Battle Delayed

[TheIronKing]

I find the battle delayed function rather strange in the fact that I basically always have my battles delayed. It also seems to happen when points aren't being contested and people aren't charging.

 

What I would like to know is.

 

Once they've finished contesting or charging how long after does it take for the battle to end?

How do I know if a point is being contested? I know it sometimes says but most of the time it seems that a point is being "contested" even if I have it fully under control.

Any info would be great thanks!

[Darkstar]

I second this. It's really, really irritating. At the very least a better explanation of why it occurs would be nice. I too have no idea how to tell if a "point is being contested" because sometimes the AI is actually attacking one (makes sense) and other times nothing is happening at any of the points and boom, battle delayed.

 

What gives?

 

Also, this game is the best CW game I've ever played (at least in a tactical sense).  

[P-Dup]

i made similar experiences: All my battles thus for got delayed and I don't know why. I think the UI should tell why instead of just telling us that it got delayed. Like "Battle delayed because off XXX".

 

On the other hand I was happy that it got delayed every time, as I think the battles would come to an end too early without being delayed. They simply should last longer, as it would be more fun - at least for me.

 

 

btw CWG is a really, really great game and already a lot of fun before even reaching 1.0.

 

 

 

Edit: some typos

[Darkstar]

I know this isn't a #1 priority but I'm surprised this post isn't getting more responses. We can't be the only ones to have noticed this weird behavior by the game engine. While I understand that some people want the battles to go on longer, the commanders on the field certainly didn't want things dragging on (usually). That just meant more casualties and exhaustion for the troops. I'd be ok with it if the explanation for why it occurred was more complete. If it takes enemy troops pushing on a point to kick in, what constitutes that? How close do they have to be to it? etc...

[David Fair]

The tester's forum has been discussing this issue for about 7 months. You are not alone. This is just a case of picking implementation issues in order of priority.

This can be annoying - personally I'd rather have VPs eliminated from the game. There are better, more accurate, and compelling metrics for battlefield results than VPs.

In my mind VPs just make strategy games a "paint by number" game.

If players don't understand which locations are important they will lose in short order.

Players needing a flashing sign highlighting "this is really important" aren't much of a challenge.

[Darkstar]

I agree about removing VPs. If new players don't know where to concentrate forces or where to push, they need only check wikipedia for the basics. 

[Zelekendel]

Errr....you have to build a whole another system based on reserve arrival and supply / retreat routes (basically roads) as well as highlighting grand tactical artillery use ("grand tactical effects of capturing certain hills for observation and artillery fire, currently you can't really see anywhere even on top of Cemetery Hill...) if you want to get rid of VPs

 

There has to be some objective in the game other than the enemy line.

[TDuke]

I agree about battle delayed issue but removing vp would be simply absurd. Vps and casualties give you the output in every "serious" wargame

[David Fair]

TDuke,

I think you mean legacy mass-market wargame.

No serious battlefield simulator has ever embraced VPs.

Lincoln, Davis, and the entire nation in 1863 knew the objective of Gettysburg was to destroy an army.

Just about any other result would be a minor victory.

To get a "Triumphant Victory" is silly when casualties are virtually equal.

It's ok to like a "paint by numbers" strategy game.

If you need the VPs to give you satisfaction it is fine.

If new players need assistance to understand important points on the battlefield that's great.

But as some point players want to try their own strategies.

Please note that there are a number of Phases where key locations are not VP locations.

Culp's Hill is an example - sometimes it is a VP location in other Phases it is not.

It is difficult to gain a 3,000 man casualty edge in a battle.

It is relatively easy to gain VP locations.

VP with such a heavy imbalance leads to illogical command choices and battle results presentation.

For Example:

Completed a Campaign against Union AI on "cunning" with 6 Phases that ended on July 3 - excellent improvement in game engine/balance!

Campaign Summary:

CSA Triumphant Victory - But, as JamesL points out my victory was by "points".

The Union still had 20,000 more men so effectively the CSA situation would have been worse than at the start of the battle.

At start on Day 1 Union has 94,000 CSA has 72,000 or a 1.3 to 1 manpower advantage.

At end of battle Union has 68,000 CSA has 46,000 or a 1.5 to 1 advantage.

Strategically I'd call this a draw or a minor Union Victory.

Note that if the game was not VP driven the battle would have been fought differently. CSA (I) would not have defended some of the VP locations in favor of "better terrain" which would have increased Union casualties. Also, there were a couple of times I tried to advance on positions that were foolish and driven by VP motivation.

The shame of the VP influence is that they are detrimental to the player playing like an "Ultimate General".

Strategy driven by VPs will be, by definition, a "paint by numbers strategy game" rather than a "fight by military logic simulation".

The UGG team is so close to a revolutionary approach to strategy games I wish there was something I could do to convince you that you will increase the realism, game play, and target audience by abandoning the decades old legacy of VPs. At least please give the option to turn off VPs.

Battle Summary:

25,975 Union Casualties vs. 25, 935 CSA - can't ask for more balance than that!

24,000 Union VPs vs. 68,500 CSA VPs - static VPs don't always make sense in that key positions that are heavily contended count for nothing in the game. There was a heavy fight for Round Top that was great fun. VP value = 0 yet this was the key feature of the most challenging and difficult part of the 6 Phase battle. When the Union finally routed Little Round Top fell without a fight.

Phase Summary:

Phase 1 - 3,308 US casualties, 2,202 CS casualties Epic CS Victory (Oak Ridge, Seminary Hill, Herr's Ridge)

Phase 2 - 2,942 US casualties, 2,675 CS casualties Epic CS Victory (All of above plus Cemetery Hill, Culp's Hill)

Phase 3 - 3,898 US casualties, 4,792 CS casualties Epic CS Victory (All of above plus Cemetery Ridge)

Phase 4 - 8,241 US casualties, 9,718 CS casualties Minor CS Victory (All of above plus both Round Tops) - GREAT FUN!

Phase 5 - 2,163 US casualties, 2,963 CS casualties Draw

(At Phase break Union given Cemetery Hill, Cemetery Ridge, Culp's Hill - Culp's Hill retaken by CSA)

Phase 6 - 5,423 US casualties, 3,585 CS casualties Draw

(At Phase break Union given both Round Tops - both retaken by CSA)

[TDuke]

TDuke,

I think you mean legacy mass-market wargame.

No serious battlefield simulator has ever embraced VPs.

 

 

Ehm  So War in the East is a mass-market wargame? Same for TOAW or any Talansoft or HPS game or Steel Panthers series, or Austerlitz:Napoleon 's greatest victory, Histwar:Le Grognards or the upcoming Brother Against Brother from Matrix set in ACW and I could go on .... well Total War games are mass-market rts and they don't have Vps indeed

[P-Dup]

Why not add an option to toggle VPs on or off before battle starts?

[Nick Thomadis]

Battle is delayed when one of the following happens:

- An objective is contested (because enemies are in proximity)

- A unit charges

 

So if you want to continue the battle deliberately you do one of the above (if possible).

[David Fair]

TDuke,

What is your definition of battlefield simulator?

None of the titles you've listed are in the ballpark of a serious battlefield simulator.

Micromanagement does not equal battlefield simulator.

The fact that a game has a narrow audience, is immersed in details, and does not achieve mass market success does not make it a battlefield simulator.

Precision in replicating the battlefield system (command & control, etc...) and accurate presentation of the factors that confront commanders (artillery are almost always grossly overpowered in horse and musket games, etc...) are key attributes of a battlefield simulator.

I've worked on battlefield simulators for the DoD and none of these games listed above come close to the spectrum of requirements or precision to meet the definition of a serious battlefield simulator.

All of the titles you've listed lack the precision and accuracy of a battlefield simulator.

For example in TalonSoft games the concept of "horse" is not really in the game at all.

Cavalry moved at a fixed rate.

Artillery moved at a fixed rate.

In reality horses do not move and charge at a fixed rate.

Horses get fatigued rather quickly in battle.

Additionally because horses are relatively large targets, and are often lashed together in teams to pull guns, they tend to suffer casualties at rates that are different than the men serving the guns.

None of this was "simulated" in my recollection.

The era is called "Horse and Musket" for a reason.

Keep in mind that the ANV lost over 35% of their front-line artillery horses at Gettysburg.

After Gettysburg the ANV had to fight artillery differently than they did prior to Gettysburg as a result.

CSA battery commanders state that after Gettysburg the first question they asked each other after action was, "how many horses did you lose?"

The games you mention are fine games. I enjoyed TalonSoft games particularly a great deal.

In some cases games have been used to teach generic concepts by various military schools.

But again, there is a vast difference between using a game to teach general military concepts and a battlefield simulator.

Ehm, we just have a different experience base and definitions of battlefield simulator.

I don't really think that there is a right or wrong perspective - just different perspectives.

[TheIronKing]

If the case is just enemies are in the proximity I find the delayed function kinda pointless as 90% the time they will be. I like the length of battles with the extra time from them being delayed and find the point of the function a bit iffy, I'm not sure whether I like it or not.

On the point of VPS I think they should stay although there could be a game play mode aka "realistic, ironman" (whatever you want to call it where they are taken out of the equation. I think the points system needs tweaking but I have no complaints for it at this early stage.

Do enjoy this game, do find it a bit easy and as long as you keep telling your guys to attack you can't lose although as someone posted today I always play on random so may never played against the hardest difficulty. 

[Bivoj]

Regarding the VPs discussion:

I really hate terrain based victory points in horse and musket tactical games, because they do not represent anything real, authentic or historical.

 

Victory points make sense in WW2 (in fact any regular war 1914+) games, where capturing land was objective of battles. Capturing a village or a hill or just moving the frontline forward was strategical objective. This was not a case in horse and musket period, where there were no frontlines and armies were manoeuvring around each other, trying to get advantage in coming battle and when the battle occurred, losses and army morale were the only things which mattered. It is fair to say, that there were battles, in which the victor suffered more casualties, but the victory was achieved by breaking enemy army morale (Prague 1757, for example).

 

VPs  somehow simulate higher echelon orders. In ww2 game, the player can be given an order to capture a village of XY by higher echelon HQ, so this is represented by VPs (I consider Command Ops series as good warfare simulator and it has terrain based VPs). In horse and musket period, capturing terrain feature did not matter, unless it a siege of a city/fortress.

 

VPs for horse and musket game can be implemented as army morale. Each casualty and each broken brigade lowers the overall army morale, while rallying brigades increase army morale. Victory or Defeat may be than measured as a difference between the army morales at the end of the encounter.

Such approach (with more complexity) is used in Prussia Glory tabletop wargame, for example.

[azalin]

the VP dont bother me, as they highlight historically important parts of the field. what i would be in favor of is a civil war generals 2 type thing where unimportant ground could become important as it is fought over and changes hands.

[Husserl]

Additionally, the strategic importance of VP is reflected in that they determine the next battle that will follow (map, deployment, etc.). Adding more VP will increase the possible combinations and the need to create additional battles. 

[Teutomatos]

Additionally, the strategic importance of VP is reflected in that they determine the next battle that will follow (map, deployment, etc.). Adding more VP will increase the possible combinations and the need to create additional battles. 

 

 

 All is said.

 

To his critics, I would say that the envelope of the game does not allow the slaughter, victory does not belong to the last man, the losses are anecdotal. 

 

  I would say this: And it can not be compared to other wargames of this view. Moreover, because it is primarily a RTS and not a game turn. 

  When I realized that this ground of discussion is pointless because everyone will have his subjective interpretation of what should be a wargames and what is the definition of an RTS. Fed his own exprériences, pleasures or disappointments. 

 

   In this particular form, the objectives of victory points are welcome. They represent an attraction in which a strategy and organization of the movement base. 

 

Something unique, you can even be assigned to an intermediate defeat with minimal losses but pré guides the deployment of the following battles. 

  To a certain extent the victory points are less positive or negative sanctions as instigators. 

 

  Without the originality of this principle would be any game, just better than Total War. 

  All tastes are in nature, and everyone is free to appreciate or not the concept. 

  The question that then arises is : Do ou like this game in its original design and coherence of its overall logic ?

 

If I refer to all of the great strategists of requests forum that suggest that the artillery should have an accuracy that even the best weapons XXI century do not have, a horse should look like a panzer column, and no strategic target (I'm exaggerating a little but that clear) ... At the end UGG would not be what it is, and without it he would not like me. 

  Because it look like the worst in others, and that it has no interest. 

.

 

  This type of challenge is required on games soulless and empty concepts that have other reasons that compulsive spam or are guided by scripts. 

  Here it is not the case. And both somehow it is also its limitation.

 

  Criticism, reflection is always positive, even that - it. But it must be calibrated on the content and the proposed offer, understanding that - it. 

  This is the not improve distorting, by what there is restive.

 

That said my humble point of view.

[MikeK]

I interpret the delay as (1) representing those situations between the natural phases of a battle when there was a lull or when the fighting died away (usually for the day) - something that requires both sides to permit it and (2) one solution to the game problem of playing to the clock, if there is a time limit at all (a battle ends when it ends).

 

Not a bad approach to either of these, and in each case having too exact a threshold would lead to minimaxing. I do hope that the AI has a human-like sense of when it wants the fighting to end and when not. 

 

 

Routed units don't surrender or disperse, they run through the enemy army suffering and giving some casualties - and they seem to pile up at the edge of the map (or are those blocked reinforcements). Both create some weirdness. This also means there is no trophy count of prisoners (one of the hallmarks of victory) that could be used to evaluate the result. Dynamic VP is not easy but is desirable - e.g., valuing a hill because of the vantage it offers to turn a flank...