Expanded and/or Bonus Victory Conditions

[James Cornelius]

Hello all,

 

One of the things I've noticed in certain battles is the narrow method of achieving victory based upon certain criteria that are, often, relatively easy to accomplish. This gives you the full "victory reward" so your goal in each battle is simply "satisfy victory condition and sustain as few casualties as possible". That is fine enough, but the fact is that during the Civil War it was rare for a battle to have its objectives so clear cut. Sure, there was a key piece of ground that was defended or seized, or a lop-sided casualty count, etc. But there was a lot more to it than that.

 

As of right now, particularly due to the limited way in which your actions affect the enemy's condition in future battles in the campaign, the player's key objective is to sustain as few casualties as possible. Anything else - even the victory conditions for the battles, outside the reputation points needed to not be removed from command - are secondary. This is counter to what was the ultimate strategy used by each side at one point another, specifically by Lee from 1862 to 1863, and Grant from 1864 until the end of the war, which was the annihilation of the enemy army.

 

Consider, as an example, Second Manassas/Bull Run. As a Confederate player, you need only hold the line, inflict more casualties (which is almost impossible NOT to do) and...well, that's it. You win. There is NO incentive, apart from a dubious gain in unit XP, to use the reinforcements you receive as anything other than men to beef up your already considerable defensive line. Historically, Longstreet's troops counter-attacked and thus won a crushing victory, routing Pope's army from the field.

 

I propose either a "bonus" victory condition or degrees of victory, to encourage the player to act towards a historical objective, while still maintaining freedom to act in an ahistorical way. Since this would generally require inflicting further damage on the enemy at risk to yourself, I do not suggest an increase in the reward given to the player should necessarily be the result, but rather it would function as another malus to the enemy army in the next battle phase - perhaps giving you an advantage in the small battles, just as the next couple small battles give an advantage to the "grand battle" of that phase of the campaign.

 

To return to my example of 2nd Bull Run, this bonus goal might require the Confederate player to counter-attack and seize certain terrain further out, perhaps even as far as Henry Hill, in addition to the other victory conditions related to casualties, holding your original line, etc. It would encourage a player to act decisively as Lee did in such an occasion, rather than simply remain on the defensive.

 

Thanks for the consideration.

[Yog Sothoth]

Thats pretty much my biggest complain with this wonderfull game, i just annihilated the confederate army at antitam but i know that i lost more men than i regain through the victory reward and that i will soon face the army of northern virginia again.

This battly of antitam should have broken the back of Lees army. It bothers me, that I take the Lousiana Tigers prisoners, just to face a new three star Lousiana Tigers brigade in the next battle. There is no insentiv to motivate me to go behind the retreating enemy, to surround and destroy them, when they just respawn, i lose more men then absolutly needed and grow weeker because of it. When you have taken your points, doing nothing is the best course of action and that's a bit sad.

one unrelated question: do fleeing troups count as losses for the enemy?

[Wandering1]

Depending on what difficulty level you're playing at, annihilation of the enemy army is an objective that you want to do if you can do it without sustaining unacceptable amounts of casualties anyways, because you get free guns.

In normal, you get around 20% drops from kills, whereas on hard, you get around 10% drops. On hard, even if you only get 10% drops though, the enemy has basically end-game weapons already in use (like all the skirmisher squads having TS rifles), meaning you can upgrade relatively quickly as long as you're effectively trading worse guns for better ones.

I tend to think it may already be adding too many cherries on top for people that are already beating the missions on normal and hard with ease.

[Wright29]

Yeah I captured John Bell Hood three battles in a row. STOP LETTING HIM GO, McCLELLAN or LINCOLN or WHOMEVER!!! Lack of carryover is extremely frustrating to me. I hope they settle of having the enemy have a pool to draw from that can dramatically change based on how badly you beat the enemy in a previous battle. On the other hand, this would make the commanders ahistorical and would take away from the realism. There's an eternal tug of war between wanting to put the army you create into the actual historical scenario and wanting to see meaningful effects from your previous actions that may cause history to be little different. 

[James Cornelius]

15 hours ago, Wandering1 said:

Depending on what difficulty level you're playing at, annihilation of the enemy army is an objective that you want to do if you can do it without sustaining unacceptable amounts of casualties anyways, because you get free guns.

In normal, you get around 20% drops from kills, whereas on hard, you get around 10% drops. On hard, even if you only get 10% drops though, the enemy has basically end-game weapons already in use (like all the skirmisher squads having TS rifles), meaning you can upgrade relatively quickly as long as you're effectively trading worse guns for better ones.

I tend to think it may already be adding too many cherries on top for people that are already beating the missions on normal and hard with ease.

 

I think you're confusing my proposal for realism as a means to add difficulty. While those things are intertwined at times, that is not my point here. Urging the player towards a historical action, while not forcing the player to do so, should be the name of the game. Difficulty is irrelevant. If you manage to rout the enemy from the field, then you would want to follow that up with a counter-attack - regardless of difficulty. So there is a difference in the loot gained from normal vs hard difficulty. Okay, that gives a slight incentive to rout or capture more brigades, but you can do that nearly as well by sitting behind your nice fat entrenchments in many battles.

 

All I am saying is that there should be rewards commensurate with risk. It is well documented that from the end of the Peninsula Campaign, until the failure of the Gettysburg campaign, Lee's objective was the destruction of the Army of the Potomac. All other considerations, including the capture of Washington should it be possible, were dependent on that goal; it is of course doubtful that Washington could have been taken while the Army of the Potomac existed. Consider that when Lee marched north in June 1863, Hooker proposed ignoring him and using the opportunity to take Richmond. This was, of course, overruled by the War Department and Lincoln himself, despite the possibility that Washington's formidable defenses might have held Lee back on their own (but, of course, leaving the rest of PA and MD and maybe even further open to invasion). Then, once Grant took command in the east in 1864, his objective became the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia. Anything else, including taking Richmond, was only a means to that end.

 

What I suggest is that victory objectives in at least some battles should have an additional level, such as "Crushing Victory" or the like with requirements based upon not just holding a position, but inflicting devastating losses on the enemy. The rewards for such accomplishment should not be further laurels for the player (with perhaps the exception of increased reputation) but a malus of sorts to the enemy for future battles.

 

I understand there is a delicate balance between enacting something like this, and ensuring that the campaign doesn't become too easy by the end because of the losses you have inflicted on the enemy. And, we as players want to play as much as possible of course. But, there is some validity to complaints that after you inflict 60,000 casualties on the enemy, they should not field 100,000 in the next battle, etc. 

 

 

[RoverGrover]

16 minutes ago, James Cornelius said:

I understand there is a delicate balance between enacting something like this, and ensuring that the campaign doesn't become too easy by the end because of the losses you have inflicted on the enemy. And, we as players want to play as much as possible of course. But, there is some validity to complaints that after you inflict 60,000 casualties on the enemy, they should not field 100,000 in the next battle, etc. 

 

I agree with the concept, but if that is implemented then the ai needs to retreat after a set percent of casualties... while it isn't fair that the computer gets tons of troops despite taking crippling losses it also isn't fair that those losses are almost always the result of suicidal actions when already defeated.

 

 If you are forced to actually attempt to encircle and trap enough of the enemy to defeat them before they can retreat then you should be rewarded.  

 

If you are merely racking casualties against an ai that cannot cope properly once already in disarray... then I say let the ai cheat reinforcement amounts to make up for it. 

 

 

[James Cornelius]

17 minutes ago, RoverGrover said:

 

I agree with the concept, but if that is implemented then the ai needs to retreat after a set percent of casualties... while it isn't fair that the computer gets tons of troops despite taking crippling losses it also isn't fair that those losses are almost always the result of suicidal actions when already defeated.

 

 If you are forced to actually attempt to encircle and trap enough of the enemy to defeat them before they can retreat then you should be rewarded.  

 

If you are merely racking casualties against an ai that cannot cope properly once already in disarray... then I say let the ai cheat reinforcement amounts to make up for it. 

 

 

You raise valid points. The AI would need to be able to act accordingly to protect itself.

 

[Wandering1]

37 minutes ago, James Cornelius said:

 

I think you're confusing my proposal for realism as a means to add difficulty. While those things are intertwined at times, that is not my point here. Urging the player towards a historical action, while not forcing the player to do so, should be the name of the game. Difficulty is irrelevant. If you manage to rout the enemy from the field, then you would want to follow that up with a counter-attack - regardless of difficulty. So there is a difference in the loot gained from normal vs hard difficulty. Okay, that gives a slight incentive to rout or capture more brigades, but you can do that nearly as well by sitting behind your nice fat entrenchments in many battles.

 

All I am saying is that there should be rewards commensurate with risk. It is well documented that from the end of the Peninsula Campaign, until the failure of the Gettysburg campaign, Lee's objective was the destruction of the Army of the Potomac. All other considerations, including the capture of Washington should it be possible, were dependent on that goal; it is of course doubtful that Washington could have been taken while the Army of the Potomac existed. Consider that when Lee marched north in June 1863, Hooker proposed ignoring him and using the opportunity to take Richmond. This was, of course, overruled by the War Department and Lincoln himself, despite the possibility that Washington's formidable defenses might have held Lee back on their own (but, of course, leaving the rest of PA and MD and maybe even further open to invasion). Then, once Grant took command in the east in 1864, his objective became the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia. Anything else, including taking Richmond, was only a means to that end.

 

What I suggest is that victory objectives in at least some battles should have an additional level, such as "Crushing Victory" or the like with requirements based upon not just holding a position, but inflicting devastating losses on the enemy. The rewards for such accomplishment should not be further laurels for the player (with perhaps the exception of increased reputation) but a malus of sorts to the enemy for future battles.

 

I understand there is a delicate balance between enacting something like this, and ensuring that the campaign doesn't become too easy by the end because of the losses you have inflicted on the enemy. And, we as players want to play as much as possible of course. But, there is some validity to complaints that after you inflict 60,000 casualties on the enemy, they should not field 100,000 in the next battle, etc. 

 

 

The point in my reply is not necessarily that additional objectives add difficulty, but rather adding additional rewards on top of what you are already rewarded for mastery of the map may be overkill.

I believe that adding additional penalties to the AI just because you annihilated the army will allow you to snowball, whatever degree you are adding to the penalties to the AI. 

Rather, if people are to be rewarded for completing additional objectives (like annihilation of the enemy army), it could unlock additional minor battles to fight, reasoned more or less by overperformance in one front could be used to shore up a front that is faltering, or exploit a tactical weakness of the army. This would preserve the difficulty of the major battles, reasoned basically by taking the time to do the minor missions allowed the enemy to re-form their army.

[mainiac]

On 1/13/2017 at 2:41 PM, RoverGrover said:

I agree with the concept, but if that is implemented then the ai needs to retreat after a set percent of casualties...

A battle turning into a fighting retreat situation would be interesting, IMHO.