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 Dec 12, 2017 11:12 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:35 pm
Posts: 192
Location: USA
[/quote]

Conversely, can we get an option for infantry to form squares as long as we are going to continually have people use CW cavalry in the unhistoric role as shock troops / mounted tanks that surround and capture/destroy large infantry units in a single turn while never being fired upon regardless of the unhistoric result????

Regards,

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

God Bless <><
[/quote]



<font color="yellow">Or how about this...create an optional rule that does not allow mounted cav to melee infantry at all. This would force the cav to dismount if they want to engage inf like they historically did. I think this would help slow down the surround and destroy on inf units.

How many examples are there in the CW where Cav charged infantry?</font id="yellow">


<font color="yellow">Col. Boyd Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - The Wilderness 1864</font id="yellow">


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:23 pm 
I would agree with Bill Spitz and also in the same order of preference he gave: 5,3,1 and no to 2 & 4.

Further, as has been previously touched on, what about addressing arty pool ammo? Either have it expended by gun instead of by battery or consider having arty ammo added to the supply wagons.
Also consider allowing a side that captures guns a small token addition to their own arty ammo pool - say either one to 4 shots per gun captured and a like number detracted from the original owners ammo pool.

MajGen, 2/VIII/AoS
"Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:38 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Alan, I would say that firing on the cavalry depends on facing and LOS as well as the usual odds the AI uses to instigate such fire.

I wouldnt go for a square formation but I would like to see cavalry able to charge using the same format as the Napoleonic engine. Its VERY costly as it is anyway.

It would also be nice to be able to breakdown the cavalry into sections. Large ones anyway. OR offer up an alternate OB that has them in sections (like the guns are!).

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

The problem with having no square formation is that we aren't playing in real time, and while the game depicts 20 minute turns a real infantry unit confronted by mounted cavalry would not take 20 minutes to react, standing still to allow the enemy cavalry to swing into their rear and attack them without ever firing a shot, etc. Since we don't have real time reactions, the only alternatives are to either give infantry the ability to form square or else forbid mounted cavalry from meleeing infantry unless the infantry is routed. I would be ok with either option, I suppose.

Regards,

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

God Bless <><


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 828
Location: USA
The idea of creating a new formation type that wasn't used but maybe once in the ACW in order to correct a possible gamey tactic, doesn't agree with me.

On the other hand, forbing a mounted cav attack on infantry doesn't agree with me either. I'm sure we can find plenty of examples of this tactic.

Some things we'll just have to live with, IMHO

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ALynn</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Alan, I would say that firing on the cavalry depends on facing and LOS as well as the usual odds the AI uses to instigate such fire.

I wouldnt go for a square formation but I would like to see cavalry able to charge using the same format as the Napoleonic engine. Its VERY costly as it is anyway.

It would also be nice to be able to breakdown the cavalry into sections. Large ones anyway. OR offer up an alternate OB that has them in sections (like the guns are!).

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

The problem with having no square formation is that we aren't playing in real time, and while the game depicts 20 minute turns a real infantry unit confronted by mounted cavalry would not take 20 minutes to react, standing still to allow the enemy cavalry to swing into their rear and attack them without ever firing a shot, etc. Since we don't have real time reactions, the only alternatives are to either give infantry the ability to form square or else forbid mounted cavalry from meleeing infantry unless the infantry is routed. I would be ok with either option, I suppose.

Regards,

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

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

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: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 952
Location:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also consider allowing a side that captures guns a small token addition to their own arty ammo pool - say either one to 4 shots per gun captured and a like number detracted from the original owners ammo pool.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi, General,

You will be happy to note that in Rich Walker's latest Shiloh option for capturing artillery, the enemy pool goes down 3 and the friendly pool up by three. Unfortunately, that option hasn't been made available in the rest of the HPS games.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Further, as has been previously touched on, what about addressing arty pool ammo? Either have it expended by gun instead of by battery or consider having arty ammo added to the supply wagons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Why not both? The former suggestion has been discussed many times before, especially by General Whitehead. The last word on the subject was that such a change would require scenario designers to recalculate ammunition needs for every scenario now in existence.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Or how about this...create an optional rule that does not allow mounted cav to melee infantry at all. This would force the cav to dismount if they want to engage inf like they historically did. I think this would help slow down the surround and destroy on inf units.

How many examples are there in the CW where Cav charged infantry?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I can think of at least a half-dozen, which is about six times more than examples of retire by prolongue or forming square. Stuart's charge at Bull Run and Forrest's after Shiloh were generally successful, while those of the 5th US at Gaines' Mill, 1st Pa at Cedar Mountain, 8th Pa at Chancellorsville, 1st Vt and 1st W Va at Gettysburg, and Texas lancers at Valverde generally were not. I also recall successful Union cavalry charges in the 1864 Shenandoah campaign (could this be Rich's new game?) but will have to dig some to find the specifics. Anyway, I don't think the answer is to prohibit cavalry charges against formed infantry, only to make them less appealing. Taking away the charge bonus or making cavalry more susceptible to disruption are two solutions I could support. It has been a long time since I played Napoleonics, but I think the original Talonsoft restrictions on charging cavalry might help. I think among these was one that required it to attack in a straight line, which would keep it from unrealistically curling around your flank, but I may be thinking of a board game.



MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1642
Location: USA
The Nappy games have the cavalry "Charge" in them. Before they moved they had to be flagged as charging which also involved a morale check. If they passed they could move until they ran out of MP or hit a ZOC that would stop them. They couldn't change facing without disrupting and ending the charge. If they met all these conditions then during Melee they got the charge bonus.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 8:26 pm
Posts: 446
Location: USA
Artillery ammo improvement is one of my biggest concerns. If the caissons only carry enough ammo for 30 minutes of steady firing, (3 rounds/or one and half turns) then they should run out of ammunition and require restocking from supply trains. I take it that actually they fire many more than 3 salvos in 30 intense minutes.

It would really change our play to have this built into the game engine, but if that was the actual situation, so be it! Program it in. Supply wagons with arty and infantry ammo will become much more important and there may be other adjustments necessary to keep artillery realistic in their ability to support infantry.

I like the idea of artillery having their own "organic ammo" that they will deplete if supply wagons are not near, instead of drawing from "the great cosmic ammo pool" to anywhere that there is an artillery unit on the map. Think of the effect that this will have on planning your offensives. Supply, both organic and from wagons, is the way to go. One gun fires one ammo factor, two guns fire two ammo factors, etc.

It will also correct the tactic of holding 1 gun weak firepower units out of combat to provide their ammo supply to Columbiads, Dahlgrens and 30 lb Parrott guns. A fully stocked unit that does not fight will represent lost or relinquished opportunitues to inflict enemy casualties. Their caissons should not be available to supply distant or incompatible caliber cannons.

Along with all this should be the ability to designate which units in supply range will be resupplied, rather like choosing targets to fire upon. Right now we're stuck with automatic 1st come, 1st served.

Keeping this short, units that are high quality, low fatigue, in or close to woods, and in command range of brigade and higher leaders should have considerably improved chances in successfully building breastworks. It is ridiculous for such to have received orders to fortify, then spend the night with superior commanders close by and not have completed breastworks the next morning. A regimental commander would see that it was done or lose his command. (The programming pattern should be similar to recovery from routs and disruption.)

I support:

1. Not necessary for a leader to accompany a melee, but brigade or higher commanders should be <u>"in command range" and "in command," or the unit cannot melee.</u> That would prevent players being "melee crazy" and ahistorical, especially after dark.

2. Let artillery units <font color="yellow">change direction </font id="yellow">and <font color="yellow">fire at half strength</font id="yellow">, same turn, to represent fewer salvos in that 20 minutes.

3. Allow units to be "force marched" at the cost of increased fatigue and possible stragglers lost.

4. Infantry in the ACW could blast and break cavalry charges without going into square formation, and mostly did so "in line" formation. I have read only one instance of square being formed against cavalry, as they learned early in the war that it was not necessary and lowered their firepower. Cavalry should be at big disadvantage unless hitting a rear or flank of an infantry unit in line formation. However, 600 cavalry troopers should roll right over a 50 man infantry unit, square or not. (Well, maybe not in wooded, or rough terrain.)[:D]

5. Disrupted units should keep their movement points. A compromise would be to double disrupted movement costs if moving closer to an enemy unit. They cannot melee anyhow and fire power is quartered after moving.

I look forward to seeing some changes. [8D][:p]

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

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the
right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.â€


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:59 am 
I agree with most of Ross's comments.
One way to solve the arty ammo issue: what about doing it the same as infantry? By that I mean you don't have an army wide pool? You have a random chance the same as infantry of becoming low or out. And you resupply from a wagon with the ammount used dependent on the size unit.

Also thats a good idea to allow arty to change facing and still shoot, but at half strength.
I don't agree with the need for a commander present or near but not totally against it either. Maybe a more strictive pre-assault check so that a high quality unit could still melee when out of command to reflect the initiative of a good regt leader. Speaking of which, it would be neat but not neccesary if its a hassle, to have a pool of officer names to use instead of Col Anon to be drawn from that chain of command - regt commanders, other staff officers. In Gettysburg the rebs have no option for Trimble to come in on his own or on the Union side Newton or Warren amongst others - only allowed in the shorter scenarios.
A forced march rule would be nice. And whatever it is, the same rule could be used for any night move.
The designating who gets or doesn't get supply might be tricky. A couple options would be to either have the machine cycle through candidates for you to answer yes or no to each. Or to toggle on or off an automatic or manual resupply.
The disrupted move option you mention has merit as well.
Well off to battle. As far as I can tell I only owe one turn - to Chris Baker. Not like during the Nov/Dec/Jan period where I owed a ton of turns... :)


MajGen, 2/VIII/AoS
"Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 828
Location: USA
Thanks for the comments,

I'm not sure how to appraoch the arty ammo question. By that I mean, how would it affect current scns. Of which, there are well over 1,000. I don't think I like the idea of giving arty random "low ammo" chances. And the other option might involve a change to every scn already developed. Understand, that changes have to be compatable with current games.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Scott Schlitte</i>
<br />I agree with most of Ross's comments.
One way to solve the arty ammo issue: what about doing it the same as infantry? By that I mean you don't have an army wide pool? You have a random chance the same as infantry of becoming low or out. And you resupply from a wagon with the ammount used dependent on the size unit.

Also thats a good idea to allow arty to change facing and still shoot, but at half strength.
I don't agree with the need for a commander present or near but not totally against it either. Maybe a more strictive pre-assault check so that a high quality unit could still melee when out of command to reflect the initiative of a good regt leader. Speaking of which, it would be neat but not neccesary if its a hassle, to have a pool of officer names to use instead of Col Anon to be drawn from that chain of command - regt commanders, other staff officers. In Gettysburg the rebs have no option for Trimble to come in on his own or on the Union side Newton or Warren amongst others - only allowed in the shorter scenarios.
A forced march rule would be nice. And whatever it is, the same rule could be used for any night move.
The designating who gets or doesn't get supply might be tricky. A couple options would be to either have the machine cycle through candidates for you to answer yes or no to each. Or to toggle on or off an automatic or manual resupply.
The disrupted move option you mention has merit as well.
Well off to battle. As far as I can tell I only owe one turn - to Chris Baker. Not like during the Nov/Dec/Jan period where I owed a ton of turns... :)


MajGen, 2/VIII/AoS
"Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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 Feb 10, 2007 8:22 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />Thanks for the comments,

I'm not sure how to appraoch the arty ammo question. By that I mean, how would it affect current scns. Of which, there are well over 1,000. I don't think I like the idea of giving arty random "low ammo" chances. And the other option might involve a change to every scn already developed. Understand, that changes have to be compatable with current games.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Scott Schlitte</i>
<br />I agree with most of Ross's comments.
One way to solve the arty ammo issue: what about doing it the same as infantry? By that I mean you don't have an army wide pool? You have a random chance the same as infantry of becoming low or out. And you resupply from a wagon with the ammount used dependent on the size unit.

Also thats a good idea to allow arty to change facing and still shoot, but at half strength.
I don't agree with the need for a commander present or near but not totally against it either. Maybe a more strictive pre-assault check so that a high quality unit could still melee when out of command to reflect the initiative of a good regt leader. Speaking of which, it would be neat but not neccesary if its a hassle, to have a pool of officer names to use instead of Col Anon to be drawn from that chain of command - regt commanders, other staff officers. In Gettysburg the rebs have no option for Trimble to come in on his own or on the Union side Newton or Warren amongst others - only allowed in the shorter scenarios.
A forced march rule would be nice. And whatever it is, the same rule could be used for any night move.
The designating who gets or doesn't get supply might be tricky. A couple options would be to either have the machine cycle through candidates for you to answer yes or no to each. Or to toggle on or off an automatic or manual resupply.
The disrupted move option you mention has merit as well.
Well off to battle. As far as I can tell I only owe one turn - to Chris Baker. Not like during the Nov/Dec/Jan period where I owed a ton of turns... :)


MajGen, 2/VIII/AoS
"Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Please God never give arty an ammo setup like our current infantry setup. There is no reason for random low ammo. None. How historic is it to have a fresh regiment, just sent to battle with their cartridge boxes full to shoot off their entire supply of small arms ammo in a single 20 minute period while the regiment next to them might be able to fight for horus upon hours and never run out? If anything, the INFANTRY ammo situation needs to be changed - give each regiment its own ammo stock and show a counter for ammo so we know when they are running low. Say each unit gets 15 ammo points and each offensive fire uses 1 point. When it gets down low we have the option of still using it for offensive purposes (unlike currently) but would know that we risk running out of ammo completely. If this cannot be done, then something at least needs to be done to prevent a fresh unit from going to low ammo status as soon as they fire a couple of skirmish shots across an open field on their first turn.

Regards,

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

God Bless <><


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 75
Location: USA
First let me weigh in on the original question:

YES: 5,3,1
No: 2,4

There is also one other feature I think consideration should be given to. Infantry units should be allowed to change formation at any point in a move, providing they have the requisite movement points remaining, and then should be allowed to fire in the ensuing fire phase. This was a tactic commonly used throughout the ACW by both sides. A case in point would be the 6th Wisconsin during the morning of the first day at Gettysburg. They marched, in column from Seminary Ridge to McPherson's Ridge, then, still in column down the Chambersburg Pike until oppesite the 55th North Carolina which was in the Unfinished Railroad Cut; the 6th halted, still in column, executed a left face and were in their customary two rank line, and immediately opened fire. This was not atypical.

If infantry units in the Napoleanic games can change formation at any point in the movement phase, why can this not be added to the ACW games as well, especially as it was a tactic used to good effect on numerous occaisions?

Col. Bill Spitz
3rd Division
V Corps
Army of the Potomac


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 75
Location: USA
Gentlemen,

Please ignore my repeat of an earlier post on this thread. Looks like old age is creeping up on me and I seem to be repeating myself. It looks like old age is creeping up on me and I seem to be repeating myself. It looks like...seashhhh...I'm doin' it again.

Thanks

Col. Bill Spitz
3rd Division
V Corps
Army of the Potomac


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:35 pm
Posts: 192
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A case in point would be the 6th Wisconsin during the morning of the first day at Gettysburg. They marched, in column from Seminary Ridge to McPherson's Ridge, then, still in column down the Chambersburg Pike until oppesite the 55th North Carolina which was in the Unfinished Railroad Cut; the 6th halted, still in column, executed a left face and were in their customary two rank line, and immediately opened fire.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<i><b>"executed a left face"</b></i> <font color="yellow">...Correct me if my geography is wrong, but if they were marching down Chambersburg Pike from Seminary Ridge to McPherson's Ridge and executed a "left face" wouldn't that have put them facing south with their backs to the 55th North Carolina?

....maybe we now know how Lee won the first day at Gettysburg.</font id="yellow">[:D]

<font color="yellow">Col. Boyd Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - The Wilderness 1864</font id="yellow">


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 75
Location: USA
In actuallity the 6th Wisconsin marched to a point west of the 55th N.C. and then marched down, or East on the Chambersburg Pike, basically going back the way they came. When first ordered forward the 55th N.C. and 2nd Miss. were headed due East following the withdrawal of Cutler's 3 regiments on the North side of the unfinished RR cut, when they began taking fire from their right, delivered by Cutler's other two regiments. They then executed a right oblique to advance on their tormentors (95th and 84th N.Y.). The 6th Wisc. which had already reached their first position near the crest of McPherson's Ridge moved, in column, back to the east, behind the two N.Y. regiments to extend the line to their right, i.e. east. After reaching the right of the 95th N.Y. the 6th Wisc. halted faced left and advanced on the RR cut.

Col. Bill Spitz
3rd Division
V Corps
Army of the Potomac


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:35 pm
Posts: 192
Location: USA
Col Spitz,

That makes sense. I didn't know they had to travel back east along Chambersburg Rd. Thanks for the good description which gave a good visual.

One of the hardest things to do is to go to the battlefields and try to visualize/imagine what it must of looked like.

Thx,

Col. Boyd Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - The Wilderness 1864


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, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 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: