multiplayer score

[dagdriver]

I finally managed to find an opponent and play mcphersons scenario.

I won as confederate holding all 3 3000VP sites, but it was a tough battle hanging on to those VP sites during the last phase of the battle.

 

What shocked me when the battle ended, was seeing how many casualties I had taken approx 4500 vs 2500 union casualties - and the scores didn't even reward his efforts.

 

Not that it mattered in THIS outcome, but shouldnt casualties/kills somehow give you points???

[MikeK]

Was able to play the MP Benner's Hill scenario for the first time and surprised to have a substantial win, mainly because with a battle on I did not have time to count up the VP locations and assumed the starting VPs were approximately evenly split, and the Confederates had grabbed one. One annoying recurrence was units fighting near the edge of the map falling back to the map edge under the picture frame so "disappearing" for all practical purposes and thought routed from the field.  One of these, the Irish Brigade, showed up with a small portion visible again of its own accord, in fine shape, after the Confederates fell back out of Gettysburg itself.

 

Drawing a "box" extending beyond the visible map seemed inconsistent in selecting hidden units. 

 

The few melees seemed better- more like there were two sides and less like a random scramble.  I do wonder about what mechanics are at work when Brockenbrough, delivering flank fire and then a flank charge from close range on the Iron Brigade pinned by two other brigades in a firefight, is driven back, but maybe that's just the Iron Brigade being more resilient in the last fix. 

 

Speed still looks a bit fast. This does have an effect on time pressure in a large game. What is the design intent regarding time pressure? - running back and forth clicking, vs. some for planning and forming up to attack.  For me, any "arcade RTS" feel is a big negative and deterrent to playing.