Pocus wrote:The initial change was to have a force stays in a region if ordered to retreat but without an enemy in offensive posture in same region. It seemingly made sense when done
Then it revealed something: that the 'get 5% rule' was not working that well and was probably bugged. After some errand, the 5% MC rule was fixed. I also checked the 'get % MC rule' and it was still an old code where you would get 1% each time your killed an unit! So I reduced the difficulty by changing that to 'each time you kill an element'. I agree that this is still too timid though. I would like to do something simple, perhaps gain 5% for each morale point won in the victory...
Captain_Orso wrote:If there is no fighting, there is no change in MC.
Captain_Orso wrote:If there is no fighting, there is no change in MC.
I keep trying to reconcile any possible solution with historic results. What is difficult is to find any meeting of forces within one area, which lasted longer than a 15 day/1 turn period. Nearly all battles were fought within a couple of days or less, with one force then leaving the area.
The only exceptions I can think of are sieges.
Keeler wrote:Stretches of the Overland Campaign, in particular Spotsylvania, provide an example of turn-length engagement... but Spotsylvania could also be argued to be the exception which proves the rule that this did not happen regularly during the Civil War.
The +1 MC control per element killed does seem harsh. One idea that occurred to me was tying some amount of bonus MC control to the number of enemy elements routed. This happens more frequently than elements being killed and could be construed as simulating an opponent's post-battle disorder and subsequent lack of ability to exert its will a region.
Gray Fox wrote:If I have 10k soldiers to defend 10k square miles of terrain, I don't stick one soldier on every square mile. This is not what 100% MC should mean. I have control of the major road intersections, the high ground, the river crossings and the major structures. I don't occupy every square foot of terrain, I control it. When you march into the region, you must wrest this control from me in battle. If you fail to do this, then I still should have 100% MC. I would still control all of the meaingful terrain and you would control none of it. You lost. I control the oasis and you sit in the desert. A rabbit with it's head inside the steel jaws of a trap does not control 5% of the trap.
Players fight battles that have a very low probability of victory. They lose the battle and cannot escape. They are trapped and must fight their way out. They didn't have a reserve that can rescue their force and they stubbornly refused to break up the trapped force and escape in small groups. That is why the MC apple cart was tossed over.
Gray Fox wrote:Again, occupying ground does not equal Military Control.
willgamer wrote:The details of what factors increase/decrease MC and under what circumstances a loser in battle must retreat from the region seems to still be a work in progress, but I think the modeling of MC as it currently stands is both reasonable to history and playable as a game.
Pocus wrote:Wait tomorrow, I'll release another beta (full patch, not QF). The difference with the old code, relatively to the fact that now MC don't change much, is due to forces able to stay in region, when no enemy is in offensive. As they don't vacate the ground and stay in defensive, the victor don't gain much MC. Before, any retreat would switch you to passive...
So I'll indeed make so that a defeated side relinquish some significant MC to the victor.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests