|
Bivoj_MatrixForum -> Victory conditions (12/14/2010 10:30:08 AM)
|
It is strange, that game simulating 18th century warfare somehow has "territorial" objectives and victory conditions are bound to holding specific "hexes" on map. Conquering land is important in warfare, where two continuous lines of soldiers are established, i.e. ww1 and ww2. Capturing key hill or crossroad give sense in ww2, but in 18th century, it is nonsense. Battles in 18th ct. were fought in places, where 2 armies crossed their roads and accepted battle. Territorial advantages like hills, streams (Pratze hill and Goldbach stream in Battle of Austerlitz, for example), villages, solid building complexes (3 solid farms near Waterloo), etc. had tactical importance, but were strategically useless.
I.e.: Pratze Hill (or Santon) was important 2.12.1805, giving some natural advantage for defender, but 30.11. or 4.12.1805 it was useless hill like any other hill in Moravia. Conquering Pratze hill (or defending Santon), while letting Russo-Austrian army intact, had 0 importance for Napoleon. The battle would have been fought elsewhere on different streams, hills or buildings.
My point is - battle in 18. century is won by defeating enemy army, making it rout or withdraw from battlefield with severe causalities, not by taking/holding "key hexes".
For me, I ignore "official" victory conditions and I try to inflict more causalities and rout enemy army, while safe lives and "morale sanity" of my soldiers. Proper victory conditions would be:
- victory points for enemy causalities
- victory points for enemy units with morale 0 at the end of the battle
- victory points for enemy units with morale below 20 at the end of the battle
The better enemy unit, the more victory points.
0 points for the attacker = defender wins (so, attacker is forced to inflict some causalities to win).
|
|
|
|
