| Author |
Message |
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Skirmishers |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:30 pm
|
|
Replies: 9
Views: 9081
|
| Very valid point about cavalry riding down skirmishers. But I'd never imagined having lots of skirmishers for this engine, just the ability to create some. Ideally, it would be best if skirmisher subunits were just an extension of the parent unit - eg. only able to move 1 hex to the front or flanks ... |
|
 |
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Skirmishers |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:24 am
|
|
Replies: 9
Views: 9081
|
| On the subject of detachable skirmishers, the Nappy engine has the following: 1./ Independent "S" skirmisher units (ie. with no parent body) 2./ Light (and also guard) infantry that can break down completely into skirmisher companies 3./ Line infantry that can deploy a single skirmisher sub-unit 4./... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: No elimination Rule |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:20 am
|
|
Replies: 32
Views: 26475
|
| On the subject of detachable skirmishers, the Nappy engine has the following: 1./ Independent "S" skirmisher units (ie. with no parent body) 2./ Light (and also guard) infantry that can break down completely into skirmisher companies 3./ Line infantry that can deploy a single skirmisher sub-unit 4./... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: No elimination Rule |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:54 am
|
|
Replies: 32
Views: 26475
|
| It's certainly not so important to get this feature for the ACW series as it was for the Nappy series, but I'd suggest including it as an optional rule. NB: While it's potentially useful for the ACW engine, I'd rather see Nappy style detachable skirmishers and the cavalry breakdown / recombine featu... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Anyone else have HPS Nappy envy? |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:08 pm
|
|
Replies: 22
Views: 19932
|
Unfortunately not. A real pity, as I'm sure I'd have had a great time.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rich Walker
Will you be there? |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Anyone else have HPS Nappy envy? |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:47 am
|
|
Replies: 22
Views: 19932
|
| I don't have HPS Nappy envy and enjoy the various series regardless of their differences. But I do feel that there are features in the various series that could usefully be ported over into other series. (So I'm glad that the Nappy engine now has supply points and abattis/trenches and that the ACW s... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Spiking Guns |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:35 pm
|
|
Replies: 63
Views: 48240
|
| I suspect calculating stacking mid-turn would be more complex than micromanaging gun crews and horses. There's always the issue of balancing playability and realism. To some extent, it depends on the players and the scenario. Some players like micromanaging every gun and horse, whereas others don't ... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Spiking Guns |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:40 am
|
|
Replies: 63
Views: 48240
|
| Eventually we might perhaps have the following represented: 1. Gun crew 2. Horses 3. Artillery ammo wagons, ideally per calibre type. An unlimbered battery would allow the horses to retreat to the rear, ie. into another hex. Losing the horses will make the battery unable to limber up, so it'll only ... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Spiking Guns |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:54 am
|
|
Replies: 63
Views: 48240
|
| Quote: <i>Does anybody know of accounts of guns captured and then recaptured and put back into service during the same battle?....</i> ................. I'm sure there are both ACW and Nappy incidents of this occurring, but the example that immediately comes to mind is Inkermann. At Inkermann, guns ... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Spiking Guns |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:53 am
|
|
Replies: 63
Views: 48240
|
| I totally agree with Bill about no spiking in the same turn as the guns are captured. I also feel that gun spiking shouldn't be automatic at 100%. Maybe the probability should be only 25% on turn 2 and then 50% thereafter if any enemy within 5 hexes and LOS, or 75% if no visible enemy within that di... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: HPS engine enhancements |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:22 am
|
|
Replies: 91
Views: 87978
|
| <b>Pre-plotted melees resolved at the end of the turn</b> sounds a good idea (at least until the game engine gets preplotted simultaneous turns). In addition, it seems logical to allow any defending units that haven't already fired to do so <i>automatically and at 100% effectiveness</i> just before ... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: HPS engine enhancements |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:10 am
|
|
Replies: 91
Views: 87978
|
| quote <i>Let's get rid of the 1/2 "movement" penalty caused by Disruption.</i> .................... I agree totally. Reduced movement rate only results in disrupted defenders being unable to retreat fast enough to avoid capture. The Nap engine now has 2/3 movement rate for disrupted units, but even ... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: HPS engine enhancements |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:05 am
|
|
Replies: 91
Views: 87978
|
| None of these features would probably be at the top of my wish list (see my comments in several recent posts), although the first four of these would certainly all be useful additions. Anyway, this is the order I'd put them in: 4 - especially useful for the longer scenarios 1 2 - would need to be op... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Is Cavalry too weak? |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:51 am
|
|
Replies: 1
Views: 2926
|
| Is, cavalry (especially Rebel cavalry armed with pistols) rather too ineffective with the current state of the game engine? Is cavalry capable of performing its historical battlefield role adequately? Of course no one can deny it has one advantage - increased mobility - but perhaps this is more than... |
|
|
Forum: Mason Dixon Tavern Topic: Scouting question/opinions |
| Richard |
|
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:51 pm
|
|
Replies: 24
Views: 21058
|
| Perhaps the best solution might be to replace the traditional turn-based system with a "We-plot, we-go" simultaneous movement system? That would mean that all units on both sides would effectively move at the same time and thus make it impossible for units that hadn't moved to take advantage of info... |
|
|
| Sort by: |
ACWGC 
ACWGC Memorial
CSA HQ
VMI
Join CSA
Union HQ
Join Union 
Login
FAQ
Search
Members