Matrix Games Forums

I ask because of another apparently weird result. A badly battered Union army in Manassas 2 player, having suffered considerable surrender losses finally dropped below its morale threshold with his opponent well above 2.0 morale. Instead of a CSA victory a Draw was announced. I have assumed that VPs play no part in a morale ending but here the Union was occupying most of his and the CSA none, as he was going for a decisive ie morale outcome, so don't know if this was a factor. Hopefully the multiplayer patch will sort this when released.

when no advantage is gained for either side?

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Instead of a CSA victory a Draw was announced.

[:'(]

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

I ask because of another apparently weird result. A badly battered Union army in Manassas 2 player, having suffered considerable surrender losses finally dropped below its morale threshold with his opponent well above 2.0 morale. Instead of a CSA victory a Draw was announced. I have assumed that VPs play no part in a morale ending but here the Union was occupying most of his and the CSA none, as he was going for a decisive ie morale outcome, so don't know if this was a factor. Hopefully the multiplayer patch will sort this when released.

Perhaps, the game only reflects with uncanny accuracy just how the Union won the war in the first place - by stacking the deck with Union sympathetic game designers? [8D] NO. Just kidding. Seriously, only a spokesperson for the game design might be able to explain what sounds to be an unusual (unexpected) outcome anomaly. As for Yogi The Great, his legend only grows (assuming he was your pbem opponent in this instance) as he yet manages to eek out a bloody draw in the bloody face of otherwise certain bloody defeat.

ORIGINAL: shoelessbivouac

As for Yogi The Great, his legend only grows (assuming he was your pbem opponent in this instance) as he yet manages to eek out a bloody draw in the bloody face of otherwise certain bloody defeat.

Let's not use the truth to cloud the official result. [;)]

This is working as designed -- if you don't control any VPs, the best you can do is a tie. The side that breaks morale gets 0 points, but if the other side also has zero, then tie.

Thanks for the clarification. Clearly I'll have to amend my throw everything in including the kitchen sink approach and sideline a few units to hold VPs.

That's the idea! (And in the OOB's we do provide a number of small units that aren't great at combat on the front line, but are large enough to secure a key point behind the lines.)

+1 for the design rules reminder, Gil.

However, this will in no way alter Yogi The Great's now supremely legendary command status on the bloody field of battle, who reprogrammed his Kobiashu Maru, no win scenario into an otherwise brilliantly and morally victorious draw!

Hey, Captain Kirk beat the program as well! [;)]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

That's the idea! (And in the OOB's we do provide a number of small units that aren't great at combat on the front line, but are large enough to secure a key point behind the lines.)

Actually the Rebel side has enough small units to occupy VP hexes. The Union has no small units. Best they can do is split some of their poorer quality regiments and send them off for guard duty.

Also, needed in the game is some factoring in to make a unit want to stay on a VP hex if it is placed there and isn't given move orders. I have noticed even some of the units you can't issue orders too up and move off the VP hex on their own. All units seem to have some random tendency to move a hex or two from their positions without orders. This can be a serious problem if it occurs on the last turn making you lose a VP hex or two.

I noticed that too in my last game where I was actually taking care to position CSA cavalry at distant VPs from the front. I had to reposition one twice when it repeated a one hex side shuffle.

If game design permitted - which it currently does not - the optional detachment of independent and assignment of a limited number of units - i.e., no more than one independent command detachment per division - then this would offer one solution to ensuring the garrisoning of VP hexes without units unexpectedly wandering off to go bird watching or pick flowers.

Then again, perhaps, Gil intended all along that unit(s) which begin a scenario with independent command status be used mainly for the purpose of garrisoning VP hexes?

OTOH, I assumed individual OOC units would freeze in place - prove unable to move until placed back in command. It's not clear as to why this is not precisely the case in the two examples cited above by other BAB players.

shoelessbivouac,
Eric and I have discussed the possibility of adding a feature that lets one do something like what you describe, but it's not easy. It might get done for BAB#3 or a subsequent release -- it's always been our intention to add new features to each release.

As for units that start a scenario able to remain out-of-command, my only criteria are whether they historically begin very far from their brigade (or whatever) and had some task that required this, such as a regiment guarding one of the fords at Bull Run.