Victory conditions

[Bivoj_MatrixForum]

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).

[PrinzHenrich]

Your choose. I always want to destroyed enemy armies till single men
That is not truth that in 18 century battles topographical points haven't matters in the battle.
Exemple Torgau
P.S. Routing units can hold objects points because they are routing. SO rout army=easy geting object points

[Bivoj_MatrixForum]

I agree, that topographical points DOES matter in tactical point of view (=they gived advantage IN battle), but they had no value in strategical context.

If I play ww2 wargame, it could be fight for important crossroads - securing crossroads will grant hypothetical flow of troops AFTER the battle (after the game is finished). So, crossroads hexes are objective hexes.

Even in Torgau, topographical points had 0 value after the battle, so why we fight for them?

But I am OK with the game as is - I'd play it "my way" in single player. I just wanted to share my opinion (ideally to inspire makers of this game for future patch or volume2 and modders:)).

[Javolenus]

I was wondering if, in Volume 2, we could have victory conditions that simulate a successful retreat (for example, by exiting map)?

As for destroying enemies, you can set an army's 'Withdrawal' level in the editor, so you can gain a decisive advantage in this way. For example, you set an army's 'Withdrawal' level at, say, 70% (so they will break after taking 30% casualties) and so now you have set yourself a goal: to inflict 30% casualties or more - then enemy army will break and you should gain a victory. Also, in editor, you can assign points to victory locations - maybe assign low points or remove them altogether? If so, then everything depends on which army will quit first - and that depends on the 'Withdrawal' level as described above.