Boring Tactical Battles
Boring Tactical Battles
A recent example of a battle I had in Missouri is fairly representative. Turn after turn after turn after turn goes by with no sighting of the enemy. It is completely boring. Then Night comes!
Next Morning. Again, turn after turn with nothing happening. I got so bored I went to instant combat and the Union got the victory over my southern forces. Great!
Shouldn't the commanders have some idea of WHERE the enemy is. In this case I entered the area from the west and I supposed my opponent was somewhere to the east. Well, during all of those boring turns I headed my army east until they reached the edge of the board. What is going on?
I remember this occurring a lot in the first version but this is still happening in the beta version. I know we all want to have 'limited intelligence" at work but this does not make any sense. Civil War armies did not just blunder into each other without having any idea of where the enemy is. And please don't cite "Gettysburg" as a reference. Lee DID know that Meade's army was to the EAST of him although not its exact location.
I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Matrix this time. What am I doing wrong?
Next Morning. Again, turn after turn with nothing happening. I got so bored I went to instant combat and the Union got the victory over my southern forces. Great!
Shouldn't the commanders have some idea of WHERE the enemy is. In this case I entered the area from the west and I supposed my opponent was somewhere to the east. Well, during all of those boring turns I headed my army east until they reached the edge of the board. What is going on?
I remember this occurring a lot in the first version but this is still happening in the beta version. I know we all want to have 'limited intelligence" at work but this does not make any sense. Civil War armies did not just blunder into each other without having any idea of where the enemy is. And please don't cite "Gettysburg" as a reference. Lee DID know that Meade's army was to the EAST of him although not its exact location.
I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Matrix this time. What am I doing wrong?
RE: Boring Tactical Battles
You've got the game set for far start, so it takes some time to find the enemy( usually southwest of your position). If you want a quicker battle without setup time, change to near start in the options. You'll probably go back to far start.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
- Erik Rutins
- Posts: 39324
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
RE: Boring Tactical Battles
As Drex said, use the "Near Start" option. Also, your opponent's army starts out exactly opposite yours on the map, so you know the general direction and distance they start at, just not where they'll be when you march over there.
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
RE: Boring Tactical Battles
Also, how large were your armies? If the enemy numbered just 15,000, for example, that would be about 5-8 units, which are much harder to find than a massive army of 20+ brigades.
I'm assuming that you were on the attack. Had you been on defense, the enemy would have found you soon enough.
I'm assuming that you were on the attack. Had you been on defense, the enemy would have found you soon enough.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
RE: Boring Tactical Battles
Along with the other suggestions, perhaps try using cavalry in their historical role of scouting the enemy?
"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"
RE: Boring Tactical Battles
Later on when you get the balloon attribute, the point becomes moot.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
- Erik Rutins
- Posts: 39324
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
RE: Boring Tactical Battles
ORIGINAL: Malagant
Along with the other suggestions, perhaps try using cavalry in their historical role of scouting the enemy?
Yes, that works quite well, especially if you give them the Scout attribute as well as Quality Horses.
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
RE: Boring Tactical Battles
Part of the reason we're making LOS for scouts longer. We've also considered giving each unit a small chance to appear outside of the other side's FOW each turn...maybe 10% or something.
RE: Boring Tactical Battles
No, no, no. You're not understanding what I am asking. Yes, I know you should use Cavalry as reconnaissance (if you have it in 1861) and I know about the "near combat" and "Close combat" options.
What I'm ASKING is this: Is there ANY correlation in the direction a force moves INTO an area against a defender and the eventual direction and position of the defender. For example: If I move a Confederate force from lets say the Shenandoah area, to a Union force defending in the Fredericksburg area, WILL I EXPECT the Union force to be TO THE EAST of the confederate forces OR COULD THE UNION FORCE BE ANYWHERE ON THE TACTICAL BOARD????
This is what I need to know and maybe that is why I'm finding the openings of the battles so boring. It took me one whole day in game terms and I still had not made contact with the enemy.
An analogy would be like World War II Aircraft Carrier games. ie: Midway. The American carriers KNOW the enemy forces are to the west of them and can utilize a 180 degree search for safety. They don't need to look BEHIND them.
Do I need to do this in "Forge of Freedom" or can I expect that enemy forces will at least set up in a logical situation depending on WHERE you come from? Or does this matter at all?
I would prefer that it does, and I hope it does. It would be far more historical. OR is tactical combat somewhat of a "Black Box" and you have no idea of where the enemy is.
This is the question I'm asking. Not about setting up close or far for combat. I fully realize that with close set up the enemy is right in fron to you.
What I'm ASKING is this: Is there ANY correlation in the direction a force moves INTO an area against a defender and the eventual direction and position of the defender. For example: If I move a Confederate force from lets say the Shenandoah area, to a Union force defending in the Fredericksburg area, WILL I EXPECT the Union force to be TO THE EAST of the confederate forces OR COULD THE UNION FORCE BE ANYWHERE ON THE TACTICAL BOARD????
This is what I need to know and maybe that is why I'm finding the openings of the battles so boring. It took me one whole day in game terms and I still had not made contact with the enemy.
An analogy would be like World War II Aircraft Carrier games. ie: Midway. The American carriers KNOW the enemy forces are to the west of them and can utilize a 180 degree search for safety. They don't need to look BEHIND them.
Do I need to do this in "Forge of Freedom" or can I expect that enemy forces will at least set up in a logical situation depending on WHERE you come from? Or does this matter at all?
I would prefer that it does, and I hope it does. It would be far more historical. OR is tactical combat somewhat of a "Black Box" and you have no idea of where the enemy is.
This is the question I'm asking. Not about setting up close or far for combat. I fully realize that with close set up the enemy is right in fron to you.
- Erik Rutins
- Posts: 39324
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
RE: Boring Tactical Battles
Yes, it's predictable, but again where they start and where they will end up are two different things. If your forces start in say the NE part of the detailed battle map, you know that the enemy forces are directly opposite you in the SW part of the battle map. Will they move N or E or NE, you have no idea. Scouts and cavalry help you find them early while they are still near where you know they should be and cavalry are mobile enough to avoid while keeping track.
Regards,
- Erik
Regards,
- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
RE: Boring Tactical Battles
I don't believe there's any correlation between the direction from which an army is coming on the strategic map and where it enters the detailed combat map. Eric will correct me if I'm wrong.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
RE: Boring Tactical Battles
OK, whoops, now your answer leads to a little bit more confusion. Eric, are you saying then that generally the enemy always starts opposite to where you start? That is what I'm asking. Your answer seems to confirm this which is just fine. This SUPPORTS what I think the situation should be.
Another example: If a Confederate force starts near the bottom of the map, would I expect the Union forces to come from the North? I realize they could move South West or South East or head directly south. BUT, COULD THEY SET UP NEAR THE EAST OF WEST EDGE AND GO FROM THERE OR DO I ASSUME THEY ALWAYS SET UP OPPOSITE??
Another example: If a Confederate force starts near the bottom of the map, would I expect the Union forces to come from the North? I realize they could move South West or South East or head directly south. BUT, COULD THEY SET UP NEAR THE EAST OF WEST EDGE AND GO FROM THERE OR DO I ASSUME THEY ALWAYS SET UP OPPOSITE??
- Erik Rutins
- Posts: 39324
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
RE: Boring Tactical Battles
ORIGINAL: XLegion
OK, whoops, now your answer leads to a little bit more confusion. Eric, are you saying then that generally the enemy always starts opposite to where you start? That is what I'm asking. Your answer seems to confirm this which is just fine. This SUPPORTS what I think the situation should be.
Another example: If a Confederate force starts near the bottom of the map, would I expect the Union forces to come from the North? I realize they could move South West or South East or head directly south. BUT, COULD THEY SET UP NEAR THE EAST OF WEST EDGE AND GO FROM THERE OR DO I ASSUME THEY ALWAYS SET UP OPPOSITE??
They always setup opposite (unless they get a flank attack). There's no correlation, as Gil said, to where you entered from on the strategic map, it's just opposite wherever your army is on the detailed battle map.
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.