| Author |
Message |
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: How to Fix Turn Based (Single Phase) |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:57 pm
|
|
Replies: 14
Views: 11787
|
| Jim, you've made some really good points about defensive fire & disruption - these would help a great deal. The only other thing I'd feel would be required is a gun capture/recapture feature - more so that the defender has a chance to recapture them than for the attacker to seize the guns and then t... |
|
 |
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: How to Fix Turn Based (Single Phase) |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:31 am
|
|
Replies: 14
Views: 11787
|
| Strange that an action point system would <i>reduce</i> panzer tactics, yet this is what the WW2 engine has and the pre-1900 engine doesn't have. I'd really like to see an action point system for the ACW, EAW & Nappy series. It makes a lot of sense to link movement, firing & melee into a single syst... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Cavalry |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:20 am
|
|
Replies: 7
Views: 6970
|
| I think it might be more convenient to increase the inherent strength of artillery, although perhaps allowing most infantry to detach a single company might be useful (it's possible with the Nappy engine), either as a detached guard or in loose formation to skirmish ahead to the edge of woods. LOS i... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: How to Fix Turn Based (Single Phase) |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:50 am
|
|
Replies: 14
Views: 11787
|
| Sounds good, especially a two phase system with a separate melee phase. Also, the point that all defenders should get a chance to fire at least once. Maybe <i>all</i> defensive fire should be at full strength, but don't have freebie long range opportunity fire - I think the range at which a unit fir... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Cavalry |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:37 am
|
|
Replies: 7
Views: 6970
|
| Well, we could certainly do with "weather" (and limited visibility) being carried over from the Nappy engine. Normal day visibility is 40 hexes, not 70 as in the ACW engine (which is far too high), and that can easily be reduced in the pdt as required. A more sophisticated LOS system would also be a... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Cavalry |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:28 am
|
|
Replies: 7
Views: 6970
|
| Good observation about 4# - I'll change this. |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Cavalry |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:14 pm
|
|
Replies: 7
Views: 6970
|
| Looks like I've started up a new thread on cavalry[:D] The ability for cavalry regiments to detach sub-units and recombine (like in the Nappy engine) certainly makes sense, particularly with the fixed OOB that prevents players breaking cavalry down themselves. Otherwise, a scenario either has large ... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Engine upgrades prioritized |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:17 pm
|
|
Replies: 71
Views: 63654
|
| Oh, if there's any possibility of an <b>action point system</b> that would be great! (Unfortunately, I've already voted, otherwise this would be either 1st or 2nd on my list, even if that meant pushing the artillery supply wagons - something I've been wishing to see for years now - down into 4th pla... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Single vs Multi phase |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:15 pm
|
|
Replies: 12
Views: 11187
|
| The single phase system <i>ought</i> to be the standard system, yet I find more and more players - especially experienced players - moving back to the old multiphase system of the Battleground games. The fact that this is happening indicates that the single phase system needs some modifications to r... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Engine upgrades prioritized |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:22 am
|
|
Replies: 71
Views: 63654
|
| Is that 3 altogether, or 3 each for artillery, infantry & cavalry?[:D] For me, it's almost certainly the following: 1./ <b>Arty capture/recapture</b> - this would solve a number of related gaming issues, so is far and away my top choice. (I'd be glad to discuss this topic in more detail by email if ... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Playablility vs. historic accuracy |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:05 am
|
|
Replies: 59
Views: 47279
|
| What we really need is a proper artillery supply system - ie. wagons that can move about, need to be within a certain distance of a battery to resupply it and can also get captured, just like small arms supply wagons. Another extremely useful feature would be to code artillery as "wagons" as far as ... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Getting Frustrated with HPS tactics |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:48 am
|
|
Replies: 76
Views: 63449
|
| An action point system (like the WW2 series) might be the best solution to a weak defence. See my last post at the topic <i>1/2 Defence - Full Offence - Right - Wrong?</i> With the current system, an attacking unit can use up its full movement allowance, then fire and then melee too! But with an act... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Paging Rich White |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:31 am
|
|
Replies: 2
Views: 3980
|
| Brett, I tried sending you an email last week, but maybe I didn't send it to the correct email address, as I replied directly to your automated system email. I've now resent it to b_schulte69@hotmail.com Could you let me know if that's not your current email. I'd be glad to guest blog at your ACW ga... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: 1/2 Defence - Full Offence - Right - Wrong? |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:27 pm
|
|
Replies: 5
Views: 6079
|
| I agree that defensive fire is too random and ineffective - this results in the attacker having greater firepower and allows him to move into contact & melee with only a small risk of getting disrupted or suffering significant losses. So, basically the advantage lies squarely with the attacker, whic... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Getting Frustrated with HPS tactics |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:44 pm
|
|
Replies: 76
Views: 63449
|
| Yes, it's certainly good to see engine changes in Shiloh that are addressing the issue of weak artillery. Perhaps with the addition of one or two new features and it'll be even better. But, I agree, progress is certainly being made, which is encouraging. Any chance of revealing what the "additional ... |
|
|
| Sort by: |
ACWGC 
ACWGC Memorial
CSA HQ
VMI
Join CSA
Union HQ
Join Union 
Login
FAQ
Search
Members