Impromptu Games

Any map with the lsl file in the KS Supplemental Maps/Maps folder can be used by anyone. The Manassas map is there by the way.

It was a very close game. It really highlights the specific difficulties in being in command of a spread out force and also division. Kevin couldn't have known Martin and I had formed a curve around the enemy flank when he ordered me back. That made my maneuver back to the objective take a bit of time as I was all lined up against Pat's cavalry. It would be interesting to see what would have become of the battle had we attacked, yet I'm not sure that would have been the solution anyway. Perhaps but if Phil was still moving to the south to attack the objective I think there still would have been a superiority in the local area to take the objective.

I think Martin might be right too when he pointed out that if he had continued south to the objective rather than attacking the French that it could have been different. A fresh division to fight Phil's fresh division. We were still on the disadvantage with cavalry by that point so its hard to really tell.

I wasn't very content being in the North so long with all the cavalry, but we did need to hold it. I had scouted the tail end of the entire French force but I had no way to recognize it as the tail end of the entire French force. I suspected there was going to be a concentrated attack on the south but I didn't want to abandon the objective and orders on a hunch. Plus if I left, I'd be leaving Martin unsupported and an unsupported infantry division isn't going to be a very reliable force.

It was definitely the closest PvP game I've been in, literally down to 5 minutes at the end. Well fought on both sides.

Given that the French can't claim to have secured the south objective (sitting on it on your horse is not a win while hundreds of men are all around you stabbing, slashing, shooting and running!), then the game must have been a minor Russian victory since we held the north objective which was never contested.

It was a very fun game, more like that please Miko. I just don't have the time to write complex subtle PvP games.

It was a very intimidating horse on that objective Digby. Both sides can legitimately claim a minor victory I suppose. Overall doesn’t matter. Except my horse is kinda strong. Mean.

Anyway I can finally get into the scenario generation mode. I have a 4v4 and 3v3 PvP. And a pair of 6 vs AI for the Kevin folder. Fun nuances in each game (at least I think so lol)

Thanks Miko for a Great Scenario. A real 'nail biter' and very enjoyable.

Overall, thinking back on Friday's game and watching the Stream, I would give the French a minor victory based on overall team performance but with regards to victory conditions, it is not clear.

IMO, Unfortunately, with PvP games always having a competitive component, ideally, the victory conditions have to be as Objective as possible (as opposed to subjective interpretation). Even though there is an 'Umpire'/Scenario designer (who should have the last say), everyone will also have their own opinion on who won the battle based on their interpretation of the battle and their understanding of the victory conditions.

Many players will play to gain a win first (even by a small margin) and once that is attained, they will endeavour to gain a greater margin. Unfortunately, this can lead to 'gamey' tactics like 'camping' or mass rushing to deciding objective in the last few minutes of play.

Having one major objective and one minor objective will usually result in both teams fighting for the major objective to gain a win first and then only considering the minor objective once that objective is secured. Things get even more complicated when the objectives have differing importance to each side.

Perhaps I am being unduly concerned but I am keen bring out the best in our PvP games whilst trying to avoid some of the pitfalls in 'competitive' gaming. We also want to avoid formulaic scenarios or being concerned with balancing armies.

My first proposal would be to always have an odd number of objectives with each objective having equal value. In scenarios like Friday's, for example, where the southern Depot was the most important, there could have been two objectives but with sufficient distance apart to make harder to defend if the Russians concentrated all their forces there. Perhaps you could even have 2 objectives at one site and 3 at another, although this might get confusing when determining where the objectives are when fighting.

Secondly, I would class the holder of the objective as the side who has at least one infantry battalion occupying it when the clock stops. It is the most objective criteria that I can come up with.

Mike

I can play today at the usual time, 14:00 EST, 19:00 BST.

Great points Mike.

I can also play today. And I have AI and PvP scenarios ready.

Shall we agree then that in any scenario, no matter who what when where or why an objective is only secured if it has at least 1 battalion on it/500 men and they are not in combat?

I'm only a very occasional player, so I hope no-one will mind if I offer my thoughts on team vs team play.  Perhaps you might consider it an offside view from someone who hopes to play again at some point.  I actually know most of you quite well.  Well enough to know that you are without exception a very friendly, fair-minded and remarkably non-competitive bunch.  So I hope you will take my comments in good part.

Challenging though the AI can be, it obviously cannot equal human players in some areas; especially in creating a battle-plan, and fighting as a corps rather than as a collection of divisions & brigades.  So I can appreciate the attractions of team vs team play.

But I too agree that Mike made great points re the pitfalls.  As well as encouraging over-competitiveness, gamey tactics etc, it can give rise to other issues.  Such as discussion on strengths of individual players, or a team as a whole.  On one level it's quite understandable, as you might want the teams to be balanced.  And plenty of folks would have no problem with this.  I dare say it's standard-practice in other online groups.

I can only speak for myself here, but I really don't want to be measured-up against the other players in the group however.  I just don't feel it's very healthy.  This may of course be because I suspect I won't rate very highly   . 

Does it actually matter if the teams are unequal, or the scenario unbalanced, come to that?

Something else to consider.  The forum is the main showcase for the MP group.  In terms of the optics, I'm not sure that arguing over who won a particular game is the way to go.  Will you attract new players that way?  Well maybe some, but not necessarily the ones you want.............

If team vs team play is the preferred way forward, then I think it would be worth having a discussion on these sorts of issues, and establishing some do's' & don'ts.

Martin J

I personally am always here for the ride. I generally just try to improve against myself. I understand wanting a more balanced scenario too. I have a good time win or lose. Deciding a clear winner isnt really something I'm overly concerned with. I do like the idea of specific stipulations for objective control, such as having a certain amount of unengaged infantry.

I'm generally on the side of not worrying if it's balanced. Being close is obviously important, but not always as important as we think. How a battle plays out has so many variables it's going to be impossible to perfectly balance an engagement.

A fun and interesting scenario should be a higher priority than a balanced scenario in my tastes. Though still it should be possible for both sides to win of course. Being an aggressive screening/delaying cavalry force was a fun action that isnt very common.

The AI was rather violent today. I think it has a sense of inadequacy as compared to PvP and lashed out at Ehey’s corps. And it wasn’t very kind to me either.

Still fun :-)

On the topic of Sunday's battle we have now confirmed that I will attempt to fight an enemy more than twice my number if they are trickled in through wheat fields over the course of 2 hours. That one's my bad.

However it is worth considering that in the more detailed annals of Kevin's battle calculator it does say that many of the Guard survived the battle by escaping capture. So in fact I did not lose the Guard division. I saved it. Well me and my commanders I guess.

That’s the ticket Ehey! “Saving from capture” ... maybe we can even give it an acronym like “SFC” and make it a regular part of the post-battle analytics conversation. I like it!

A note on the objectives discussion earlier:
I have been in gaming groups where the discussion of who “won” takes on a life of its own more often than it should, and can influence other factors in game play and relationship which is why I steer clear of those environments nowadays. While it is fun to joke about scores and who won or standing on the objective with one’s horse it should never be a bone of contention.

Scenario objectives are there to drive player and combat unit behavior on the field. Digbys recommendation on having a certain number of troops more as a standard - which Kevin has used in several scenarios- is not a bad idea for PvP. Getting one battalion to an objective is different than a brigade. Regardless, being clear on EXACTLY what the conditions are is important because it impacts player strategy.

I know in my upcoming scenarios I have min occupancy requirements. 500, 1000. One scenario has 1 of the 3 objectives occupied by a division officer, brigade and battery (of 50+), the latter condition implicitly carries enemy troop position requirements Since a battery wont occupy a position with enemy nearby.

A note on yesterday scenario:

Early in game, my infantry division occupied about a 3/4 front in a big wheat field with woods on either end and rising ground to the rear. My artillery hammered away on the rising ground. Kevin asked me to help clear the (L-shaped) woods on my left flank of cavalry. To do that I TC the battalions of a brigade and leap-frogged the squares forward. That takes some focus.

1000 yards away to my right I had my AI brigade commanders do the same to the Russian cav facing them. 2 brigades plus artillery could make no headway for the better part of 30 minutes. That Russian cavalry, full of vodka and borscht, was not phased by anything.

Truly a challenging match entire game from my angle.

For my part I enjoyed a complete lack of Russians for 90 minutes while I wandered up and down some very pleasant country lanes. Then I walked up a hill and stood on the top and the timer ended. Some other players may have been involved.

We need howitzer batteries that can sit just downslope of a crest-line and lob bombs over the top to whack any naughty fellows who insist on hiding just beyond the ridge. Most unsporting.

Truly a challenging match entire game from my angle.

That statement puzzles me. From my viewpoint, Vince's division along with Miko's cavalry did almost all the work. Every time I rode over to your position I found the commanders wandering around, lost in the tall grass. When I found a brigade commander and asked him where I might find you, he just vaguely wave his hand in some direction, unsurprisingly, the wrong one. This may explain why your division was fighting enemy in the east instead of north as ordered. Trying to help Bessieres was a waste of good men. He was doomed and I made a Princely decision early on to leave him to his fate, whatever that might be, while the rest of us heaped glory upon ourselves. All except you, of course. Just so you know, Davout and I supped at my father's table last night, while I understand you were eating a cold meal in some stable. Pity.

BTW Ehey if you go into the options and check the "hide flags" box your screen will not display the little star and other floaty icons above your units and officers. Its nothing to do with displaying flags of course!

Kevin- Yes my men lodged periodic complaints against you. I told them you could not help yourself, what with all your illnesses and poor hygiene. Still, I have to honor the men’s wishes. The paperwork alone in processing those complaints caused a delay before we could move out against Landshut. By then it was lunch time. So we had to pause and eat. Then we had a wonderful sing-along with the battalion choir. So much fun we forgot there was a battle going on. Then of course 3 Russian batteries square on the flank of my march didnt help matters much once we got going up the road. Minor annoyances of course. They were small 8-gun batteries. By the way I also enjoyed watching Miko’s cavalry off in the distance, wondering if even one squadron of his might be detailed to my end of the line. But I understand the pressing need to keep dinner engagements.

Interestingly, towards the end of the battle I got a note from Sean asking how things were going. I was surprised since he was part of Eheys command and also assumed he was miles away when he sent it. Actually he rode up next to me to deliver the message. Not seeing the rest of his command anywhere in the vicinity was at once funny and sad. The Guard got crushed a couple times during scenario playtest as well.

I can play today at the usual time, 14:00 EST, 19:00 BST.

Thanks Kevin/guys for the game game on Tuesday. It was a tough scenario to win but good action. Shame we didn't have another 30mins, as there was another good fight just developing.
Don't think I will make it for this Friday. Have a good game all

With Ehey and Pat as commanders, we can take another swing at that scenario.

With Ehey and Pat as commanders, we can take another swing at that scenario.

Definitely looking forward to it... I' made terrible mistake in my plan which caused a massive waste of time and gave AI time to take strong defensive positions - I won't get into details here so Ehay and Pat will get similarly difficult ride with it.... Also another thing I overlooked is that as a Corps commander I didn't get reports from the scouts... so me taking cavalry division and infantry division was useless for scouting purposes.
As for Grog's Corps - not revealing too much, his plan was good even with Phil stuck in the fog... and it could have worked with forces at our disposal had I adopted more straightforward plan.

I think the scenario would work well with an army commander, maybe instead of two corps commanders, or perhaps as well as?

Couldn't make it on Tuesday, something came up a bit last minute. Sounds like Kevin's master-minded yet another sadistic scenario. I will be there Friday.

On Discord, Pat said he'd also be there on Friday.

Eylau II?