ACWGC
* ACWGC     * Dpt. of Records       * CSA HQ    * VMI    * Join CSA    
   * Union HQ    * UMA    * Join Union     ACWGC Memorial
CSA Armies:    ANV    AotW
Union Armies:    AotT     AotC      AotP      AotS     Union Army Forums
     Link Express
American Civil War Books, Magazines and Games for sale (See other items)
Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:45 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1637
Location: USA
While that should have been the function of cavalry it rarely occurred. Stuart was probably the best at it but when he wasn't present those that were executed the function very poorly. Instead they tended to keep their cavalry massed and if it happened to be on the same road it would find out who was ahead, usually by bumping into them and getting shot up.

But more typically, Lee marched into Maryland totally blind as to enemy movements in spite of having three brigades of cavalry with him. Heth marched infantry to recon Gettysburg in spite of Hill having cavalry attached to his Corps. And Grant marched through the Wilderness pretty much blind even though he had a division of cavalry assigned to leading the troops through.

We now know how important the recon function of cavalry is but apparently then it does seem to be taken very seriously. Given the chance we would send out a fog of small cavalry units covering the whole battlefield, our flanks and rear. It is difficult to obtain information on exactly how the cavalry was handled on the battlefields. Stuart would disperse the cavalry over a wide area when screening the army but even he seems to have withdrawn the cavalry from areas between the two armies once they closed. Instead you usually find him concentrated on the flanks.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 2:56 pm
Posts: 112
Location: USA, New Jersey, Ocean County
My inputs are more from the perspective of what makes a good game that is roughly historical, but not necessarily a perfect historical recreation.

Even with FOW, having our comamnd platform in the sky view of the entire battlefield provides a lot of information that changes the nature of how we fight the battles.

I wouldn't want to see too much complication added to the game system to provide more intelligence. The idea of smaller cav detachments is something that was done in the blind Talonsoft scenarios and that seemed to work well.

Except that it would increase the number of turns, I think having less movement per turn would make things better. It doesn't help with any of the current game mechanics but it would give you more time to react to surprised encounters. (Actually my preference is a system which has less movement when you are near the enemy and more when you are away -- that way you can have even more interesting strategic maneveurs. If you have a problem with this concept, just think of the position you see the enemy as the "position they were last reported to be in". The further away the unit is from your troops the less likely the report was their actual position).


..and if you have a lot of time and want more intelligence with the current system, I think you could make yourself an intelligence sheet which tells you what screen images are associated with what units in the game. Sort of an enemy "spotters guide" for your scouts! -- a group of 5 units approaching, 3 in grey, 1 in butternut, 1 in brown with floppy hats -- must be those Georgia boys!

Lt Gen Bob Breen
Commanding XIX Corps, AoS
"Defenders of the Right"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 951
Location:
My understanding of the cavalry function is one of security as well as reconnaissance. Probably the primary reason Lee had no information that the Army of the Potomac was nearby was that he depended on Stuart, who he thought was doing his job. The cavalry available was tasked with screening his movements by covering the passes, so the Yankees wouldn't know where he was or what he was doing, and at least in the case of Robertson's, was led by a general with a distinct lack of initiative. Meanwhile, the North's Bureau of Military Information had figured out Lee's order of battle through pieces of information from citizens, captured stragglers, spies, etc. Which is how Lee initially learned of the approach of the AoP.
These alternate and valuable sources of information are why I would support a skirmish function for cavalry units. Picture it as receiving information from spies, sympathizers, stragglers, lost orders, dying campfires, deserters, etc etc. Probably the reason the cavalry performed the reconnaissance and security functions was that they could break contact easier and could deliver information quicker. One problem with the game is that once you make contact, it assumes you are stuck there for twenty minutes, whereas if you got caught in an ambush you would have the option of breaking contact immediately. My impression is that as long as you took proper precautions, casualties in such incidents were usually minimal, because the numbers involved were usually minimal. In the case of Iverson's Brigade, you have to look at what their mission was. In essence, they were attacking and ran into much more than they bargained for, because they failed to take proper precautions.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
The present 70 hex day visibility is clearly too high - but this will fixed once the weather feature is incorporated into the game engine. It'll then be possible to have say 40 hex max visibility reduced to 20 hexes or less depending on rain, battlefield smoke, etc.

So once weather's in place, it'll be time to start thinking about whether a scouting ability feature for cavalry would be useful. Since the feature already exists for infantry, it shouldn't be too hard for mounted cavalry to be given a similar ability. Until then, cavalry will remain more of a liability (since worth at least twice as many points as infantry) than an asset on the battlefield.


Brig. Gen. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1637
Location: USA
If what you are referring to is giving mounted cavalry a skirimher like ability to "see" two hexes, this probably would solve the problem. A cavalry unit leading a column would spot the enemy before contact and would probably have enough movement to back off some and wait for the infantry.

I do think that not only should the distance for LOS be reduced but the amount of "information", as in size and number of units in stack, should also be changed. At more than 6-10 hexes I think we should see all units as a question mark in the hex. It would be nice thought if the type unit was identified (infantry, cavalry, artillery) since that information is needed for targeting by artillery.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:13 am
Posts: 387
Location: USA
I too, would like to see that the cavalry had a few extra eyes (two or three hexes)as LG Whitehead has stated. But I would also like to see the big cavalry units reduce in size as well. There has been some games that you have 200 or 300 or more in a Cavalry unit and that is the smallest unit that you have.

When you are using them to help spot the enemy sometimes you get caught in an ambushed and you lose way to many of those precious points because of them being a cavalry unit.

I too would like to see a change down the road.



Willie Tisdale
"The Gray Fox"
Brig. General
Pee Dee Division
/2/II - ANV - CSA
VMI Adjutant / Instructor


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
Yes, that's what I'd recommend - skirmish ability for mounted cavalry - including the movement penalty for any enemy units approaching mounted cavalry.

This would:

1./ Allow cavalry to scout ahead and prevent them from accidentally bumping into the enemy and then getting (almost certainly) surrounded and wiped out the following turn.

2./ Allow a cavalry screen to "slow down" the advance of enemy troops, just like infantry skirmishers do.

I'd also suggest bringing over the cavalry breakdown/recombine feature from the Nappy engine and the ability for mounted cavalry with certain weapon types - pistol and shotgun - to fire whilst mounted.

.......................

I also like the idea of less info being available about enemy units beyond a certain distance. This should be feasible, since supply wagons only see a ?? already.

Brig. Gen. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 951
Location:
While we're on the subject, it would be good to be able to see as you go, if that is possible, and on one of the threads I think someone said it was. I don't mind so much getting ambushed by folks hiding in the woods behind a stone wall. Such things happened. But to be marching along level ground and not be able to see what is in front of you is not too realistic. I guess an argument could be made that there are fluctuations in terrain that could conceal people but not be significant enough to show on the map, but probably not in most cases. But the mounted cavalry skirmisher option would I think be a step in the right direction.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 5:01 am
Posts: 564
Location: USA
I heard JT shies away from "see as you go" is to avoid abuse of using a few units to find everything, then using the remainder of the units to take advantage of what you found.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
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 gained by those that had moved - something which of course already occurs, even without getting a "see as you go" feature added.

A "We-plot, we-go" system would significantly reduce the number of ZOC melee eliminations and other gamey tactics such as conducting multiple melees and breakthroughs to set up a ZOC kill. It would probably also make the A/I a better opponent too, since human players wouldn't be able to manipulate the game so much or micromanage their units individually to exploit opportunities presented to an attacker by a turn-based system, especially in single-phase mode where units can be moved up and conduct melees to permit other units to exploit the gaps now created in the enemy line.

However, although a replay feature already exists to view the opponent's previous turn, I suspect it may not be feasible to make such a major engine change. But if such a change <i>were</i> feasible, I'm sure it would be highly beneficial.


Brig. Gen. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: