CSA branching scenario paths

[Naldiin]

This is one of my first playthroughs with the CSA, so it's possible I'm missing something, but the following series of scenarios makes very little sense to me.  I apologize for the somewhat long description of the stages, but I want to be clear on why I think the stage-setup is not quite right.  On Day 1, in the morning, I took and held everything (Epic Victory), so the battle advanced to an assault on Cemetary Hill and Culp's Hill, which I also won, taking everything.  Then that automatically moved into a scenario where I could attack southward and push the union off of the field - but the majority of the victory points were on my side of the field, and I was sitting on the single best defensive position anywhere around, so I lured the union into an attack and then pushed it back, held on to Cemetary Hill and Culp's Hill, all the way down to the Peach Orchard, but didn't push down to the Round Tops.

 

Then on the Second Day, I'm given the choice to either Hold Position, or attack the Round Tops.  I opt to hold position - in any historical sense, attacking the Round Tops at this juncture is stupid.  I control the town, and the road-junction.  I've actually cut over the union line of supply (Hanover Road) and I am in possession of the best defensive positions on the field.  Historically speaking, I have produced the nightmare scenario Buford fought so hard to avoid - I have a very strong defensive position which the union army must attack.

 

The union gets the initiatve, since I held still, and choses some sort of 'Flank at the Peach Orchard' option.  Now here's a problem - the union units enter the map not from the South-East (not from the Round Tops), but from the South West - not just along the Emmitsburg Road, but even to the West of it, which makes no sense - on the morning of Day 2, Longstreet should, in his approach to the town, already be physically in the way of this flanking manuver - historically, the Emmitsburg road was the launch-point for his flanking attack in the morning of Day 2.  The scenario is heavily wieghted towards Union forces in terms of numbers, but I hold all of the victory points (I do take some losses) and the game declares that a 'draw' - which I find strange, but ok.

 

But this then immediately moves to a stage (without a decision screen) in which I attack the Round Tops - all of the victory points are on the union side of the map (the Round Tops, mainly).  So I have to attack the Round Tops anyway.

 

I suppose my issue is: I don't understand why the Confederate player is forced to assault these positions.  Culp's Hill and Cemetary Hill, which command the town, the completed section of railway, and the road junction, are the crucial strategic locations of the battle, which is why every effort, either direct or flanking, is to control, or preserve control, of these positions.  It's my understanding that Buford and Reynold's efforts on the first day were based on the very direct understanding that if the Confederates gained those heights on Day 1, Meade would be forced into an assault upon them, which would almost certainly fail.  As the player, being in possession of those heights on Day 1, I would like the option to wait for Meade to be forced to attack me, which he almost certainly would have been.

 

So why is the Confederate player forced to launch an assault southward?

[Naldiin]

More oddity - I tried the Flanking-Attack stage again.  Once again I achieved a draw, but this time I lost the Peach Orchard.  As a result, the choices for battle I was given were to attack Culp's Hill - apparently losing the Peach Orchard caused me to abandon my position on Culp's Hill and Cemetary Hill?  Note that I held the northern-most control point on the Flanking-Attack map, so it's not like my entire flank was turned - I forced a draw and held more location points than my opponent (1500 to 1000) and inflicted casulties at 3-to-2 (3 union for every one confederate), so I hardly got thumped and driven off.

 

I'm finding this frustrating particularly because the CSA has so few resources - being forced to make big frontal assaults on positions that are either valueless to me, or that I've already taken are really tough when I have to manage 3-to-2 casualty ratios in every fight just to avoid running out of army.  So far, in my experience, the defender's advantage, especially on good ground, is considerable, which is fine, it's as it should be - but it really means the stage progression needs a better sense of who ought to have what ground, and who ought to be forced to attack, and who ought to be able to choose to defend.  The CSA in possession of the town and the hills near the town doesn't need to attack, and an inconclusive fight in the Peach Orchard isn't going to change that - so the progression makes little sense.

[GShock]

Having ascertained you know what you're saying because you've studied it, I think you're right in reporting this and advocating a change.

I'm sure with more players coming we'll see lots of these incoherent behaviors of the mini-campaign and the more we spot, the more can be fixed.

 

Today is Friday and it's a possible patch day.

[Nick Thomadis]

Issues like those are fixed in the upcoming patch.

Thank you for the reports.

[Riekopo]

I've noticed similar issues.

[David Fair]

Meade's Pipe Creek Circular anticipated an ANV early victory and would likely have been put into action had the ANV taken the high ground around Gettysburg.  

 

Meade was only a week on the job in his new role as CinC of the AoP at Gettysburg.  His orders were to protect D.C., Baltimore, and Philadelphia.

 

It is highly unlikely Meade would have taken the offensive at Gettysburg if the favorable ground had been lost on July 1, or early on July 2.

 

I agree that the scenario flow makes little sense.  

 

I've had games where the ANV is badly beaten in the morning Phase of Day 2 to the West of Gettysburg.  The afternoon Phase of Day 2 is positioned to the East of Gettysburg.  The continuity of the flow of the battle makes no sense in many of the campaigns I've fought.

 

The way to think of UGG is it is really a series of Phases stitched together loosely - the goal is just to fight the tactical battles - because the strategy of winning the battle is completely lost in the implementation.

 

This was a design limitation based on the choice of a tablet as the platform of choice for UGG.

 

If tablet plus tactics is your cup of tea UGG is great.  

 

If you are looking for more of an experience where you play as the CinC of either the ANV or AoP at Gettysburg then perhaps the next game by the design team will focus on different design goals.

[Naldiin]

 

The way to think of UGG is it is really a series of Phases stitched together loosely - the goal is just to fight the tactical battles - because the strategy of winning the battle is completely lost in the implementation.

 

This was a design limitation based on the choice of a tablet as the platform of choice for UGG.

 

If tablet plus tactics is your cup of tea UGG is great.  

 

If you are looking for more of an experience where you play as the CinC of either the ANV or AoP at Gettysburg then perhaps the next game by the design team will focus on different design goals.

 

This strikes me as fairly problematic, given the differences in the armies here and the design decision to strongly favor the defender.

 

Essentially, as the game seems set up now (I played a bit post-patch), the CSA's progression is a series of assaults on wooded hill-tops - which I get.  I understand using that as the baseline scenario-set, because of the battle.  But if that is the only progression the CSA can achieve, then you create a problem.  The CSA essentially has to storm a series of progressively more difficult hills - first Oak Ridge (fairly easy), then Cemetary Hill and Culp's Hill (tough), then the Round Tops.  That offensive mode is enforced by the victory-point placement, and further complicated by the fairly short battle time-limits in each stage, which enforce fairly rapid attacks, and discourage attempts at attritional warfare for the attacker - after all, if you inflict 4000 losses, take 1000, but the opponent is sitting on the Round Tops with their 5000+ VP, you 'lost' the stage, and, because of the logic of stage progression, will likely be forced significantly backwards.

 

For instance, on the above progression set, post-patch, I played through the attack on the Round Tops on Day 2, having taken Cemetary and Culp's Hill.  When my attack didn't succeed (even losses, but I didn't take the hills in time), I was knocked back to the historical Day 3 setup, with the union holding all of the hills.  Which means that for the Union player, the stage progression is, "Either win, or recieve an even more advantageous fighting position" while for the Confederate player, the progression is, "Win several times consecutively with a smaller army on progressively less favorable ground.  If you ever lose, we will reset all of your progress."  I would humbly suggest that the more sensible sequence would be for a failed assault on the Round Tops to be followed by a union counter-attack on Cemetary and Culp's, or, if the Union choses not to, a second Confederate effort on the Round Tops.

 

Essentially, I would argue that the getting the stage progression right matters precisely because it impacts one side more greatly - the side which is forced to attack.  Manipulating the circumstances of the attack to be favorable is a major tool in the CSA toolbox.