The current victory system needs improvement.

[Mr Larp]

I think the game would be greatly improved if we revert back to a victory system similar to UG Gettysburg. The system used now is far more arbitrary and does not measure the magnitude of victory/defeat.

To illustrate my claim on the system being arbitrary, let's look at the "draw" conditions for the battle of antietam (CSA). To get a draw, the player must hold Sharpsburg and lose less then 55% of their army. A player that holds Sharpsburg and loses 54.99% of their army, and gets a draw. But if they lost 100 more men and inflicted 30k more casualties, they would actually lose the battle, according to the current victory system, despite the battle clearly going better than before. In UG Gettysburg, the victory system rewards the player for making such advantageous trade offs by measuring casualties inflicted and important places held, against casualties sustained and important places not held. Also in the current victory system, victory conditions are considered absolute, losing as many soldiers as you possibly can to fulfill those conditions is considered better than not fulfilling them and obliterating the enemy army.

The new system acting as if all victories/defeats can't be more decisive than another is also a significant step back. It makes no sense that defeating and destroying the enemy does not give you more reputation, money, or recruits than simply defeating them. If defeating an army gives you a higher reward from the victory system, then why not destroying it? In UG Gettysburg, you did not just get a bland "Victory" every time you improved your skill in the game.

I think this is a great game with even greater potential, and I will waste many hours playing it regardless. However, It would be fantastic if the developer found a way to achieve the advantages in the UG Gettysburg system to this game.

[Slaithium]

I disagree, I think the current system is good. I only see two changes. 1) Remove the restart battle option, (excluding on beginner mode) so that way if you screw up you have to accept defeat like it was in the real war. 2) If you kill say 80% of the opposing army there should be a additional bonus reward for you or penalty against you opponent. Gives incentive to make good trades and push your advantage. That would give you what you may be looking for and would add a additional layer of effort and reward for the player. 

[Mr Larp]

4 hours ago, Slaithium said:

I disagree, I think the current system is good. I only see two changes. 1) Remove the restart battle option, (excluding on beginner mode) so that way if you screw up you have to accept defeat like it was in the real war. 2) If you kill say 80% of the opposing army there should be a additional bonus reward for you or penalty against you opponent. Gives incentive to make good trades and push your advantage. That would give you what you may be looking for and would add a additional layer of effort and reward for the player. 

I think that would be better, but I still like the former system better because it would  not hand the player a "victory" for taking the objectives but destroying themselves in the process.

[Grognard_JC]

I think this has aready been mentioned in several topics.

 

But, I agree with Mr Larp.

[jimcarrel]

6 hours ago, Slaithium said:

 1) Remove the restart battle option, (excluding on beginner mode) so that way if you screw up you have to accept defeat like it was in the real war. 

I see your point, but, if a new user cannot replay with different tactics (resulting in learning) a new user will get frustrated and quit (resulting in spreading of a negative word). Publisher needs new users, more new users results in funding for continued work and producing better game play). Option to replay should always reside with the user.

[Jamesk2]

I think the game, currently as it is, is a good reflection of the tactical aspects of battle in most of Civil War, where victories and defeats are decided by who "hold the field" when the battle ends. It's not until Grant that the war are conducted with attrition in mind. Also having clear, defined objectives served to have a good battle, as it allow developers to control where a battle would be fought, how the AI and players would (to a certain extent) react to situations on the field. A map without objectives is pointless to fight over, as both sides would just be content to hold strong defensive position and wait to time out.

And who thought that having a "restart battle" button is bad? What is the difference between restarting a battle and restarting the whole campaign? That just serves to inflict useless agony on the player. If you want to take on that hardship yourself, pray do, but don't make other people suffer the same stupidity.

[Slaithium]

9 hours ago, jimcarrel said:

I see your point, but, if a new user cannot replay with different tactics (resulting in learning) a new user will get frustrated and quit (resulting in spreading of a negative word). Publisher needs new users, more new users results in funding for continued work and producing better game play). Option to replay should always reside with the user.

That's why I said only allow restarts in beginner mode.

[Slaithium]

9 hours ago, Jamesk2 said:

I think the game, currently as it is, is a good reflection of the tactical aspects of battle in most of Civil War, where victories and defeats are decided by who "hold the field" when the battle ends. It's not until Grant that the war are conducted with attrition in mind. Also having clear, defined objectives served to have a good battle, as it allow developers to control where a battle would be fought, how the AI and players would (to a certain extent) react to situations on the field. A map without objectives is pointless to fight over, as both sides would just be content to hold strong defensive position and wait to time out.

And who thought that having a "restart battle" button is bad? What is the difference between restarting a battle and restarting the whole campaign? That just serves to inflict useless agony on the player. If you want to take on that hardship yourself, pray do, but don't make other people suffer the same stupidity.

And it is not stupidity, it is realism to the game, in real life they could not redo Antietam or Fredricksberg or any other battle in real life. Either the game is A) a simulation of the war, which in war you will typically lose a battle. Only a handful of commanders never lost a battle, and the king of that was Alexander the Great. B: A watered down try-hard and cheat your way to best standing in the game, restart is a permitted cheat, you screw up during a battle or campaign you simply restart over and over again till you achieve the best result possible. What a alien thought? To have to accept you own mistakes and learn from them like they had to during the war and try to over-come them. That is called over-coming something when things dont go the right way and forces the player to have to make better decisions if he/she is going to stay in the fight.

[jimcarrel]

Just put me down as a wussy then, If restarts are only given to easy mode,,,,, I'm outa here.

If you desire such a thing as not restarting then "trust" you self not to do it. Lot of sims are played that way,(make your own rules) but to take away restart will leave you and 20 others supporting the developer.

Edited February 22, 2017 by jimcarrel

[Jamesk2]

11 hours ago, Slaithium said:

And it is not stupidity, it is realism to the game, in real life they could not redo Antietam or Fredricksberg or any other battle in real life. Either the game is A) a simulation of the war, which in war you will typically lose a battle. Only a handful of commanders never lost a battle, and the king of that was Alexander the Great. B: A watered down try-hard and cheat your way to best standing in the game, restart is a permitted cheat, you screw up during a battle or campaign you simply restart over and over again till you achieve the best result possible. What a alien thought? To have to accept you own mistakes and learn from them like they had to during the war and try to over-come them. That is called over-coming something when things dont go the right way and forces the player to have to make better decisions if he/she is going to stay in the fight.

Oh yeah and when you're at it, why don't take away the chance to restart the campaign again, because in "realism" no one would fight a war twice?

This is a f***ing GAME, it's meant to first and foremost present a way for people to enjoy their escape from reality. If you want realism, want to overcome hardship and stay in the fight then why don't you go join the Army or Navy or French Foreign Legion already - I'm sure they offer plenty of what you're asking for, maybe more than you can afford? I repeat, you have your whole right to play the game in whatever way you like, but don't impose that stupid-ass rule on us. 

[A. P. Hill]

Really?

There's a "restart" button?

[jimcarrel]

Yes there is a restart button, mine looks like a cup of coffee every morning.

[Fred Sanford]

What's the difference between a 'restart' and just going back to the last camp save?

[jimcarrel]

not a lot, maybe not any. Come to think of it, saves completely nullify the idea of denying "restart" so that's a moot argument.  

Edited February 22, 2017 by jimcarrel

[Wandering1]

Implementation-wise, there is a difference between restart and loading last camp save. It's just a matter of whether one notices the problem of doing the former and not the latter. 

[waldopbarnstormer]

I think the victory system should be split along the lines Crushing victory, major victory, victory, draw, minor defeat, major defeat. The difference between crushing victory and victory could be capturing additional victory points or achieving a certain kill/death ratio, or destroying a set percentage of the ai army. Bonuses would apply for each type so crushing victory would mean in the next battle the ai gets 20% fewer troops over 10% for a victory and the ai has lots of green troops to represent militia and conscripts being drafted to replace losses. Also you could get a bonus to new recruits joining your force pool.

For defeats the penalty could be a reduced loss of reputation because you decided to save your army in a minor defeat and reduction in resources. Losing chancellorsville for confederates is catastrophic for the player because of the 100 point rep penalty.

[Nicolas I]

I would really like a system along crushing victory, major victory, victory, draw, minor defeat, major defeat, with corresponding bonuses and maluses.

 

[Perkon]

On 22.02.2017 at 0:36 AM, Slaithium said:

That's why I said only allow restarts in beginner mode.

You should be held responsible for any refund that will be asked [and pay every single one of them from your pocket], if that option will be ever be added [I hope not], if yes, Id like to have a refund now, because for me, that will be a game breaking feature. I play the same mission over, and over, finding the best way of inflicting the highest amount of casulties, while sustaining the least. If the restart is gone, I might as well "uninstall", and of course expect a refund.

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Perkon

[A. P. Hill]

Actually using the "Restart" is a bad option.   The game has already done it's calculations for the event you're getting ready to play, you're just starting over again with the same results.  Go back to the last saved file and reload it. Force the game to come to different calculations is the only true way to "restart" a scenario.

[Slaithium]

On 2/22/2017 at 5:41 AM, Jamesk2 said:

Oh yeah and when you're at it, why don't take away the chance to restart the campaign again, because in "realism" no one would fight a war twice?

This is a f***ing GAME, it's meant to first and foremost present a way for people to enjoy their escape from reality. If you want realism, want to overcome hardship and stay in the fight then why don't you go join the Army or Navy or French Foreign Legion already - I'm sure they offer plenty of what you're asking for, maybe more than you can afford? I repeat, you have your whole right to play the game in whatever way you like, but don't impose that stupid-ass rule on us. 

The salt is real and is fallacious, more over a ad hominem.

[Slaithium]

On 2/22/2017 at 0:56 PM, Fred Sanford said:

What's the difference between a 'restart' and just going back to the last camp save?

Still a restart either way you look at it, one is just called restart.

 

On 2/22/2017 at 1:12 PM, jimcarrel said:

not a lot, maybe not any. Come to think of it, saves completely nullify the idea of denying "restart" so that's a moot argument.  

Ok lets follow this to a logical inductive conclusion and my concern why this is a problem to me.

I. There is people wanting the add for a PvP in the game in such a 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, or 4v4, etc.

II. Restarts take away important lessons and not learning to over-come in game situations. (when you are losing and not/able to over-come a strategic disadvantage, for example)

III. PvP is competitive to some degree

IV. Losing reveals your mistakes at a principle level, as winning every battle can probably cause comfort-ism in play style and can lead to non-creativity.

V. Comfort-ism, lack of involvement, and certain experiences can reduce the dynamic and diversity of multiplayer competitiveness and strategies.

Thus: Probable that with numerous restarts, comfort-ism, lack of pressed experiences, would reduce the probability of a dynamic and competitive multi-player.

This is based on people writing i the forums for PvP , what I have watch on streams and people restarting in minutes of a battle because it did not go well, and/or a multitude of experiences. Also, for those who would want to work on strategies, there is historical battles mode that can function as this as well. It is well established in Game Theory and The Study of Human Nature, that people who are not offered a strong challenge in game or in life for that matter creates communities that lack the inventive mind-frame or dynamic stunting growth and dynamic for a competitiveness and growth. Saw this as-well in UG-Gettysberg Multiplayer as players tried to force there learned computer strategies on players, and failed horribly. I care more for the possible future for multi-player than I do for AI combat, because it is easy to beat-up on a computer, not so much on a good RTS player.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Slaithium

[Slaithium]

9 hours ago, Perkon said:

You should be held responsible for any refund that will be asked [and pay every single one of them from your pocket], if that option will be ever be added [I hope not], if yes, Id like to have a refund now, because for me, that will be a game breaking feature. I play the same mission over, and over, finding the best way of inflicting the highest amount of casulties, while sustaining the least. If the restart is gone, I might as well "uninstall", and of course expect a refund.

 

Clearly being fallacious or facetious, but just in case you are not. I would owe you nothing and you purchased a product at a calculated risk and if that product dissatisfies you, that is simply your loss. Since I did not force, cause, or solicit you into doing such the reason is faulty on principle. It would be the same logically, buying a new car, it losing its new car attributes, and holding the car company responsible because it changed in a way you do not approve.

[Jamesk2]

8 hours ago, Slaithium said:

Ok lets follow this to a logical inductive conclusion and my concern why this is a problem to me.

.

.

.

 

When did YOUR PROBLEM became EVERYONE PROBLEM that should be fixed by a universal change to the game?

[Slaithium]

18 minutes ago, Jamesk2 said:

When did YOUR PROBLEM became EVERYONE PROBLEM that should be fixed by a universal change to the game?

Not that at all and it was addressed that way so in hope to show why I object to restarts and criticism. The subject is concern, problem is describing the concern, that is how English works. So your statement quoted above is not correct.

But, I will repeat myself again, it is not the restart itself, it is what the restart causes, get it straight. I have explained why above.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Slaithium