Problem with the Union side in Battle of Chancellorsville

[Doctor Gualtieri]

I'm annoyed with this mission. I won the battle in the end, but the scripted phases feel like a time/energy waste for players.

I didn't capture the Union objectives on the initial phase, so maybe that changes everything (let me know if it does ), but on the next phase I captured and held both Union objectives. When I held the farm on the third phase I expected the battle to be over, but lo and behold the game reset my progress and troop positions and I had to capture both objectives all over again.

Compare this to the Battle of Malvern Hill where it saves your progress and troop movement. Though that had it's own wonky parts with random reinforcements depending on where your troops were in other phases.

Is it insinuated that all your troops left to defend the farm? I don't understand why we even had the option to capture objectives in earlier phases if that progress is washed away.

[[TFM]bobcat]

Are you talking about capturing the confederate held objectives?

As I understand it, you have to not only capture the objectives but capture them with enough time for the secure objective timer to run down too (shows up on the objective list top right of the screen). It is a really stupid requirement I agree but such is that battle.

[Bramborough]

I know what you mean. A few battles have a sort of positional reset between phases which are rather annoying. Union Chancellorsville is one of the more egregious examples.

Once you've played through the battles a couple of times, it becomes clearer not only what objectives are important, but in which phases it becomes meaningful to capture them.

On Union Chancellorsville, don't bother going after Orange Turnpike and Orange Plank Road until the final counterattack phase on the third day. Until then, just defend and inflict casualties on Johnny Reb. The only VP which matters on first two days is making sure you don't lose the Chancellorsville Farm.

Just an idiosyncrasy of this game that one has to play through multiple times before not just understanding what's important and what's not, but also knowing WHEN it's important and when not, as well. It's easy to chalk this up to poor design...but I think it's intentional. I think there are some traps laid to goad the player into making ill-advised decision. An effort to replicate, however imperfectly, some of the irrational but real pressures which worked upon real generals. A recurring theme in UGCW is a perceived "time-running-out" situation when in fact there's ample time for a much more rational and deliberate approach.

[Caramirdan]

Originally posted by Bramborough:

. . . It's easy to chalk this up to poor design...but I think it's intentional. I think there are some traps laid to goad the player into making ill-advised decision. An effort to replicate, however imperfectly, some of the irrational but real pressures which worked upon real generals. A recurring theme in UGCW is a perceived "time-running-out" situation when in fact there's ample time for a much more rational and deliberate approach.

Concur. My understanding is the game tries very hard to give the player the feeling of being the general on the field for the initial impact of each battle, i.e., what seems important at the time, vs. what becomes important as the battle evolves. With that in mind, sometimes objectives only make sense in a historical "had to be there" perspective, in that the battlefield commanders were aware that the enemy reinforcements would prevent chasing, or their own reinforcements were late, or they had gotten hit on the head (Joe Hooker at Chancellorsville for the Union) etc. etc.
As Bram states, once the player sees a battle, it becomes clearer.

I strongly suggest anyone playing through a campaign tries out each Historical Battle version of the major battles before trying them in Campaign mode for a great intro to how the battle plays and what to expect. The Historical Battles are really, really well done IMO, especially regarding Order-of-Battle, weapons, troop composition, commanders, etc. and give insight into what the battle was really like.

[Doctor Gualtieri]

Originally posted by TFMbobcat:

Are you talking about capturing the confederate held objectives?

As I understand it, you have to not only capture the objectives but capture them with enough time for the secure objective timer to run down too (shows up on the objective list top right of the screen). It is a really stupid requirement I agree but such is that battle.

Right I captured and held them for the required time.

Originally posted by Bramborough:

I think there are some traps laid to goad the player into making ill-advised decision. An effort to replicate, however imperfectly, some of the irrational but real pressures which worked upon real generals. A recurring theme in UGCW is a perceived "time-running-out" situation when in fact there's ample time for a much more rational and deliberate approach.

I was thinking that was why we don't get more obvious cues as to what's going to happen each battle, and I think it's fair. All the same, if you take an objective there should be some obvious reason why taking it doesn't count. Because looking back at the exclusive farm defense part of the battle all my troops didn't join the battle. Quite frustrating.

[D-Dub]

I was going to suggest that what we need here is a "Phases Overview of the Battle", such as I did with Washington and Ninjasquirrel has been doing more recently & so helpfully with other majors. At least we'd more easily know (we less exp'd players anyway) beforehand that a re-set is coming. In itself, that would forestall some unpleasant surprises and increase the enjoyment.

And yet, big thank you, Bramb & Caramirdan: your posts speak my thoughts & experience exactly. The game is beautiful in this respect, these respects, and I don't want to mess with that/them. Such realism in a game is... fabulous. Again, I don't want to mess with this. It's too obviously (and craftfully) an intent on the part of the designers. And it is essential to my satisfaction, at least, in coming back to this game again and again.

And yet, to play your heart out, carefully and effectively, only to have everything re-set? And only with this n that major, not every one? I have of course had the same depressing thing happen, ORIGINALO... So, okay, maybe a Phase Overview for Ch'ville would be justifiable... Hmmm...

[Americus Wickey]

I believe the Union-army "reset" the AI forces upon the player is meant to mimic how Gen. Hooker defensively re-deployed his troops in a panic, after Jackson hit his right flank. (That resulted in a major portion of Hooker's army never seeing significant combat in the final phase, which is one reason why Lincoln fired him before Gettysburg.) This is essentially what the AI does going into the final Shiloh day, in which all Union troops get re-positioned behind the Pittsburg Landing fortifications. It's damned irritating in both cases, but we have to live with it and - as recommended above - document what happens in the various phases so everyone is aware.

[Caramirdan]

To paraphrase, it was something like, "haha, I've got Lee now! uhhhhh, wait, crap, Lee's retreating, uhhh, Lee never retreats, uh CRAP, Lee's FLANKING!!!!!111111"

[D-Dub]

Let's get that recorded, Caramirdan, and added to the inter-phase AUDIO-FILE. To be followed by a mechanically impersonal voice saying something to the effect of this: "You are now re-entering the battle in reset mode, conveniently or not. Have a good day, General."

AW: I love the historical re-creationing in terms of scenario-steps. It's just awkward (i) to have it happen DESPITE what we do a-historically; and (ii) to have it not happen in THIS major only to have it happen in THAT major battle.

Fore-knowledge cures all, in any event. Yet, as a still-learning player, I keep getting surprised. And, yes, it's "damned irritating".

Honestly, though, I don't mind re-playing. Even though that still feels like cheating.

Uhhh, sorta. ;)

[Lao Dan]

Originally posted by Bramborough:

A recurring theme in UGCW is a perceived "time-running-out" situation when in fact there's ample time for a much more rational and deliberate approach.

And conversely sometimes you think you have time and you don't. You get two hours to take the hill right after Shiloh, but I thought that was the timer for the rest of my forces to arrive since it was only noon on the map.

[D-Dub]

Exactly. Had this happen to me recently in PERRYVILLE for USA, when all my careful arranging to surround the CSA-force was just about to work wonders. Then, with SUPPLY RAID, the timing of Stuart's cav force arriving was a huge surprise. Apparently, you don't need to take the VP to trigger the CSA reinforcements...

I like most surprises, and I don't generally like to "game" a game; but there's some weird timing going on here... at times.

[Pro-Newb]

Reminds me of Nashville pike playing as CSA. I took the pike but then the next phase everything was reset. This needs to be changed.

[Americus Wickey]

Originally posted by D-Dub:

Exactly. Had this happen to me recently in PERRYVILLE for USA, when all my careful arranging to surround the CSA-force was just about to work wonders. Then, with SUPPLY RAID, the timing of Stuart's cav force arriving was a huge surprise. Apparently, you don't need to take the VP to trigger the CSA reinforcements...

Every time I've played Supply Raid, Stuart's cavalry arrives at different times - sometimes when I'm consolidating my control of the VP, other times when I'm still in a dangerous position & the cav's arrival causes me to lose the engagement. Supply Raid is not an easy Union victory.

[D-Dub]

I do like the dramatic tension involved. Realistic. So, SUPPLY RAID is a love/hate battle for me -- always a nail-biter. If that were the only timing-ambiguous case, we'd only have reason to share war stories. (I wasn't actually clear on whether Stuart shows up at the same time every time: that he doesn't is great.)

It's the fact that we SOMETIMES don't know, until multiple re-plays teach us so, what's really going on with timing & VP capture (or non-capture) & phases & days -- in themselves and in relation. I imagine that all battles could be categorized into these groups: (1) Fluid; (2) Hard-Phased, with hard re-sets by phase and day; (3) Soft-Phased, with movement through a multi-phased battle but without the loss of positions gained or gain of positions lost, etc. In addition, some clarity about timing seems sensible, if only to the tune of "There is no clear indication how much time you will have, General, so be efficient and follow the plan!" And all this could be included in the Recon Report's narrative-text and/or in the battlefield previewing...

Anyway, I'm going to attempt a Battle/Phase overview for Ch'ville for USA (BG, if that makes a difference?) over the next few days.... and will post it if it shapes up all right.

Ah, a possibly related thing: At Nansemond River, I high-tailed it to the fort and took it quickly before digging in and beating off counter-attacks. Then came time for the gunboats to arrive: took 'em a while to stop shelling the fort, full of Union blue, and to re-direct to that northern wooded area where the Rebs had re-grouped! So, seems they were designed to appear and just have at the fort. Timing and action coordinated, then -- but badly, in light of the real situation. Maybe this factors in as an example of something somehow related...

[Americus Wickey]

Originally posted by D-Dub:

I do like the dramatic tension involved. Realistic. So, SUPPLY RAID is a love/hate battle for me -- always a nail-biter. If that were the only timing-ambiguous case, we'd only have reason to share war stories. (I wasn't actually clear on whether Stuart shows up at the same time every time: that he doesn't is great.)

It's the fact that we SOMETIMES don't know, until multiple re-plays teach us so, what's really going on with timing & VP capture (or non-capture) & phases & days -- in themselves and in relation. I imagine that all battles could be categorized into these groups: (1) Fluid; (2) Hard-Phased, with hard re-sets by phase and day; (3) Soft-Phased, with movement through a multi-phased battle but without the loss of positions gained or gain of positions lost, etc. In addition, some clarity about timing seems sensible, if only to the tune of "There is no clear indication how much time you will have, General, so be efficient and follow the plan!" And all this could be included in the Recon Report's narrative-text and/or in the battlefield previewing...

. . . .

Ah, a possibly related thing: At Nansemond River, I high-tailed it to the fort and took it quickly before digging in and beating off counter-attacks. Then came time for the gunboats to arrive: took 'em a while to stop shelling the fort, full of Union blue, and to re-direct to that northern wooded area where the Rebs had re-grouped! So, seems they were designed to appear and just have at the fort. Timing and action coordinated, then -- but badly, in light of the real situation. Maybe this factors in as an example of something somehow related...

Yes, Supply Raid is a nai-biter! So true about the phases. Example: just played Antietam in my new Union campaign. For the first time, I didn't capture the Burnside's Bridge (lower right) VP until very late in the game (I used a very small 3rd Corps, and all the AI placed at BB was an arty unit), and was surprised by my very first encounter with A.P. Hill's reinforcements flooding in from the southwest!

RE Nansemond River - how did you capture the fort so quickly? It's always been a long, bloody slog for me, even when trying to flank the Rebs from the northwest! And the gunboats - I guess some platoon lieutenant forgot to order the Reb flag hauled down!

[D-Dub]

Hear that, AW! I was trying to find a rowboat to send out a message, but... no luck! And we hadn't a single signal-flag among us, it seems...

For the first time playing this minor, I (a) I didn't waste any time dressing lines or scoping things out, etc.; (b) immediately sent three melee brigades running pell-mell up the right flank; (c) did a simultaneous left and (much more importantly, 'cause it held the CSA units in the area TIGHT) center rush, and then I kept feeding units back towards the fort. Had some routings but always had enough back-up to hold. The CSA seemed very weak here, but I think it was only because I basically took the fort sooner than everyone expected. Having the Corps CO in vicinity of the fort helped. I also did a slow-smooth left-flank that kept some of the stronger CSA units pre/post-occupied. My first REALLY satisfying victory with this minor.

To the larger theme: I just finished Siege of Suffolk, and to my surprise I was given some 2 hours (or so) to fend off the CSA attack, then I had another 1.5 (or so) hours to counter-attack. The FINISH button popped up at that point, but I kept attacking -- and I snapped into the VICTORY screen only after having shattered every last CSA unit on the table. Satisfying win. And kudos to the AI for keeping me on my toes until the finale. But it's this variability that's a bit frustrating: I actually would have played it differently if I'd known how much (and much more) time actually was available...