| Author |
Message |
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Playablility vs. historic accuracy |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 4:25 am
|
|
Replies: 59
Views: 47352
|
| It's clear we could do with an overhaul of artillery - a proper ammo supply system (so if a single gun fires it doesn't use as much ammo as a two/three gun section or even a 6 gun battery), a gun capture/recrew feature and possibly also a chance of guns limbering up prior to melee (if guns are melee... |
|
 |
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Playablility vs. historic accuracy |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:57 am
|
|
Replies: 59
Views: 47352
|
| On the subject of column & mounted (eg. pistol, shotgun) firing, this should be a possibility worth considering, since it's already in the Nappy engine. Same for cavalry breaking down into squadrons. But I agree, there's probably no way that different artillery types could be combined into a battery... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Playablility vs. historic accuracy |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:48 am
|
|
Replies: 59
Views: 47352
|
| It's certainly best to have batteries split into gun sections - it's more historically accurate allowing representation of each gun type, and also permitting different sections to point in different directions. Besides it helps to clog up roads, especially along forest trails (perhaps supply wagons ... |
|
|
Forum: Old Opponent finder Topic: 1st HACW - Registration |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:38 am
|
|
Replies: 185
Views: 152028
|
Lt.Col. Lajoie,
Please sign me up for the Apache Canyon (Glorietta Pass) scenario.
Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV
(email fow65@yahoo.co.uk) |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Shiloh - Boats |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:39 am
|
|
Replies: 12
Views: 10200
|
So "boats" (like points for supply wagons) have now been ported over from the EAW engine - great!
Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Ground Scale in HPS Campaign Games? |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:37 am
|
|
Replies: 3
Views: 4704
|
The only exception I know of is my company level scenarios for Big Bethel & Blackburn Ford (for the Corinth engine), which have a ground scale of approx. 40yds per hex (ie. I've used the same scale as for the EAW series)
Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Jess Norris HPS System? |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:28 pm
|
|
Replies: 20
Views: 17837
|
| The game scale itself is part of the problem, but unfortunately a smaller scale (eg. company level with 5 minute turns like the EAW series) would be quite impractical for a full scale battle. For even greater realism, it would perhaps be better to reduce the scale to company level and use just 1 min... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Jess Norris HPS System? |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:51 pm
|
|
Replies: 20
Views: 17837
|
| If firepower should be restricted to 400 men, wouldn't it be better if max. stacking should be 400 (or at most 500, permitting firepower up to that level) rather than 800? Remember, multiple units will still be able to move <i>through</i> the same hex during the same turn, even if not simultaneously... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Jess Norris HPS System? |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:54 am
|
|
Replies: 20
Views: 17837
|
| It shouldn't be the number of lines that should matter, but the number of <i>men</i>. Otherwise it's possible to have absurd extremes such as a single unit of 1200 men <i>can</i> fire ... ... but (with the Nappy engine) three or four units of 200 men can't, or if they can they're penalized in a vari... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: For the Particularly Mad Among You... |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:24 am
|
|
Replies: 7
Views: 7208
|
| Sean, Glad you're enjoying Big Bethel - there are also some company level scenarios for Blackburn Ford. Gettysburg <i>could</i> be handled in the same way, but representing the entire battle at this scale would be massive and might cause the players' brains to explode! Suitable for multiplayer or th... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Action point system? |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:25 am
|
|
Replies: 25
Views: 20726
|
| Bill, I like your idea about the possibility of coordinated and uncoordinated Melees - so would the uncoordinated melees end up as two or more separate melees? This would certainly be possible with an action point system, but more awkward to achieve with the current ACW/EAW engine where multiple mel... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Turn -vs- Phase Play (Which do you prefer?) |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:21 am
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 16521
|
| Al, It's far more than just the inability to move after firing. It's the fact that an <i>action point </i>system linking movement, firing & melee would be far more flexible - and logical - than a "Blitzkrieger" system which permits full movement plus offensive firing plus melee. Unfortunately, it do... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Turn -vs- Phase Play (Which do you prefer?) |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:29 pm
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 16521
|
| I agree. Initially the single phase system seemed a real improvement ... until everyone realized just how ineffective and unreliable the defensive fire was. This is a real pity, since it makes it hard to play a decent game in single phase mode. This is the main reason why I tried creating a few comp... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Turn -vs- Phase Play (Which do you prefer?) |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:06 pm
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 16521
|
| Both have good points and bad points, although neither is perfect. As Bill points out, perhaps multiphase mode with ADF added in as well would be best. Better still, add in the action point system from the Panzer series. Best of all, exchange turn based for a "We-Plot, We-Go" simultaneous movement s... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Action point system? |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 6:57 am
|
|
Replies: 25
Views: 20726
|
| I think in the Panzer Campaigns it's possible for some units (maybe tanks, not infantry) to attack more than once, so maybe if the action point system were carried over, mounted cavalry would be able to attack several times, eg if chasing down routers or overrunning guns. Due to the hex size (and th... |
|
|
| Sort by: |
ACWGC 
ACWGC Memorial
CSA HQ
VMI
Join CSA
Union HQ
Join Union 
Login
FAQ
Search
Members