The Campaign of 1863  

Go Back   The Campaign of 1863 > Wish List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-08-2012
drew1's Avatar
drew1 drew1 is offline
Member
Cadet
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 43
Default capture towns

why is it after a unit captures a town, when they leave that town it automatically goes back to the original possessor side. In other words, shouldn't the other team need to re-capture the town in order to gain possession and the points that go with it? And if not, can't we have an option to split or leave a small, or automatically reduce the size of a force that captures a town once it leaves, to maintain possession?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-08-2012
caledonia's Avatar
caledonia caledonia is offline
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 562
Default interesting

I'm not so concerned w/ towns , but, drew has an interesting concept.. the ability to arrange smaller portions of brigades into formations of regiments....sounds like a nightmare for you guys....each hex would become a battlefield....it would take forever to take a turn, but how cool....
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-08-2012
mesadmin3's Avatar
mesadmin3 mesadmin3 is offline
Administrator
General
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 907
Default

drew: Since the CSA is an invading force the local population of a captured town would be highly unlikely to support a force that just took all their food, weapons and ammo (and thats just if the invading commander was a gentleman. They still hate Sherman in the south...) Rember that goals for each side are different. The USA does not earn Victory Points for any towns/cities (except for the 3 that begin the game in Rebel hands). Their goal is simply to destroy the CSA forces. If you split off a battalion at every small town your forces would easy picking for the USA (remember that they get 2.5 pts for every casualty inflicted, so your 100 men that get left behind are worth a potential 250 pts to them, while your only earning 10 pts per turn...)

cal: Ironically we have plans for Attachment/Detachment orders for units and it was in our original design. We decided to trim it since implementation would take a large chunk of time plus the reasons you just mentioned. However we do plan on putting it back in, probably version 2.0.

As always suggestions and comments are greatly appreciated.

Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-08-2012
drew1's Avatar
drew1 drew1 is offline
Member
Cadet
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 43
Default

True it would make them weaker, Also im not so much looking to control another unit for movement either. The rule of the game is to accumulate more points than the other team, or by the factors stated in the game rules for victory, this i understand. My point is, what is the difference if my original force becomes smaller but is able to continue onward or it has to stay put in the town in order to accumulate the points every turn. Mind you we are only talking about the towns that are worth points for possession aside from those worth capture points. I will try to capture one of those and leave it, then come back and capture it again to see if i get the capture points(ie major objectives)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-08-2012
drew1's Avatar
drew1 drew1 is offline
Member
Cadet
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 43
Default

Caledonia,
What i am saying is . i just left a town that is worth 20 points per turn for possession, now i dont want to control an additional unit, but rather afford to reduce my original unit so it can move and i still maintain the points for the town and ownership, until the other team recaptures it. But at least this forces the other team to have to capture in order to change possession. I understand for the union it is simple seek and destroy, but this creates another possible task for them instead of chasing units all over the map. All this as opposed to having to leave the whole unit in place to recieve the points and not using it for future missions.

Last edited by drew1; 08-08-2012 at 11:08 AM. Reason: directed to caledonia
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-08-2012
Col John Moseby's Avatar
Col John Moseby Col John Moseby is offline
Senior Member
Quartermaster Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 250
Default

Correction: USA gets 2.5 points for every 10 CSA casualties inflicted, so 200 dead rebs is 25 yankee points, not 250.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-08-2012
caledonia's Avatar
caledonia caledonia is offline
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 562
Default

drew.. I understand what you are saying... but what i think you stumbled across w/o knowing it is more important... that each hex contains within it a battlefield... a microcosm if you will, within the theater of war. .. imagine this game played on the scale of a single battle.. broken down into regiments.. and each hex being 100 sq. yards.... this then becomes a game of tactics instead of a game of strategy....just thinking thats all. wheres my artillery?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-08-2012
Danny's Avatar
Danny Danny is offline
Member
Private
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 63
Default

Drew does bring up a good point. So if the Rebs take York and receive 500 points for taking it, then leave the city making it not captured anymore, then take it again for another 500 points and so on...could this happen? If so, I've been doing it wrong all along LOL!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-08-2012
mesadmin3's Avatar
mesadmin3 mesadmin3 is offline
Administrator
General
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 907
Default

Whoops, thanks Moseby. Sad when you forget your own rules system

Danny and drew: capture points are a 1 time event. Or at least they are supposed to be. Ill have to dig into the Objectives code and re-verify, but that was our design (since Ranger isnt available for a quick answer).

cal: We did debate putting a "mini-game" within C63 where each combat was actually played out by the participating players/units, however the logistics were much too great for our tiny 2 man dev team. We do want to put together some smaller 1 on 1 game options for you guys (I think the first would be either Cold Harbor or Pea Ridge) which would be much more tactical in nature, but Bull Run will probably take precedence.

Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-27-2019
Froggy Froggy is offline
Senior Member
Bridadier General
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 679
Default

pepperboxing, historically, is a bad idea
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2010 Mutant Entertainment Studios