreen [ Thu May 31, 2007 2:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In these games, I think you need objective to force the action. In general I think objectives ought to be worth enough to give one side a minor victory. I am also not a fan of objectives with large values -- I prefer to see more, smaller valued ones in a scenario. An exception could be a truly important singular piece of terrain such as a bridge crossing. Large value cross road or town hexes are not my preference. Lt Gen Bob Breen Commanding 5th Bde, 1st Div, XIX Corps, AoS "Defenders of the Right" |
|
| Author: | KWhitehead [ Thu May 31, 2007 4:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by notso</i> <br />Oh contrare (sp?) Gen. Whitehead. The objective in FtW was to SAVE YOUR ARMY. He! He! Col. Larry (Notso) Quick "Moycullen's Marauders" <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> That's what the Yankees were trying to do. My army was trying to stomp them into the ground.[:D] LG. Kennon Whitehead Chatham Grays III Corps, AoM (CSA) |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|