Victory conditions - Omdurman
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:11 pm
Hi, I've recently played a couple of different opponents at this scenario, and it's obvious that I didn't make the victory conditions clear for the Anglo-Egyptian player. It does say in the briefing for Kitchener that ...'you have decided that you must move out and defeat the Dervishes in the open field'., and also 'if you do not defeat the Dervishes within 25 turns this will be considered as a strategic defeat'.
The intention of this - and it's how the result will read if the game goes to 25 turns - is that the Anglo-Egyptians must do the attacking: if they sit in their defenses, and the Dervishes sit in their hills then (i) the Dervishes will be considered to have won, and (ii) you will have an extremely boring game.
This is how the battle was fought historically: after their initial charge and consequent massacre the Dervishes drew back out of fire range and wondered what to do. Kitchener was afraid that they would withdraw into Omdurman, in whose narrow streets the Dervishes' close combat tactics would be at a premium over his massed rifle fire. So, and it was considered a gamble, he ordered the Anglo-Egyptian battalions to move out and engage the enemy in the open.
This doesn't make the scenario as hard as it might sound: although the player will need to manage the positioning of his units carefully (and isn't his what makes a challenging game?) coming out from the camp will enable him to make maximum use of his firepower, whereas sitting in the camp means that the dozen or so units that aren't on the perimeter can't fire.
With the much longer rifle (as opposed to musket) range, and the large number of artillery pieces, the Dervishes will eventually be forced to advance or be shot to pieces, so it isn't an option for them to just hover on the edge of the field.
Of course I'm pleased that anyone's even trying this scenario, and you can use whichever victory conditions you like, but I thought it was worth clarifying my intention.
Cheers
The intention of this - and it's how the result will read if the game goes to 25 turns - is that the Anglo-Egyptians must do the attacking: if they sit in their defenses, and the Dervishes sit in their hills then (i) the Dervishes will be considered to have won, and (ii) you will have an extremely boring game.
This is how the battle was fought historically: after their initial charge and consequent massacre the Dervishes drew back out of fire range and wondered what to do. Kitchener was afraid that they would withdraw into Omdurman, in whose narrow streets the Dervishes' close combat tactics would be at a premium over his massed rifle fire. So, and it was considered a gamble, he ordered the Anglo-Egyptian battalions to move out and engage the enemy in the open.
This doesn't make the scenario as hard as it might sound: although the player will need to manage the positioning of his units carefully (and isn't his what makes a challenging game?) coming out from the camp will enable him to make maximum use of his firepower, whereas sitting in the camp means that the dozen or so units that aren't on the perimeter can't fire.
With the much longer rifle (as opposed to musket) range, and the large number of artillery pieces, the Dervishes will eventually be forced to advance or be shot to pieces, so it isn't an option for them to just hover on the edge of the field.
Of course I'm pleased that anyone's even trying this scenario, and you can use whichever victory conditions you like, but I thought it was worth clarifying my intention.
Cheers