Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Edge Running Gamey Tactics


Recommended Posts

I was just in a Multiplayer game and I had a a frustrating incident.

I was the Union on the Devils Den map and had a line of troops right up to the top of the map to prevent and end run around into my northern flank.

The player I was with stacked 8 brigades in a line right at the top of the map and hammered threw running right along the edge of the map. This then broke into my rear with a overwhelming force.

This is a gamie bullshit manouever. I bailed from the game when I saw my time invested in the game was wasted.

Any way to stop this in game? As in have the game test for a massive stack of units clumped up, and hit them with a serious moral penalty?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any way to stop this in game? As in have the game test for a massive stack of units clumped up, and hit them with a serious moral penalty?

No, this is not a bullshit maneuver. This is called an Attack Column so effectively employed by Napoleon throughout Europe. It isn't time wasted if you have learned something. If the developer changes something everytime I loses, UGG will be a very different game. To the developers: keep it up. We trust whatever you are doing.

 

Don't Escrow Taxes -- had an encounter with you earlier today. My heart was pumping and my hands shaking when we fought. Such good fight! Such great game!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen.....

I studied Napolenonic tactics extensively as I was actually making a turned based game on the subject awhile back.

The attack columns used then where, from what few accounts there are, invovled a much more organized and spread out set up.

THe attack I was dealing with had a mashed up bunch of units running the edge of the map,  EXPOITING THE FACT I COULD NOT FLANK THEM.... ON THE OTHER SIDE of the attack column, (which is not shown on the map).

 I'm all for this tactic being attempted in open non restrivted parts of the map that allow me to deal with it, but not on the map edge no...

My in game Handle is YukonJack88.

Please do not attemtp this with me or I will bail from the game. I will extend you all the same consideration.

I dont mind lossing, in fact I expect and enjoyed solid battles from great players....

 

Onwards
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look I understand this stacking brigades at the top of the map to turn Union right on Map 3 is irritating and hugely effective. 

 

To stop this, put 2-3 batteries you get on your right set on canister.  Union arty on canister is murderous in this game. 

 

This 'stack' will have its right exposed providing numerous enfilade opportunities from the south. 

 

Again, this is a very effective move by Rebels and might have to be nerfed, but it can be turned from the south and Union can disable this stack moving along the perimeter with enfilade. 

 

The further they penetrate east into the approach to Cemetery Ridge, the more fire they take and further they are exposed.  Use elements of V corps to swing the door shut.  

 

You can also usually borrow a brigade or two from the center and swing them up, parallel to the Emmetsburg Rd.  

 

You are an outstanding opponent Darren but there are always people who will do cheese video-gamey tactics.  The key is to be on the lookout for ways to turn those move into abject disaster for them.  Take advantage of their overzealous arrogance. 

 

 

I do this move you are talking about sometimes.  I discovered it when Union tried to advance to the treeline in the northwest of the map, cutting off initial entry path and setting up a turkey shoot in that valley while they have the high ground and my guns and infantry come up.  I answered by splitting in two and sending two brigades along the north border of the map to envelop union right.  It worked like a charm.  So, I think that's a scenario where you need to be able to do that move, to save yourself, as Rebels.  

 

I guess im just saying it's one of those things to be on the lookout for.  I think moving up reserve arty on canister and concentrating enfilade fire on their advancing columns will stop it. 

 

That said i have had difficulty stopping moves to the Union's right on map 3 as USA when they send everything that way and ignore the south  completely.  Your V Corps reinforcements in the south matter little more than to sit on uncontested VPs while Cemetery gets pressured. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree with OP, using map limitations/borders to gain a positional or mobility advantage is not particularly kosher in my eyes...

 

If the map wasn't limited, I too would send a few brigades around their flank to pincer them, effectively putting fire on both sides of the attack column, but since he is using the border to protect his flank, (since I can't send units off the map) it seems unreasonable to say that this is not a cheap move.

 

That being said, I don't know what a proper solution would be, despite how important keeping serious "gamey" elements out of this gem should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen.....

I studied Napolenonic tactics extensively as I was actually making a turned based game on the subject awhile back.

The attack columns used then where, from what few accounts there are, invovled a much more organized and spread out set up.

THe attack I was dealing with had a mashed up bunch of units running the edge of the map,  EXPOITING THE FACT I COULD NOT FLANK THEM.... ON THE OTHER SIDE of the attack column, (which is not shown on the map).

 I'm all for this tactic being attempted in open non restrivted parts of the map that allow me to deal with it, but not on the map edge no...

My in game Handle is YukonJack88.

Please do not attemtp this with me or I will bail from the game. I will extend you all the same consideration.

I dont mind lossing, in fact I expect and enjoyed solid battles from great players....

 

Onwards

 

 

Some opponents have no Integrity it's win at any cost!

 

The loser in all of this is the GAME that were playing by using tactics such as described, we are unconsciously driving this game down the road of nonsensical entertainment that a lot of Fictional games can offer! are we not playing this for the enjoyment that historical battles brought to us throu the medium of computer games, if this is played as it should be intended can we not self regulate with an honest Code of Conduct!

 

I totally support Yukonjack88/Darren Knorr.

 

Com'on guys look deep inside ur ACW selves otherwise what next Magic spells :(  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP's sentiment, despite that I haven't played the new patch's multiplayer yet. 

The thing is that I also fully agree with No Pasaran, and for me this game is about playing the ACW in a computer medium, in a similar manner to tabletop gaming among gentleman gamers.

 

But when you have an anonymous player pool and no code of conduct stuff like this happens. 

 

It was the same with map 1, withn the (murderous, as Escrow said) Union artillery assaulting the Rebels because they could simply afford it with little danger.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the problem with the game design or the players?

 

My suggestion would be to encourage the game designers to alter the entry points for off-map reinforcements based on the on-map reality.  The whole point of historical gaming is to alter history.  If reinforcements are slavishly and predictably entering either on a fictional flank or as sacrificial lambs then the designers should address these problems and move these reinforcement locations to rational positions based on the state of the game at the time the reinforcements arrive.

 

It seems to me there are (at least) 3 problems:

First - players using the map edge to protect flanks.

Second - game design problems where map edges present fictional flanks / sacrificial lambs.

Third - predictability.

 

The game is designed to break the battle into chunks - which obviates the continuous line of Union troops that were positioned to the north of the Devil's Den map from participating in the battle (as they did historically).  Thus, a Union flank is created in this phase of UGG where in fact there was no open flank at the battle of Gettysburg.  

 

I guess you could argue that the Union moving further forward III Corps would have exposed their northern flank.  

Which is why III Corps aligned where it did in the first place - with II Corps protecting the northern flank.

But the players should be able to proactively understand the implications of their decisions to hold and protect their flank or move forward and expose their flank.

 

By exploiting the map edge flank in this phase players (on both sides) are taking advantage of a game design flaw.  

Units entering the map should enter in friendly territory.  

If the northern flank was protected historically then the Union player should be allowed to deploy to the edge of the map without opening a flank that was protected by off-map friendly units.

 

 

Game Design Suggestion:

Perhaps a game note that moving forward will expose the northern flank?

Alternatively a Blue (Union) or Red (CSA) marker on the map edge showing where on-map units can anchor their flanks to off-map friendly units?

 

 

Scope of the Issue:

The map edge design problem spans many of the game phases.  

Units should enter the map in reasonable positions given the current disposition of the troops on the field and the off-map units.  

 

For example - the CSA artillery in phase 1 enters in an isolated position that can be exploited by aggressive Union players that know where the CSA artillery will be arriving.  These CSA artillery units were deployed historically in this position because 1) artillery during the ACW was much more mobile than represented in UGG, 2) these batteries were attempting to flank and drive out the Union forces that were deployed in McPherson's woods.  

 

If players are rewarded for predictable entry points the game design is flawed.

 

For example, if the Union is positioned to snap up the CSA artillery in phase 1 the CSA artillery should be moved to an entry point (i.e., Herr's Ridge).  The sacrificial lambs reinforcements due to predictability is IMO a game design defect / logic flaw.

 

While codes of honor between players are great - the game design ought to be able to stand on its merits IMHO.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I don't like about the morale zapping is that the battle is cut up in chunks.  

 

As the ultimate general I'd like to be able to make the decision where to allocate units.  

 

If I want to flank the Union right and the map edge restricts this decision I'd like to be able to direct which Phase my units will participate in.

 

This leads me to my biggest issue with UGG - I'm the ultimate general right?

Then why don't I get to decide the order to fight my battle and where to allocate my resources?

 

While most game need a mini map to see what is going on UGG needs a macro map to capture the overall strategy of the game.

Without a maco map the game is a series of canned scripts that the game controls - making the game rather than the player the ultimate general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My frustration and perhaps it doesn't have much to do with this OP but my units at times run off the edge of the map and disappear when they move to regroup.    I think the Texas Brigade ran back to Texas the other day to reform.   I'm very hesitant right now to have units near the edge of map as they just disappear.   What really is going on here?   I lost 4 units yesterday to this and wasn't at all happy about it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OP puts forward a good point.
***

Another solution I suggested earlier is simply to make the maps a bit larger, but have reserved brigades
that will only fire in self-defense if an enemy gets close at the edges, a bit like in Sid Meier's Gettysburg.

*****
Zelekendel has a good Idea^^.
***** 
David Fair also put forth a nice analogy of this problem.
*****
Good suggestions by all.
*****
I would also agree with increasing the size of the maps in MP/Game.
This way a person isn't restricted to certain areas getting lost under the maps Frame/Edge.
We have to scan back n forth/Up n Down now, managing our battles.

The BIG frame edges are a distraction imo. 

Units disappearing under it,seeing partial units being exposed. 
Have that wide frame reduced to 1/3-1/4 of its present size.
No unit would have the ability to disappear under/appear marching to battle from under the Frame.

With increased map size,Units/Batteries/Divisions approaching the Battle field, would be kept hidden till in the proximity
of where they now appear coming from under the frame of the map edge(then slowly appear as they do now).
As it is now Batteries are hidden in the map with just seeing the smoke when they fire,
because they are out of the LoS.
 
The map would than be big enough that a person wouldn't be sending units on a big flank,essentially
losing the use of the unit(long slow march)to only return to approximately the same position just to flank enemy.
This would give the opposing player lots of time to monitor the enemy's movement n counter.

Enlarging the Map also has its drawbacks(there were other battles taking place)and hopefully wouldn't necessarily take in those areas.
* Maybe like Zelekendal suggested(have reserved brigades that will only fire in self-defense if an enemy gets close at the edges

or other battle areas).*

There has to be solution to this problem without compromising the Realism/Historical aspects of the Battle.

A good example in MP is Benner's Hill, with 1 draw back the western side of the map from
Culp's Farm North n Down past Culp's Hill.
I have had units disappear or partially hidden under the map on the western side.

This map is large enough that the Northern/Southern n basically the Eastern sections are out of the immediate Battle areas.
If the CSA wants to swing south behind Culp's Hill from the east, they can as the area allows them to do so.
It can be seen by the opponent n a counter can be put in place to meet the threat.

Also same in the North section of Map to get behind/flank the CSA with the AoP from Eastern areas.
The draw back here again is the map's edge on the western side going North trying to flank,

where units can n do get lost/partial hidden in the areas of Culp's Farm/Hill( north n South).
The eastern side is Good in the area of the southern VP,(Krichler/Heck Farm areas).

The way it is now can be/is frustrating to a point.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My frustration and perhaps it doesn't have much to do with this OP but my units at times run off the edge of the map and disappear when they move to regroup.    I think the Texas Brigade ran back to Texas the other day to reform.   I'm very hesitant right now to have units near the edge of map as they just disappear.   What really is going on here?   I lost 4 units yesterday to this and wasn't at all happy about it.

As an update today Custers detachment disappeared from the field leaving me no Calvary to defend against Stuarts.

 

Basically the bug is very prevalent now with artillery units.   I see several batteries leaving the field every battle,  it is very annoying.   I've sent in several bug reports this really needs to be fixed.   There is no way to turn these units once they start to withdrawal and will travel large distances to leave the field while the units that were next to them stay put.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...