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 Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:00 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 5:51 pm
Posts: 771
Location: USA
<font color="beige"><b>Rich,

Mounted cavalry skirmishers, Yes

Don't know how often #1 happens, but it shouldn't happen.

For the artillery I would rather see prolongue fire (move one hex to the rear & fire at 1/2) than change facing and fire. </b></font id="beige">

<center><font color="blue"><b>Maj.Gen. R.A.Weir</b></font id="blue">
<font color="yellow">THE CALVERT LINE</font id="yellow">
Image
<b>First--III--AoA CSA</b></center>


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:36 am 
1) Is a good idea that I would support.

2) Is not historical. Brigade commanders rarely led melee assaults, Lew Armistead aside. Regimental commanders, yes, brigade commanders, not as much. Requiring it would just competely destroy an already shaky command situation. By the mid point of a large scenario both armies would be commanded by 3 dozen Col. Anonymous's and nobody would ever un-disrupt!

3) Who cares about the A/I? It stinks and nobody plays against it anyway (or at least they shouldn't if they don't want to develop really bad habits!) There are many bigger fish to fry with the A/I before it will ever become usefull for solo play.

4) I don't support a limit on daytime marching. I do support the option of forced marches for extended movement points at a fatigue penalty. AP Hill's Light Division would never make it from Harpers Ferry to Sharpsburg in time if they only marched 12 hexes per 20 minute turn. [:D]

5) I would support guns changing facing and firing at 50% and even better is the retire one hex by prolongue to fire at 50% option. That would be more historical and help save guns that otherwise can become trapped, especially when disrupted by routing units that could/should have gone around the guns... for instance, if woods are blocking the escape, the guns should still be allowed one hex movement at all times (no more than one if points don't allow) but at least one - by prolongue.

But the most useful option of all that has been mentioned in this thread is by far the mounted cavaly skirmishers idea. I've long wanted an option like this. Cavalry was rarely ambushed during the war the way we can do in the games - ambushes yes, but not with high casualties. IRL a cavalry unit would get ambushed and turn and run, losing only a handful of men in most cases. In our games, they get "stuck" by the ZOC and can be blasted to pieces for at least 20 minutes. A one hex cavalry skirmisher option - <b>with no increased movement penalty!!!</b> - would be much more realistic than what we have now (aka blindness).

Regards,

Brig. Gen. Alan Lynn
2nd Div, II Corps, AoA
VMI Training Staff

God Bless <><


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:49 am
Posts: 391
Location: USA
By far, for me the most un-realistic thing to deal with in these games is the lack of a dynamic line-of-sight. It would add immeasurably to the realism of the gaming experience were it present.


Sincerely,
Brig Gen Dwight McBride
1st Brigade ("The Regulars")
2nd Division/V Corps/AOP/USA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:14 pm 
1- Cavalry skirmishers (vedettes)
2- #5 arty change direction
3- #2 leader for melee
4- #1 no firing & melee at different units

All movement should incurr fatigue!

Thanks for asking,


Col. Dale Henken
First Division
Army of the Tenessee


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1637
Location: USA
I don't really care that much for any of the choices since they don't address any serious problem areas in the game but limited to these I would pick:

1st Place: #1 Need to include a mark on unit to identify it.
2nd Place: #4 Might slow things down some.
3rd Place: #3 Won't have any affect though.

Some enhancements to these choices:

#1 Just increase the penalty for having fired but still need something to help you identify who fired and who didn't during melee phase. Better yet separate out the bonuses and penalties and apply them individually to each attacking unit like it does in fire combat. Right now one unit attack that doesn't meet the requirement cancels it for the whole attack. Attackers through a rear hex should get their bonus regardless of other attackers.

#2 Agree with Lynn thus couldn't be done without changing the chance of leader casualty odds significantly and is probably ahistorical. Better would be to require the attackers to be in command at time of melee. Another possible would be to also require attackers to be from the same brigade.

#3 AI is hopeless doubt this will change that.

#4 This might work but should be a relatively low number. Even better would be a graduated FA cost for every hex moved through based on movement expenditure. Say MP 1-3 cost 1FA each, MP 4-6 cost 2FA each, MP 7-9 costs 4FA each, MP 10-12 costs 6FA each, MP 12-15(forced march) costs 10FA each, etc. Night movement would be 4x these number.

#5 Don't think artillery needs in enhancement in this direction it is still more effective than it should be. Ability to retire a hex need more as well as expending one ammo point per gun not battery.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 6:59 am
Posts: 266
Location: USA
I really like the idea of cav skirmishers.
Brig Gen Jim P
II/III AotM


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 8:26 pm
Posts: 446
Location: USA
I would like to see:

1. Each artillery and infantry unit should have its own limited supply (organic) which would expire after a certain number of shots or volleys. <font color="yellow">Check out "Total War Shogun" and "T/W Medieval" with their units' indicators of how much ammo is available.</font id="yellow"> Not shown to the enemy.
Supply wagons could resupply with different rifle and artillery ammo factors, either of which could be expended. It would make it worthwhile to keep 1 gun batteries in action because saving their ammo factors would mean wasted potential enemy casualties. At present it is of advantage to keep them away from action so that their ammo is available to larger batteries. This would be an easy fix and add realism to unit performance. 8 guns would expend 8 factors with the same supply impact, whether combined or separate. Any advantage of massing guns would be in the game engine combat results table.

2. Supply wagons in "fog of war"(FoW)should show the enemy nothing about their level of supplies. Canvas tops prevent reconnaisance of low or full wagons unless successfully meleed.

BG Ross McDaniel
2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG


Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.
Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 951
Location:
Hi, Rich,

The scope of your original topic has expanded a bit, but I think that is a good thing. There are some new suggestions, most of which have been discussed ad infinitum in the past, that I think are very valid. Here is another. Give batteries crews. Right now, killing a crew is an all or nothing proposition, which is baloney. And difficult to accomplish at that. In fact, I don't think anyone has ever defined just what it does take to kill a crew. The crew doesn't have to be complicated. You can even chain the crew to the battery, if you like, as long as you have to think twice about moving artillery to within cannister range (3 hexes) like Napoleonic artillery and plugging away for hours on end with little to fear from enemy riflemen. Some might say that fatigue represents the crew, but in that case each section has something like 900 crew. And while a battery can rest and get fatigue back in the course of a battle, the casualties they inflict are gone for good. By the way, I think you did a great job with the captured artillery option for Shiloh. Wish it was incorporated into the other games as well.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 8:26 pm
Posts: 446
Location: USA
2. <font color="yellow"> A leader (brigade or higher) must have command control of a unit for it to be capable of melee attack</font id="yellow">. Or a unit must begin movement in command control of a chain of command leader. Exceptions: Melee against supply wagons and unaccompanied enemy leader units.

5. As written Arty should change be able to change direction and fire in less than 20 minutes.

1. As written

4. Still needs work. How far can a cavalry unit travel in 20 minutes at a walk, compared to infantry marching, that they can march all day? How far can a cavalry unit gallop/or trot, or an infantry unit force march and maintain cohesion <font color="yellow">for a charge with melee</font id="yellow"> at the end of movement? That could be addressed by requiring a number of MPs remaining to launch a melee at the end of movement.

3. I feel indifferent about AI moving units in stacks and/or individually.


BG Ross McDaniel


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:45 am
Posts: 68
Location: USA
After reading many of the replies to this posting, I realized that many of you were having some of the same thoughts I was having.

I like the forced march idea with additional fatigue. And just a thought, if there is a Stonewall Campaign, this would even seem necessary to simulate what was possible in the valley.

Moving in stacks would help the AI, but it is pitifully weak against any experienced player. A first step, however, can't hurt.

Forcing leaders to be present for melees would result in high losses in the command structure if they had to accompany the unit(s) into battle. If, though, they were only needed to start in the same hex as the unit, but not follow them to glory, well, that's another matter. Seems sensible, though, that those units starting a melee should at least be in command.

Artillery can surely redirect themselves in 20 minutes, so turning and firing seems reasonable as well. Perhaps proportional less firepower with each facing change.



Col. Ron Virts
4th Brigade, 1st 'Adirondack' Division
XXV Corps, AOJ

Bermuda Hundred; Fort Fisher; Petersburg; Hatcher's Run; Fort Gregg; Fall Of Richmond; Rice's Station; Clover Hill; Appomattox.


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
Thank you for your input.

I hope you will be pleased with the engine enhancements resulting from this thread.

Also, WHY SO MANY STICkIES on this board. There are 8.

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 2:29 pm
Posts: 191
Location: USA
1) Allow arty to change facing direction and fire during the same turn.

2) A unit cannot fire on Unit A and then melee unit B in the same turn.

3) Daytime FA increase for units moving greater than 3/4 the MP allowance.
(optional)

4) Give the A/I the ability to move and fire in stacks.

NO) A leader must be present for a melee. (optional)

Like others, for #1 I'd say max 1 hexside and fire at 1/2 strength. I also like the retire by prolongue but there would need to be resolved 1) fire then retreat or retreat and fire, 2) which hex, only the one directly behind or any of the three...and if the two sides what facing will the guns have, 3) what about terrain in the rear or hexside obstructions? Certainly they couldn't retire over stone walls. Probably have to restrict it to (relatively) open terrain with no hexside obstructions. If prolongue is too difficult, I'd like to see something like the AT withdraw rule now used in PzC engine where, if assaulted and losing, they are retreated in limbered mode with some loss.

I don't feel strongly for #4, but leaders in melee I don't like at all. Each regiment has an inherent leader and I don't see why the brigade leaders would have to be present for an assault.





Lt. General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2001 5:17 am
Posts: 148
Location: United Kingdom
1...(5) I especially like retire by prolongue.
2...(1)
3...(2) Units initiating a melee must only be in command at beginning of melee.
4...(3) Anything that helps the A.I. to improve.

A great discussion with a lot of good ideas however, while I agree that greater movement especially forced marches should have some effect, doesn't the fatigue referred to in the games come from combat?

As the users manual and design notes refer to it not being the physical state of being <u>winded</u> and <u>the effects are felt long term and do not wear off through simple rest,</u> which would be the case if someone had taken part in a forced march. Or would it be true to the design and original ideas of the games if we combine both?


<u><font color="orange"><b>DESIGN NOTES</b></u>

<b>Fatigue</b> refers to the detrimental effects combat has on the physical condition of the fighting units.

<b>Why does it take so long for units to recover from Fatigue?</b>

In the game, Fatigue is used to represent combat fatigue, not the physical state of being winded. As such, the physical effects of combat fatigue are felt long term and do not wear off through simple rest. In many Civil War battles, the end of the battle was determined by fatigue and not by losses. In larger battles, commanders had to be careful to rotate their fighting units and not commit any one force too long to battle. Having higher Fatigue recovery rates would permit the unrealistic ability for commanders to rest units for short periods of time and then recommit them to battle, something that was not common historically.</font id="orange">

Regards

Colonel John Sheffield,
1st Brigade <b><font color="red">[Fighting First]</font id="red"></b>
2nd Division,
XXIII Corps
<font color="orange">Army of the Ohio.</font id="orange">
<font color="red">U.</font id="red"><font color="white">S.</font id="white"><font color="blue">A.</font id="blue">


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 951
Location:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As the users manual and design notes refer to it not being the physical state of being winded and the effects are felt long term and do not wear off through simple rest, which would be the case if someone had taken part in a forced march. Or would it be true to the design and original ideas of the games if we combine both?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I tend to view fatigue in terms of unit cohesion. I have always played with the fatigue recovery option checked, which means you do indeed recover fatigue by resting and can be returned to combat at increased effectiveness, depending on how high your fatigue gets. One thing I have noticed is that everyone has their own concept of what happened in combat in the Civil War. Look at the popularity of retiring by prolongue, which I introduced earlier in the thread, even though I added that I could find only one instance of it being utilized. But I digress. I think you can look at fatigue gained through forced marching as not only being winded but as a representation of straggling. I like the modest fatigue increases for night marching, because you can get three or four hours of "sleep" and be as good as new; but you can't march and fight like automatons for 72 straight hours without any ill effects whatsoever. If you read about Streight's Raid, you had Yankees falling asleep in the middle of a battle. Do you think perhaps impaired judgement due to physical fatigue might have been a factor in Streight surrendering to an inferior force? Anyway, while I don't think normal exertions would affect unit cohesion adversely, I do believe that there comes a point where it would; hence the concept of forced march and night fatigue.


MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2001 5:17 am
Posts: 148
Location: United Kingdom
Hi Mike,

While I'm not familiar with the raid you refer to I strongly agree with everything you say [especially physical fatigue causing impaired judgement]. I would like to see some form of long distance movement/forced march fatigue. It all makes for more realism.

where I see a conflict is with <u><b><font color="orange">two distinct forms </font id="orange"></b></u>of fatigue that the game's notes refer to and the fact that the <font color="orange"><u><b>rate of recovery would be the same </b></u></font id="orange">for both movement and battle fatigue even taking into account the use of 'Higher Recovery Rate'.

I.E.
Unit [A] takes part in battle and suffers X amount of <u>battle fatigue.</u> Unit is placed in reserve to recover.
Unit <b>[B] having taken part in a long march to the battlefield and having done so also suffers from X amount of <u>movement fatigue </u>and is placed in reserve too.

Both units would take time to recover at the <u>same rate </u>as the game's engine only recognises one form of fatigue [Battle fatigue] when surely unit [B] should be expected to recover from physical fatigue within a shorter timescale and should be ready for battle quicker than unit [A] as [B] has not yet experienced the horrors of war.

If there was a way to factor in two distinct forms of fatigue and therefor two recovery rates then that would be ideal but this would probably involve a huge change to the game and I can't see this being done.

Regards

Colonel John Sheffield,
1st Brigade [b]<font color="red">[Fighting First]</font id="red"></b>
2nd Division,
XXIII Corps
<font color="orange">Army of the Ohio.</font id="orange">
<font color="red">U.</font id="red"><font color="white">S.</font id="white"><font color="blue">A.</font id="blue">


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 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: