HITS/GCM 4 "Rebels' Revenge" Battle Results

Another great game in the Gap. The Rebs got their revenge driving the Yankees from the field although taking more casualties. A chaotic climax to a very hard-fought battle.

Final Casualties:
Confederacy 4,616
Union 4,492

Here's the replay: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ai61d6me5dzwax/Battle_13817-01122513%20160637.rep.zip?m

And the battle report: http://www.sowmp.com/gcm/battles/battle/13817

4,616? Hmph.

TRY HARDER NEXT TIME.

-Father General

It's really quite interesting to see how the objective points spawned so close together. Such a situation makes teamwork all the more important, and fun. Instead of three 1v1 battles, you now have a real corps v corps engagement.

Sorry I missed it, I could have doubled your casualties on the Confederate side!

-Neal

Father General wrote:It's really quite interesting to see how the objective points spawned so close together. Such a situation makes teamwork all the more important, and fun. Instead of three 1v1 battles, you now have a real corps v corps engagement.

Sorry I missed it, I could have doubled your casualties on the Confederate side!

-Neal

And insured a union victory.

Father General wrote:It's really quite interesting to see how the objective points spawned so close together. Such a situation makes teamwork all the more important, and fun. Instead of three 1v1 battles, you now have a real corps v corps engagement.

The use of 3 objectives seems to work much better than the single point we played with in the first game. With placement set for them to appear within 10% of the center of the map, they are packed in tight, even on a very big map. It is almost as though the sides are fighting for second-day control of Rose Farm, Devil's Den and the Wheatfield, where the action at one likely carries major impact for outcomes at the others.

The 3 objectives work very well. They spread out the battle just enough so that it looks and feels like a battle for a significant piece of real estate. Is there a way to have the cluster of objectives not always show up in the center of the map? That last map was very nice and it would be great fun to use it again but not necessarily fight over the same ground.

Uncle Billy wrote:The 3 objectives work very well. They spread out the battle just enough so that it looks and feels like a battle for a significant piece of real estate. Is there a way to have the cluster of objectives not always show up in the center of the map? That last map was very nice and it would be great fun to use it again but not necessarily fight over the same ground.

In creating a GCM game the host enters a setting that calls for locations to appear within a certain percentage area of the map center. (I've been using 10% - the smallest available). However, Garnier also gives us the flexibility to customize a subset area for play within any of the random or historical maps. I use this in most games I host to scale map size to the number of players and occasionally to exclude particular map features. (For instance, sometimes it's fun to focus play in the western valley & rim areas of Antietam's gap-maps and at other times players would rather play the expanses of the eastern plains).

In the map used Saturday (LRM #40), we could select, say, 90% of the big map starting from the NW corner. This would shift the map center up and left a bit and result in different obj locations than when using the entire map.

And, of course, there are alway lots of maps available. At a given time we have about 10 Large Random Maps to choose from, with Garnier refreshing the list by adding new ones every so often.