American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

A PDT file change can break the Blitz down the road problem.

Set the pdt file so that units moving on road can move 3 mph. Then set the pdt file so that movement in line/column in OPEN hex is for the Quick Ster cadence.

The overall effect will be units moving on the road in OPEN will move slower than units moving in OPEN hexes. This would be a good way to model the 'route step' a slower pace armies used when marching on a daily basis.

I haven't done the math yet for this scale, but in the EAW scale it works out that a unit in column can march down a road at 8 hexes a turn while cross-country in the OPEN it is 12 hexes.

The standard of having road movement faster for infantry is a carry-over from WWII games where units will travel faster on road due to the attached vehicles. In the days of walking everywhere, this would not be the case.

Roads would make obstructed terrain (woods, marshes,etc) passable at a more reasonable rate, but would not speed up marching men, especially since they habitually marched alongside the road.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i>
I don't know what a pass through rule is, but Rich Walker just introduced a density rule to Shiloh.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Eh? How so?

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
AoS

Gen Mallory and Mihalik, the Whitworth is listed under the W code in the PDT, I found it in both Gettysburg and Penninsula pdt's. Appears to have slightly different values.

Penn
W 2 0 14 3 21 2 28 1 35 .5 70 .25 -1
Getty
W 2 0 14 3 21 2 28 .75 35 .25 70 .2 -1

By the way for my MP game I reduced its range to
W 2 0 14 3 21 2 27 1 -1

27 hexes is about 3400 yards or nearly 2 miles, the listed range of 70 hexes would be over 4 miles. Sounds like some awful long range shooting to me.

By the way the density modifier was brought up at Tiller Con by several people, myself included, the selling point being they had one in the Nappy games. Haven't had a chance to try it yet but at 2/3 the stacking limit combined with the guaranteed fire before melee option it might give the guns a chance to defend themselves against those large stacks.

Lt.Gen.Ken Miller
Veteran's Divsion
VIII / AoS

Dierk,

New patch for Shiloh has density modifier. See Rich W's thread about patch on Shiloh he has pasted the txt file sliting the changes. It's the last on the list.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

Hi, Ken,

Thanks for the Whitworth info. I was looking in parameter data for the
July 1-3 scenario and it wasn't there. When it comes to anything more
complicated than the online documentation, I confess to being basically illiterate.



MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by krmiller</i>

27 hexes is about 3400 yards or nearly 2 miles, the listed range of 70 hexes would be over 4 miles. Sounds like some awful long range shooting to me.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I read this and wondered . . . "hadn't I read something about the Whitworth's range before?" . . . .

A quick search - I didn't find the Site I was looking for but . . . .

" Whitworth rifled guns in the United States during the American Civil War. During a test trial in Southport Sands, England, in 1863, a 12-pounder breech-loading Whitworth rifle hit a target from 4.7 miles away." http://www.civilwarartillery.com/invent ... tworth.htm

I just thought I'd throw that li'll nugget into the Crossfire! [:p] [:D][:D]


Colonel Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Commanding
II Corps,
Army of Georgia.
"Spartan Southrons"
C.S.A.

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />I do not like multi-phase only because of when you can change formation. Having to do it up front is a crock, with no logical explanation. Change that, then I could see multi-phase having the advantage, until then single phase turns with historical play is the way to go.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would think that requiring infantry to change from line to column before they moved is much more realistic of CW tactics than the opposite, moving up close to the enemy then deploying into line while supposedly under fire (if the idiot AI bothers[:)]). While Napoleonic tactics did use the approach in column and then deploy into line this was due to the short range of musket fire allowed it, unless you miss timed it, D'Erlon's attack).

BG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

Kennon,

What I object to is having to cross a linear obstacle (bridge, defile, exitng the woods by road) and losing 3/4 of your turn because you can't then ploy into line.

I don't purposely ploy into line close up and personal like. I, whenever possible, form my lines outside of 1,000 yards and march forward. This of course is the proper historical tactic for Napoleonics as well.

In regards to d'Erlon, his three divisions did advance with battalions in line. The problem was the divisions then formed up in closed column with brigades in closed column. This resulted in three compact phalanxes approaching one battalion (in line) wide and eight battalions deep at 1/2 interval or closer. Giving the individual battalions no room manuevre if necessary, even too close to be able to form battalion squares.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

"What I object to is having to cross a linear obstacle (bridge, defile, exitng the woods by road) and losing 3/4 of your turn because you can't then ploy into line."

True but no real cure as long as the game engine reduces things down to a simplistic you are in line or road column choice. Using Turn based combined move, fire, melee solves the above problem and introduces a dozen new ones. Maybe one of these patches will give us a new formation like column of companies that can cross a bridge but not have a road bonus.

For that matter I wonder if they could modify how the bridge hex works so its more like a ford. Line could cross it but with severe movement and combat penalties.

BG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

As is usual, you guys are so full of bull that it ain't even funny. I just meleed (Campaign Gettysburg) six times and lost all six. One was 900 C quality troops with a leader meleeing 3** with a leader sitting in woods and my guys were thrown back. Another was 900 A quality troops with a leader meleeing 5** with artillery sitting one elevation up hill behind breastworks and we not only were thrown back but it was a slaughter. I had about 40 melees planned but the other 34 melees were cancelled after that beginning. My impression of the average blokes vision of "balanced" is something that he will win most of the time. If we lose then it's the fault of the game engine or scenario. That means that HPS is unbalanced in favor of the defense; and that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Brig Gen Ned Simms
2/VI/AoS/USA
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.

Ned,

Somewhere in the HPS documanetation, in very fine print, you will see one of the major engine changes is that Ned Simms and Mark Nelms will not be able to win melees.

Talk about your programming sophistication! [:p]

But seriously, I think most of the guys wearing the grey run a coin toss with a "Heads I win, Tail you lose" mentality [:D]

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

I'm glad to see that there has been some response to this topic. But another thing just occured to me. We have discussed the "weakness" of artillery in defence, phased play versus turn based etc. and even the sectional batteries that a lot of players do not like.

Is it not the "combination" of all these subtle, and not so subtle changes that have undermined the defence in the HPS series? What I mean is this: OK! if there were problems with the "opportunity" fire from square one and we now introduce sectional batteries. Doesn't this help the attacker even more? I mean if "opportunity fire" was weak for a six gun battery won't it even be more so from a section of "one gun".

My point being is that with all these changes occurring over different periods of time and introduced into newer modules and then retro-fitted, the game system could be changed in ways that the designer never envisioned. How does one study the "long term" effect of single guns versus full batteries in an HPS scenario? Is it possible that it never was studied?

I don't mean to take a backhanded slap at the series at all. It is the finest simulation of Civil War combat that we have for the computer. But I hate to see "something that worked" get altered and then "not work" in a series of games that I love. I have them all.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gcollins</i>
<br />I'm glad to see that there has been some response to this topic. But another thing just occured to me. We have discussed the "weakness" of artillery in defence, phased play versus turn based etc. and even the sectional batteries that a lot of players do not like.

Is it not the "combination" of all these subtle, and not so subtle changes that have undermined the defence in the HPS series? What I mean is this: OK! if there were problems with the "opportunity" fire from square one and we now introduce sectional batteries. Doesn't this help the attacker even more? I mean if "opportunity fire" was weak for a six gun battery won't it even be more so from a section of "one gun".

My point being is that with all these changes occurring over different periods of time and introduced into newer modules and then retro-fitted, the game system could be changed in ways that the designer never envisioned. How does one study the "long term" effect of single guns versus full batteries in an HPS scenario? Is it possible that it never was studied?

I don't mean to take a backhanded slap at the series at all. It is the finest simulation of Civil War combat that we have for the computer. But I hate to see "something that worked" get altered and then "not work" in a series of games that I love. I have them all.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

While the reduction in artillery fire power probably reduced the defense since they are the most likely to be using artillery to boost their line, most of these changes have no affect on overall fire balance between attacker and defender. This is because HPS engine uses a math forumla to generate casualties based on number of men or guns. Battleground used a table lookup that was very sensitive to size of unit because it used shifts to implement effects like hex sides, facing, etc.

Also there are very few real changes to the engine. Artillery changes were implemented through the pdt file and oob's. The original Corinth 1.0 engine fights almost like the Gettysburg engine.

The Battleground engine was very simplistic and didn't really use state of the art game design that had been in board games for years when it came out in 1995. The HPS engine took the design a level further in 2001 but it was more an evolution than a revolution in the design. The HPS game engine is clearly superior in almost every way to the Battleground engine but it is still simplistic.

Most of the changes within the HPS system since Corinth 1.03 are the particular scenario designers interpretation of how his campaign and battles should be represented. Ideas like whether the artillery should be in sections or batteries, cavalry in squads or regiments, lots or little ammo, slow or fast movement, etc. is part of their interpretation of the battles and is more art than science.

BG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

Who is gcollins? There hasn't been a signature block on any of his eight posts to indicate whether he is Reb or Yank and there is nothing in his profile that gives even a hint of who he is or where he is from. The posts indicate that this ghost might contain some high intelligence. Who is this masked man?

Brig Gen Ned Simms
2/VI/AoS/USA
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nsimms</i>
<br />As is usual, you guys are so full of bull that it ain't even funny. I just meleed (Campaign Gettysburg) six times and lost all six. One was 900 C quality troops with a leader meleeing 3** with a leader sitting in woods and my guys were thrown back. Another was 900 A quality troops with a leader meleeing 5** with artillery sitting one elevation up hill behind breastworks and we not only were thrown back but it was a slaughter. I had about 40 melees planned but the other 34 melees were cancelled after that beginning. My impression of the average blokes vision of "balanced" is something that he will win most of the time. If we lose then it's the fault of the game engine or scenario. That means that HPS is unbalanced in favor of the defense; and that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Brig Gen Ned Simms
2/VI/AoS/USA
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one this happens to at Gettysburg.!!

LTC D.H. Smith
2 BDE/3 Cavalry Divison/III Corps,AoA,CSA

http://users.adelphia.net/~sapper99/index.htm