ACWGC
* ACWGC     * Dpt. of Records       * CSA HQ    * VMI    * Join CSA    
   * Union HQ    * UMA    * Join Union     ACWGC Memorial
CSA Armies:    ANV    AotW
Union Armies:    AotT     AotC      AotP      AotS     Union Army Forums
     Link Express
American Civil War Books, Magazines and Games for sale (See other items)
Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:16 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1639
Location: USA
That would be the nices solution if HPS added an optional penalty and put the value in the parameter file. Any unit removed from the map edge would treated as a casualty but at a percentage of their total value in the Victory points. For single scenarios this value could be relatively high. In campaigns it might be lower since they are escaping to fight another day.

Most scenario have enough VP hexes or ability for the attacker to exit for VP like 2nd Winchester that there is no problem getting a Major Victory if the enemy starts withdrawing. But some scenarios depend on casualties to meet the victory conditions. Here is where you need some penalty so a player can't say draw a game by leaving the map.

A simple solution might be to just treat any unit removed from the map as a casualty for VP purposes. This would probably work for 95% of the situations. In scenarios it is just like you killed them but din't have to spend any time doing it. In campaigns they get to live to fight another day but for Victory purposes it was like they were killed. This might be easier for Tiller to add to the game engine.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 5:01 am
Posts: 564
Location: USA
General Wilkes,

Agreed upon house rules supersede (to some extent) the club rules,imo.

In your case if you both agree units can withdraw off the map, then the two level penalty should not apply. The club rule is the to stop players from unilateraly deciding its okay.

If you two determine to track the number of men withdrawn, and award you with a certain number of VPs, that's okay too.

Just agree with your opponent about the 'rules' for your game with them.

MG Al "Ambushed" Amos, Commanding Officer
1st Div, I Corps, AoP, USA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:44 pm
Posts: 45
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> A simple solution might be to just treat any unit removed from the map as a casualty for VP purposes. This would probably work for 95% of the situations. In scenarios it is just like you killed them but din't have to spend any time doing it. In campaigns they get to live to fight another day but for Victory purposes it was like they were killed. This might be easier for Tiller to add to the game engine.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That would then be of no benefit to the retreating player. If he's going to lose the VPs on the units anyway, then it's to his benefit (and the attacker's disadvantage) to keep them fighting until they all surrender. I think it would be better if they lost only 1/2 VPs for the retreating units. That way, the retreating player is punished for removing units (and the attacker rewarded despite his inability to pursue) while not being unduly punished himself by the "gamey" board edge.

Maj. Dylan McCartney
IV Brigade/ I Division
XIV Corps
Army of the Cumberland
Union Army


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1639
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DMcCartney</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> A simple solution might be to just treat any unit removed from the map as a casualty for VP purposes. This would probably work for 95% of the situations. In scenarios it is just like you killed them but din't have to spend any time doing it. In campaigns they get to live to fight another day but for Victory purposes it was like they were killed. This might be easier for Tiller to add to the game engine.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That would then be of no benefit to the retreating player. If he's going to lose the VPs on the units anyway, then it's to his benefit (and the attacker's disadvantage) to keep them fighting until they all surrender. I think it would be better if they lost only 1/2 VPs for the retreating units. That way, the retreating player is punished for removing units (and the attacker rewarded despite his inability to pursue) while not being unduly punished himself by the "gamey" board edge.

Maj. Dylan McCartney
IV Brigade/ I Division
XIV Corps
Army of the Cumberland
Union Army

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


I wasn't trying to address the gamey issue just the issue of penalizing the player for removing units. Right now the game allows anybody to use it as an escape. Therefore, the club rule automatically changing the Victory level two steps. In a standalone scenario the designer didn't intend for anyone to leave the map since this would change the victory conditions. In a campaign game it should cost the player using it as an escape since they still have the benefit of the units living to fight in the next scenario in the chain. It's not a prefect solution but I suspect one that is much easier to add to the game code; therefor, more likely to be done.

The better option would be a lesser VP cost for removal versus being force to fight. But this might be quite a programming problem since the game isn't designed to actually track removals.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:36 am
Posts: 13
Location:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DMcCartney</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> A simple solution might be to just treat any unit removed from the map as a casualty for VP purposes. This would probably work for 95% of the situations. In scenarios it is just like you killed them but din't have to spend any time doing it. In campaigns they get to live to fight another day but for Victory purposes it was like they were killed. This might be easier for Tiller to add to the game engine.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That would then be of no benefit to the retreating player. If he's going to lose the VPs on the units anyway, then it's to his benefit (and the attacker's disadvantage) to keep them fighting until they all surrender. I think it would be better if they lost only 1/2 VPs for the retreating units. That way, the retreating player is punished for removing units (and the attacker rewarded despite his inability to pursue) while not being unduly punished himself by the "gamey" board edge.

Maj. Dylan McCartney
IV Brigade/ I Division
XIV Corps
Army of the Cumberland
Union Army

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


I wasn't trying to address the gamey issue just the issue of penalizing the player for removing units. Right now the game allows anybody to use it as an escape. Therefore, the club rule automatically changing the Victory level two steps. In a standalone scenario the designer didn't intend for anyone to leave the map since this would change the victory conditions. In a campaign game it should cost the player using it as an escape since they still have the benefit of the units living to fight in the next scenario in the chain. It's not a prefect solution but I suspect one that is much easier to add to the game code; therefor, more likely to be done.

The better option would be a lesser VP cost for removal versus being force to fight. But this might be quite a programming problem since the game isn't designed to actually track removals.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

With all due respect, and having in mind your statement, in standalone scenarios everybody should strive to press the enemy units against the map edge, once that is accomplished it is assured "I win" button. Especially for smaller scenarios where maps are quite limited.

Also could you please clarify " In a standalone scenario the designer didn't intend for anyone to leave the map since this would change the victory conditions." as the option is implemented and it works. Plus the victory hexes left on the map in hypothetical scenario of one side withdrawing altogether ensure enough victory points to claim the field. Now if one side removes just few units that side is already penalized by lacking manpower to fight the battle.

Personally I don't agree with this interpretation of game engine limitation as I find destroying units pressed against the map's edge a much bigger issue than allowing the units to withdraw. Sadly I prefer to take major defeat/defeat/draw rather than the edge map metagaming.

Lt. Trommel
"Motley Foreign Ranks"
5th Bde/1st Div/XVIth Corps, Army of the Tennessee, USA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1639
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">With all due respect, and having in mind your statement, in standalone scenarios everybody should strive to press the enemy units against the map edge, once that is accomplished it is assured "I win" button. Especially for smaller scenarios where maps are quite limited.

Also could you please clarify " In a standalone scenario the designer didn't intend for anyone to leave the map since this would change the victory conditions." as the option is implemented and it works. Plus the victory hexes left on the map in hypothetical scenario of one side withdrawing altogether ensure enough victory points to claim the field. Now if one side removes just few units that side is already penalized by lacking manpower to fight the battle.

Personally I don't agree with this interpretation of game engine limitation as I find destroying units pressed against the map's edge a much bigger issue than allowing the units to withdraw. Sadly I prefer to take major defeat/defeat/draw rather than the edge map metagaming.

Lt. Trommel<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

When I refer to "Standalone Scenarios" I am referring to those you can play directly from the "Battle" version of the game. They usually don't include the scenarios that the Campaign game uses but in some games it does and they just number them different. But the real difference is how they are being played. If you pick a scenario using the "Main Program" menu selection you are playing a single standalone scenario. It is not part of a chain. If you start up the game as "Campaign Game" then it is part of a linked chain of scenarios. Winning or losing one of the scenarios doesn't win or lose the Campaign.

The game engine allows you to remove any unit regardless of state from the map if you can get it on an edge hex. It assigns no penalty to this.

Most scenarios but not all are designed so the other side gets a Major Victory by just taking all the VP objectives if the defender chooses to leave the map instead of fighting. The problem comes in when one player finds that he is losing and rather than continue to take loses chooses to "leave" the map so the other player has no way to get the VP from kills necessary to get a Major Victory.

Some take the interpretation that if the game allows it, it is valid tactic. But some get very upset when their brilliant plan to isolate part of your army against one side of the map is foiled by units becoming invisible. So the best policy is to determine before the game starts whether the Club house rule is effect or not until HPS chooses to make it an optional rule or provides an alternate solution.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:09 pm
Posts: 808
Location: USA
I thought the 2 place shift as a penalty for removal from the map WAS a club rule. Is this not so?

Maj.Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS Chief-of -Staff,
2nd Division Cmdr, "Corcoran's Legion", VIII Corps
Army of the Shenandoah
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:11 am 
While it is, I beieve a club "Rule"....Individual agreements can override the rule.....After all, how could they possibly know.....It's not like they are magically watching the scenario...Sobasicly, the rule is a suggestion....

I will mention the in "FTW" there are manditory rules (No agreements can be made to overrule these) and we do watch every move. Units may withdraw from the map anywhere,anytime....Of course there are NO victory points in FTW, so the penalty issue does not really apply.....

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 951
Location:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br />But this might be quite a programming problem since the game isn't designed to actually track removals.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually, the engine does keep track of units who have left the map. JT could probably program it to track numbers as well, just as it does for purposes of moving units off the map at a victory hex.

I still think the best solution is large maps and scenario design that minimizes the likelihood of map edges coming into play.

Another pet peeve is objective hexes where enemy troops enter the map. The enemy can hold back reinforcements until the last turn of the game and efectively deny any possibility of taking it. Any troops within the protected zone will be routed and easy prey for the reinforcements.

If the entry hex is that important, moving the objective six or seven hexes up the road so that occupying troops won't be automatically routed by arriving reinforcements would be a reasonable alternative.

MG Mike Mihalik
2/4/I/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 5:01 am
Posts: 564
Location: USA
When I design scenarios for the EAW series I try to make the map too large for the battle. This doesn't keep players from seeking the edge to secure a flank to it.

Also, when scenarios are part of large battles, maps have to be small to keep the neighboring forces out of it.

Best for both players to agree what they will allow the other player to do, before the game starts.

MG Al "Ambushed" Amos, Commanding Officer
1st Div, I Corps, AoP, USA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:48 am 
Bump

Col. Blake L. Strickler
Army of the Mississippi
Chief of Staff
6th Bd/4th Div/IV Corps

Image


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: