Concerning Tactical Battle Objectives

[rogersdrums]

I've been playing this game for a long time now and after longtime scrutiny/testing I've come to believe that the tactical battle maps in the campaign aspect have far too many objectives...this issue has been brought up many times before and this does need to be addressed....in my experiences it seems as if the ai opponent most times has the vast majority of battlefield objectives when the conflict begins also......many battles I've experienced seem like a who can grab the most objectives fest....I can see where having more than a couple objectives can create some interesting pre battle maneuverings ,but there is far too many in most battles imho....I make sure all of my forces of any consequence have cavalry. that's for sure.

[Horcerer]

Is there something I'm missing? In my experience objectives don't really matter too much. As long as you grab a few then it hasn't really majorly impacted my fights.

[rogersdrums]

In my experiences the ai opponent holds too many objectives....I just dont favor having to send cavalry all over the battlefield to gain enough objectives to even things out during the battle...I've been able to turn a attack scenario into a defend scenario just by sitting static and grabbing with cavalry,the majority of battlefield objectives while the ai just vegetates...this causes the ai to have to attack instead of defend....that is not ideal.....I realize one can win battles without holding all of the battlefield objectives for sure......to me there is far too many.

[Horcerer]

Perhaps something should be done so the AI will attack or retreat sooner, so as to prevent drawn out stalemates where really nothing happens, but personally I don't think the amount of objectives is necessarily a bad thing.

[rogersdrums]

I hardly ever have stalemates anymore....Ive found that if you run and grab the majority of objectives with cavalry ,the ai will eventually attack when the battle has anything remotely near reasonable odds in terms of manpower/artillery on both sides....sometimes the ai has attacked me when Ive held the vast majority of objectives even when I've held a huge advantage in my forces.

[erlends]

You get boring battles..... Playing as CSA in the 1861 campaign, the north again throws 30000 men at the depleted army of Joe Johnston of about 13000. The battle starts with the north having most battlefield objectives, but Joe rather does what every sensible general would do - finds a place for defence and digs in. Union is the attacker and invader, but the battle information tells Joe has to attack, or the Union will win..... Luckily, Joe has a secret weapon - Jeb Stuarts cavalry corps of two brigades - so these are sent around the Antietam battle field to capture objectives. The Union tries to recapture a few, but never manages to get within shooting distance. After 4 days I win a major victory, without having fired a shot. The Union never tried to attack Johnsons entrenched army. Victory is always sweet - but in this case, very boring.

[artix101]

Yeah I have the same issue as well. The main reason why I have a problem with this is that cultivates effectively don't matter as a concern to the AI as long as they have the point to capture/hold and superior numbers. For instance, playing 1864 campaign against Sherman's army as the CSA, put all the armies available together in the area but because I did not attack first the Union was able to control Kenesaw mountain, making them the defenders even though they are attacking. However, when I attacked the Union in Virginia with Lee's army, my reinforcements came into action immediately and allowed me to control most of the points as a defender. So, while I appreciate objectives, it does not make it fun when for some reason the only way the AI moves is to take a objective or to mass mobilize against your front line if it has superior manpower. What makes it hard is when certain objectives sometimes are more important randomly, as all you have to do is hold a position that has tactical advantages but don't actually have your army physically there. The defend/attack mechanic is focused more on point control rather than army placement.

[CoachMac]

I think the main issue with objectives is that it gives you an idea of where the ennemy actually is without having necessarilly a line of sight on him.
Otherwise I really dont pay much attention to objectives. I pay attention to the ground and i try to make the most of it on offence or defence.

[Shermanpanzerkamp]

I would definitely like to see some balancing for objectives as well. The enemy might start with some but then they hardly ever bother defending them which gives the player a very easy way to get major victories. I wonder if using road entrances/exits to the battlefield as objectives would work better. In real life, the only reason a hill is an objective is because it can help accomplish other goals. The hill has no inherent value and is not an end in itself. For example, Culps Hill should be important because it is a great tactical position and not because some arbitrary number was attached to it. The reason one would use roads would be because so often during Civil War battles, the goal was to cut off the enemy from their lines of operation and supply. This is how one would win a battle by maneuvering. These objectives would be a lot harder to take from the ai because they would be behind their lines and that is where maneuvering comes in. The focus thus remains on the clash of the two armies with no artificial reasons to take hills but rather focusing on actually making good assaults to break their lines. Or if this is all to complicate, maybe have routing units should give large victory bonuses so that one can get a major victory by actually crushing the enemy force.

[erlends]

Yeah, I wonder if it is possible to have some sort of dynamic objective determination. I may perhaps not quite understand how the AI does this, but it seems that the objectives are fixed for each map. However, the circumstances under which armies fight vary greatly, from meeting engagements of equal forces (of which there were few in the real war), to assaults on fixed positions and all sorts of battles in between. The objectives should in an ideal scenario reflect this. If you are an invader, and if you instigate the attack, you should not start the game with objectives at all - you should have to fight to take them. At the same time, the objectives should be set so that the defender had to defnd these - preferable strategic or tactical important places on the map. These objectives should not be spread all over, making it easy for an attacker to just take these outposts and then sit tight and wait for the defender to move out of his prepared positions. To some degree, this is now adressed through differences in victory points as some locations score more than others. One suggestion is perhaps to change these values, according to the type of fight to be fought? By the way, I love the game, the intentions behind it and look forward to many frustrating hours trying to hold the line against impossible odds.....

[tr33top]

I agree I feel there are too many objectives and their placement doesnt always make sense. After the roll out of the recent update I am happy that the AI picks a spot to defend, but so far in my experience they dont actually defend an objective. I feel the number of objectives should decrease and their importance to the battle should increase. If I position my army defensive to hold a certain hill objective in the center of my line and I lose that I feel I should suffer a significant morale hit. I cant imagine a battle where the enemy takes a hill in the center of my line and both flanks continue to fight to the death as they see the enemy flag waving above and behind them.

just my two cents.

[Operation Iraqi Freikorps]

In my experience, not every objective is shown every battle. If the objectives were changed to only objectives being counted if there is 25% of one side's forces near it, that would reduce the number of objectives but increase the importance of objectives, as those that aren't actively occupied by a significant force would not be counting towards Victory/Defeat.