Gaza Scenario -- WINNABLE????!!!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Gaza Scenario -- WINNABLE????!!!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Ancients] >> Tin Soldiers: Alexander the Great >> Gaza Scenario -- WINNABLE????!!!

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Gaza Scenario -- WINNABLE????!!! - 4/11/2005 10:02:34 PM

offbase

Posts: 29
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline

Well, I read the mag review about the 1st scenario taking 17 turns to win and thought he was nuts when it only took me 4 turns to win it, but Gaza, on the other hand, is unreal! Will someone please tell me how the "sack" of Gaza turned into a huge scale "battle" against an enemy that outnumbers the attacker 3 or 4 to 1, deploys MASSED CHARIOTS (!!!) inside a walled city and just pours thousands and thousands of well-trained/armed units at you seemingly out of nowhere? C'mon, it's the ASSAULT that was the problem, the "SACK" was just that! Anybody who had that kind of army would've deployed it outside to swat Alex's "flyspeck" of an army in the field, rather than cram itself into a tiny walled city to be massacred! Also, the damned chariots are as maneuverable as cavalry, which is very unrealistic and imparts yet another unfair advantage to the AI considering its attack power versus most of the player's forces. Can someone PLEASE tell me how to win or bypass this "fairy tale" of a scenario so that I can move on??? I really enjoyed it up to now, but I'm quickly souring on it!!!

Post #: 1

RE: Gaza Scenario -- WINNABLE????!!! - 4/11/2005 10:19:48 PM

Deride

Posts: 488
Joined: 6/21/2004
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: offbase
Well, I read the mag review about the 1st scenario taking 17 turns to win and thought he was nuts when it only took me 4 turns to win it,

I hope that is an exaggeration

quote:

ORIGINAL: offbase
but Gaza, on the other hand, is unreal! Will someone please tell me how the "sack" of Gaza turned into a huge scale "battle" against an enemy that outnumbers the attacker 3 or 4 to 1, deploys MASSED CHARIOTS (!!!) inside a walled city and just pours thousands and thousands of well-trained/armed units at you seemingly out of nowhere? C'mon, it's the ASSAULT that was the problem, the "SACK" was just that! Anybody who had that kind of army would've deployed it outside to swat Alex's "flyspeck" of an army in the field, rather than cram itself into a tiny walled city to be massacred! Also, the damned chariots are as maneuverable as cavalry, which is very unrealistic and imparts yet another unfair advantage to the AI considering its attack power versus most of the player's forces. Can someone PLEASE tell me how to win or bypass this "fairy tale" of a scenario so that I can move on??? I really enjoyed it up to now, but I'm quickly souring on it!!!

Well, sorry to hear that this scenario is frustrating you. It is actually my favorite scenario, so I hope you will continue trying.

First, you are correct about the history of this battle. We did have to take some creative license in this one, but it had a lot to do with game mechanics. For TS:ATG, the army ALWAYS grows from one battle to the next. Therefore, we couldn't downsize your army for the battle at Gaza -- so we just upsized your opponents. Certainly not historic, but, hopefully, fun!

Second, the goal of this battle is to test how well the player is able to respond to a fairly chaotic situation. You don't have time to gather your troops in pretty lines, and you have to deal with a few waves of forces -- just when you are starting to finish off the previous waves. At the very least, you can't follow any of the tactics that you used in previous battles -- especially for anyone that has tried to bull-rush the enemy and go toe-to-toe.

I would suggest that you wait for the enemy to engage you instead of pushing foward. If you respond defensively, you should find that you can outnumber them locally -- and only counterpush in areas where they are weak or you have had strong success. As for the chariots, they can dish it out, but they certainly can't take it -- put your infantry against them and watch them fold quickly.

Good luck!
Deride

(in reply to offbase)

Post #: 2

RE: Gaza Scenario -- WINNABLE????!!! - 4/12/2005 8:30:09 AM

offbase

Posts: 29
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline

Thanks for the response, Deride. Sorry for sounding negative on the game, but I'm one of those "historical realism" guys, being an historian and all. Anyhoo, I did try what you said (playing defensively), but the ai got very aggressive, went straight for my center and decimated me. Finally, I tried a "sweep" approach, aggressively pushing (in a somewhat crescent shape "formation", inasmuch as you have time to form anything decent up) down and in toward my own center with the right flank infantry, rolling up the enemy into my cavalry and light infantry, essentially creating a "caldron" which quite realistically allowed me to pick them to pieces. I then snuck some light cavalry along the left flank straight for the flag on their right flank, and while continuing to push them back with heavy losses on my left, that small detachment rode straight up the left side of the map from flag-to-flag, giving me a major victory. I guess persistance pays off (still, only about 12 or so tries, but that's the longest it's EVER taken me to win a scenario in 17 years of wargaming, so it was frustrating. On a sidenote, I believe it was actually the armchair general review, but pretty certain at least the reviewer was from Wargamer. He didn't sound very adept to me, but at least they give "regular guys" a shot at reviewing, which is refreshing!

(in reply to offbase)

Post #: 3

RE: Gaza Scenario -- WINNABLE????!!! - 4/12/2005 11:08:47 PM

offbase

Posts: 29
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: offbase
Well, I read the mag review about the 1st scenario taking 17 turns to win and thought he was nuts when it only took me 4 turns to win it,

I hope that is an exaggeration

How Many �Stands� in a Phalanx (continued) (Will Trotter, "The Desktop General", wargamer.com.

"Every gamer has a threshold of tolerance for this kind of sneaky sadism and I confess that mine is very low indeed. I�m not entirely dim when it comes to tactics, and when I consistently come to within one-more-turn of utterly annihilating my foes and seizing all my Objectives, only to have the lights go out every single time, I start to feel robbed. Worse yet, I feel like I�m being forced to wage war against the clock even more than the enemy�s formations. I�ve already said that the AI is tough, but when I came THIS CLOSE to absolute victory no less than sixteen consecutive times, I stopped loving the game and started resenting the amount of time I was wasting trying to get past the first engagement of the campaign! Nor could I just skip a level and come back to it in a refreshed and determined state of mind � the player is locked out of succeeding battles until he aces the one in front of him." (My emphasis added.) No exaggeration!

(in reply to Deride)

Post #: 4

RE: Gaza Scenario -- WINNABLE????!!! - 4/12/2005 11:32:12 PM

Deride

Posts: 488
Joined: 6/21/2004
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: offbase
I�ve already said that the AI is tough, but when I came THIS CLOSE to absolute victory no less than sixteen consecutive times, I stopped loving the game and started resenting the amount of time I was wasting trying to get past the first engagement of the campaign!

I don't think it is my place to respond directly to a reviewer, so I'm going to side-step that. However, I would like to clarify decisions that we made about the game, especially in regards to turns, etc.

When designing a game, you need to make it sufficiently difficult to win so that victory feels good. At the same time, you need to make sure the you don't make it too hard or players will feel frustrated. We did a couple of things in TS:ATG to address these issues:

First, we spent a lot of time beta testing the game to make sure that our testers believed the game was balanced. Overall, we made changes to setup, victory requirements, turns, etc. to meet the needs of a varied player base. (For example, following beta, we completely overhauled the Indian map as well as the effects of elephants.)

Second, we put in objectives that help push the player towards playing each scenario in a certain way. If you follow those hints, you will likely do well. If you ignore them, good luck -- you might out-fox the level or die trying.

Third, we created "minor victories" and "major victories." Winning does not mean "major victory" on each map. As a matter of fact, we assumed "minor victories" for players and actually penalize the player after a "major victory" to keep the game adjusting to your skill level. I think it is a misconception from some players (and reviewers) that a major victory rewards you better -- it doesn't. We thought major victories were more intended for replay than anything else.

Fourth, we made sure that the AI was not overly disadvantaged by the player having better forces, known objectives and unlimited time to win the map. There were two major strategies that we wanted the AI to defeat easily: 1) bull rushing (which would have killed Alexander in real life as well) and 2) war of attrition. Without much help on our end, the AI can defend against bull rushes fairly easily by taking tactical advantage of the player and pulling in help as needed. The war of attrition, on the other hand, was harder to beat -- so we put in turn limits.

Again, following testing with a large group of beta players as well as interally running through the levels, we felt that turns were never the limiting factor in achieving victory. Perhaps limiting you from major victory -- but that is a reward for doing more than just beating the scenario.

Deride

(in reply to offbase)

Post #: 5

RE: Gaza Scenario -- WINNABLE????!!! - 4/15/2005 1:58:52 AM

HobbesACW

Posts: 419
Joined: 2/20/2004
From: UK
Status: offline

and actually penalize the player after a "major victory"

Not sure I like the sound of that! I'm actually better off going for a minor then - bizarre

(in reply to Deride)

Post #: 6

RE: Gaza Scenario -- WINNABLE????!!! - 4/15/2005 2:07:41 AM

Deride

Posts: 488
Joined: 6/21/2004
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hobbes
and actually penalize the player after a "major victory"

Not sure I like the sound of that! I'm actually better off going for a minor then - bizarre

Perhaps I should clarify. At the end of the battle, the game decides how much money to give you. This number is based on money to replenish your army. If you have a major victory, you likely don't need as much money to replenish your army. So, you don't get as much.

There is not an explicit penalty (e.g., if you win, subtract some amount of money from the treasury). But, we worked hard to make sure that the campaign helped to balance you back to the same point regardless of having a major or minor victory.

Deride

(in reply to HobbesACW)

Post #: 7