ACWGC Forums
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

HPS engine enhancements
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10406
Page 1 of 7

Author:  Rich Walker [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:50 am ]
Post subject:  HPS engine enhancements

Guys/Gals

Possible future enhancements. It always good to introduce
one or two with each title.

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

2) A leader must be present for a melee. (optional)

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

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

5) Allow arty to change facing direction and fire during the same turn.

Please place in order or preference.

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

Author:  Richard [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:05 am ]
Post subject: 

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 optional
3

A big NO to 5. Guns can already fire into the three frontal hexes (unlike in the EAW and Nappy engines), which seems quite sufficient since this actually covers quite a wide arc. (NB: It would be better if the EAW/Nappy engines had the same coverage as the ACW engine, but that's obviously not for this list)


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

Author:  Jim Pfleck [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:13 am ]
Post subject: 

Rich,
thanks for asking.
I would say 5,1,3. The other two I do not like.

If artillery change facing then they would have "moved" and would fire at 1/2 strength. Seems historical to me. As does #1. I do not play against the AI but that would seem to be a good addition.
regards,

Brig Gen Jim Pfluecke
II/III AotM

Author:  mihalik [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:41 am ]
Post subject: 

Hi, Rich,

Thanks for soliciting our input.

I don't feel strongly about any of the rules listed, but wouldn't mind #2, #3 and #4, since you offer #2 and #4 as optional rules. At the current state of game development, though, I probably wouldn't normally use either one. I don't feel brigade commanders were necessary to get units to close with the enemy, and I think the movement allowances are moderate enough that they wouldn't cause sufficient fatigue to affect unit cohesion. I would support a fatigue penalty if there was a force march option to extend movement further in the twenty-minute period, and I support it for night marching, by the way. Other folks that feel different ought to be offered the option though.

I would support #1 as an option for folks who want to play with that restriction. It makes a certain amount of sense, but it is a limitation in a system that knows few if any other limitations.

I think #5 would be justified if you were talking one section, but if you have twenty guns in a hex, you would be able to turn all twenty and fire. The original reasoning in the game faq applies here. I am against it because I think the game already protects artillery too much. Due to zones of control, you can't close with artillery in one turn. Shooting at it normally does little damage. It can pick off enemy a mile away without hurting a friendly unit adjacent to the enemy unit. It can fire canister over the heads of its of friendly units. I guess you can tell I am in a fight right now where my opponent has a lot of artillery and I can't get at it. [xx(]

I hardly play single phase anymore, but one thing I suggest is that when a player clicks the end phase, all defending units that haven't fired during the turn get to fire, based on the AI range setting, preferably at full strength. There was nothing more demoralizing than having a stack move adjacent to a defender and let loose a volley, while the defender just sat there or replied with a single unit at half strength.


MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Author:  Jim Gleason [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:48 am ]
Post subject: 

The only one that really trips my trigger is #4. I think a forced march should take some toll on a unit. This is particularly true at night.
Jim Gleason LG 4-2-I AoP

Author:  Rich Walker [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:03 am ]
Post subject: 

We already have Night FA, so this would apply to day movement as an optional rule.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim Gleason</i>
<br />The only one that really trips my trigger is #4. I think a forced march should take some toll on a unit. This is particularly true at night.
Jim Gleason LG 4-2-I AoP
<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"

Author:  Dwight McBride [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

#1 and #2, re melees, are fine with me.

#3 about the AI, whatever makes the AI better.

#4 . . . Having to rest that much is not historical. That would equal a five minute rest every twenty minutes, or 25%. Stonewall Jackson historically was known for resting his troops 10 minutes every hour, max, and I've never heard anyone else giving more rest. (Cavalry having to rest their mounts realistically would be interesting!)

#5 Artillery historically could change face and fire quite quickly. This one is fine with me.

In order? . . . 5, 2, 1, 3 . . . (but not 4 as written)


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

Author:  nelmsm [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

Thanks for asking Rich! The thing I would like to see most of all is the defensive fire tweaked so units fire more. Otherwise I'd like them in the following order.

4 (as an optional rule)
5 (at 1/2 rate)
3 (don't play AI but I suppose someone would want this)
1 (as an optional rule)
2 don't see the need for this one as it's assumed each regiment would
have a leader and the brigade leader would only join for added
emphasis

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"

Author:  Robert Frost [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

Rich,
As mentioned in another reply, I would favor allowing a forced march (additional movement factors) at increasing fatigue and also for night marching. The normal movement factors are approximately what a unit could march without undue fatigue.


BG Robert Frost
Army of Cumberland

Author:  Robert [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:19 pm ]
Post subject: 

<b><font color="beige">Rich,

Thanks for asking!

1)= #1

5)= #2 One hex side facing change per turn, fire at one half?

3)= #3 A/I needs all the help it can get [:p]

2)= I don't see a need for this, regiments should be able to melee without a brigade or higher leader.

4) I agree with R. Frost on this, fatigue with additional movement.</font id="beige"></b>

<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>

Author:  mihalik [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hi, Rich,

I forgot to mention that I could support the ability of artillery to move backward one hex and fire at half rate. It was called fire by prolongue, but the only place I ever read of it being employed was Bigelow's Battery at Gettysburg. The concept was part of artillery doctrine in the Civil War, however.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Author:  Rich Walker [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

So forget Daytime increased FA unless forced march is implemented.

Example of forced march.

First, we cannot increase FA at different levels of movement. Try this, increased movement equals a one time increase in FA per turn. Let's say an infantry unit is allowed to move 18MPs instead of 12. As a result, FA will increase by 60-80 points. The pdt could alter the FA penalty, higher or lower, as it does now with night FA movement.

I've ruled out the Leader/melee relationship.

Also, what about mounted cav skirmishers. They could see one hex beyond their ZOC while mounted. Similar to line infantry.

Question, does #1 happen often??

Rich






<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Robert Frost</i>
<br />Rich,
As mentioned in another reply, I would favor allowing a forced march (additional movement factors) at increasing fatigue and also for night marching. The normal movement factors are approximately what a unit could march without undue fatigue.


BG Robert Frost
Army of Cumberland
<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"

Author:  rpmeule [ Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Rich,

On number 1: didn't even know that was possible. Agree
On number 2: as an option maybe
On number 3: don't play the AI so if it helps the engine
On Number 4: Yes
On Number 5: As on option ok.



Richard Meuleveld
Brig. General
"The Old First"
3rd Brigade
1st Division
XIV Corps
Army of the Cumberland

Author:  tony best [ Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:19 am ]
Post subject: 

Rich
I know you have ruled out making Brigade Commanders being mandatory for melee but I would like to see more discussion on this novel idea. I had not thought of it before, but do our games over emphasise melee?

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia

Author:  Mark Oakford [ Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:26 am ]
Post subject: 

1. Yes.
2. Already ruled out, under
3. Yes - does this mean that ADF alters?
4. Already ruled out, under
5. Yes - perhaps at a reduced effect?

Maj Gen Mark Oakford
Cmdr XVIII Corps
Army of the James

Page 1 of 7 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/