Minister X wrote:First the easy reply - regarding the impassaables: I originally had none but someone made the good point that a few would help. I chose the Roundtops one not because the line couldn't be crossed, but because in the historic battle the failure to take the Round Tops was critical and well-known. The impassable is designed to mimic history: make the taking of the RTs from the west impossible. I know that in the real battle it was an extremely close-run thing, but the ultimate failure is what I latched onto. However, my rationale is a bit confusing, weak, and inconsistent. All that's important from a gameplay standpoint is that a decent number of impassables get into the mix so as to break up the action on the map into sectors. I am entirely at your beck and call should you wish to suggest a set of impassables that will do the job and have a lot more historic/geographic rationale than mine. PLEASE suggest a full set.
As for the centrality of the town. It seems likely to me that you failed to read the designers notes in the first post. Everything you say is true, but relevant much more to battlefield strategy/tactics than to campaign strategy. Why did Lee invade Pennsylvania? By strategically threatening critical northern cities he opened up two possibilities: 1) occupy one of them and make the North sue for peace due to popular outcry against the war given the south's marshal skill, or 2) by threatening #1 bring the Army of the Potomac into battle under advantageous conditions and deliver such a beating that #1 then becomes a foregone conclusion. Now which would Lee have preferred? I think it was #1, but Gettysburg turned into #2. Still, as a matter of campaign strategy, he just wanted to create a line of supply to a major city - to go through Gettysburg. The fact that he owned all those things on day three was irrelevant to the campaign-level strategy because the Union was in position to immediately cut his supply line if he had disengaged and tried to move east from Gettysburg.
As for the high ground being so much more important than the town - part of the reason the Union generals avoided the town is to avoid the spectacle of a northern city being utterly ruined in battle. I know this can't count for much, but I used to play the SPI hex grid and cardboard squares "Cemetery Hill" of the "Blue and Gray" series a bunch, and very often the city was the center of action. Still, that's battlefield tactics and my idea is to ignore that and have the game reflect grand strategy more than division-level battle. Besides, how can you hope to simulate the latter in a CC-type game? Even in a two-player game there are no rational battle lines at the start.
Do you see why I went the way I did and why your entirely accurate comments aren't relevant to this particular game?
OR... is it the case that any game titled "Gattysburg" and using this bit of geography had better mimic the battle, period. That no one will recognize or care about my grand-strategy concept; that I'd need an essay on the map to explain it, and that therefore the entire basis for this particular design is misguided?
I fear the latter may be true.
MarshalNey wrote:Now, before I say anything further, let me acknowledge that fudging historical details in order to accomodate gameplay is not only accepted, but expected in CC maps. So don't take my post as a cry for an exact replica of the battle by any means. My map concept, for instance, is aimed at a detailed concept (and a complex map) and yet many terrain features were distorted/rotated and a few troop locations guessed at in order to satisfy gameplay. This map is far simpler and that's a strength, I think, but I also think that history can be accomodated without ruining the gameplay framework.
MarshalNey wrote:...both armies basically ignored the town.
isaiah40 wrote:Okay this has a good draft, and the issue of impassables etc can be taken care of during gameplay discussion. So I deem this stamped!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest