Matrix Games Forums

Just some thoughts on the scenario victory conditions.

In the Thebes battle especially I can see having the battle end once the gate flag is taken.

In an open field battle where defeating the opposing army is the historical objective, I am puzzled that the battle ends once the ojbective flags are taken and the enemy army has not been broken.

Of course if the enemy general is slain/routed then I would think the morale of the army would have a major hit towards reaching its breakpoint, maybe all units automatically take some sort of reduction in morale.

Similarly if the /baggage camp/supply line/escape route/etc is threatened then I can see where the enemy army might be more likely to break. But ending an open field battle by gaining objectives seems 'not right' when the defeat of the enemy army (breaking) would seem to be the objective.

Ending a battle in that way may be fine for one-off battles, some folks may be bored by having to 'mop up' the battlefield once ht enemy is defeated, but in a campaign you have things to lose and gain by pursuing the broken army, and there have been occassions where victories were lost when the pursuees rallied and counterattacked the disorganized pursuers.

If the enemy army morale was dropped once the final objective was reached, instead of the game ending, you could give a player the option of pursuing the enemy forces or not. In a campaign this would force a player to weigh the possibilities of his troops gaining in quality/experience and reducing the quality or use of troops/commanders in the next battle against the possibility of losing the same.

In any case I will be buying more Tin Soldiers titles as they are released. Thanks for a great game.

Turtle,

ORIGINAL: A_Turtle
In an open field battle where defeating the opposing army is the historical objective, I am puzzled that the battle ends once the ojbective flags are taken and the enemy army has not been broken.

The objectives tend to reflect Alexander's historical path and grasp of how to break an enemy without necessarily killing the majority of their army. In many cases, this still involved destroying a significant part of the enemy's army, which is often required to have a chance of getting the objectives. In some scenarios it's easier to get the objectives, in others it's easier to break the army. Either way, assume that getting the objectives sets into motion the historical chain of events and leads to victory along that path.

If the enemy army morale was dropped once the final objective was reached, instead of the game ending, you could give a player the option of pursuing the enemy forces or not. In a campaign this would force a player to weigh the possibilities of his troops gaining in quality/experience and reducing the quality or use of troops/commanders in the next battle against the possibility of losing the same.

I understand what you mean and that's a good idea, perhaps for an optional way of dealing with objectives (soft rather than hard). A lot of things are in the works for the next game in the series which should make all Tin Soldiers fans quite happy.

In any case I will be buying more Tin Soldiers titles as they are released. Thanks for a great game.

Thank you for your support of Matrix and Koios and for your feedback.

Regards,

- Erik