On strategy games...

@jshm2 Well I certainly appreciate your honesty. But I'll explain things a little better.

There were multiple armies on the board, not just my main force, which was occupied elsewhere. Come to think of it, almost all units were engaged. So a chance of a rear attack was nil-to-none.

Now then! The reason this whole post came to be was because of a discussion I had with him, a theoretical one, upon taking that hill. I told him that I would have surrounded it and waited for his supplies to dwindle. With no one else around to relieve him, he would have had 2 choices: attack me out of desperation, which would mean charging my already-defensible lines, which I would have been working on while he was up there trying to figure out what I'm goiing to do, or surrender after his men succumb to thirst and starvation.

There is one other thing to look at, and I haven't fully factored that in. How desperate men can be once you take away their only means of escape. They may charge down and break through out of sheer desperation, or they may sit up there. It all depends on the commander's ability to keep them together.

@pianoplayingsteve I play Total War, but our game of choice was the board game Gettysburg. Points for defense are given for holding a hill during an attack.

@TheLordOfHell *googles it* looks like my sort of thing. Love board games, especially war games. It looks like it’s hiding quite a few mechanics on a very simple looking aesthetic?

@pianoplayingsteve The game is so simple to learn, yet it takes forever to master. It is one of my favorites! If you like war games, I recommend Washington's War as well