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 Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:46 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Time limitation?
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
Is there any feasible way to limit the amount of control a player has over his units?

Even with FOW, the player can see all his own units and move/fire/melee as many of them as he likes, every turn.

One possibility might be for each Corps and Divisional leader (perhaps brigade leaders too) to test each turn to see if they're "active". If they fail the test, then the units under their command would become inactive (or fixed) for that turn. However, units within range of the enemy might fire, change facing and perhaps also change formation.

Another (probably optional) idea might be for a player to have only a limited amount of time to take his turn. This amount of time per turn would be set at the start of the game (it could be set when selecting the optional rules), or might be determined by the scenario designer. The new <i>Punic Wars </i>game allows a turn time limit to be set.

Limited play time would mean that the player wouldn't generally have time to move, etc, all his units every turn.

Perhaps one side might have a different time limit to reflect superior leadership?

Anyway, an outnumbered defender would probably benefit from having a time limit restriction.

Does this seem a useful idea?


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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:44 pm
Posts: 1200
Location: USA
While it might seem more realistic, for me it would take alot of fun out of the game...

Image
General Jeff Laub
Union Chief of the Army
ACWGC Cabinet Member
http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 5:41 am
Posts: 873
Location: Somewhere between D.C. and the battlefield
Maybe somewhat radical, but what if the player would at any time see only what the unit currently selected "sees"?

For a MP game it would also be great (and a lot less radical) if each player could be assigned units (the way it already works for online games) and were only be able to move these units and would see only what they see. This already exists in the HPS Naval Campaigns games.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:44 pm
Posts: 1200
Location: USA
I like the idea General Walters is talking about for Multi-Player games, that would add alot to that experience, I think...

Image
General Jeff Laub
Union Chief of the Army
ACWGC Cabinet Member
http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1639
Location: USA
A Command Action Point system is probably the way to go. Similar to the current Command Point system for determining the bonus for rallying disrupted units but in this case would determine whether a brigade would be able to execute offensive moves.

I don't like a move or no move system since a retreating army can quickly be surrounded when brigades get frozen in place. An offensive move activation means that a unit can only move toward the enemy if activated otherwise it can only retreat away from.

Needs to be a bit more complex than this but the above gives some idea of what I am referring too.

Another interesting solution to the problem of to much movement was Wellington's Victory's system of Army Morale. Each army was given an Army Morale value. Every time a brigade in that army was moved in a turn one point was subtracted from the AMV. When it reached zero then all units in that Army morale was reduced one. This morale decrease continued every hour after that until the whole army routed from the field. Needless to say you were very careful about who you moved and how often.

Improved FOW would also help. Hopefully when the new Weather rules get into the game we can see the LOS distance decrease from 70.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 10:10 pm
Posts: 805
Location: USA
In head to head network games you can set a timer to limit how long each side has to do their turn. It can be changed from turn to turn by the Host computer.

For pbem games I have used a house rule that brigade officers that have failed their command check (their command rating turns yellow and if you click on Show Disrupted Units they are high lighted) cannot advance their regiments adjacent to the enemy. This has several affects on play, first it forces players to keep their commands together. Second it has a tendency to reduce the constant combat because often one brigade will fail to pass and if you advance the others you often expose yourself to counterattacks. Although it tends to favor the side playing defense I've found that just when you see an opening to make a counterattack one of your brigade commanders fails his check. Or perhaps one unit routs and the commander of the reserve refuses to advance into the line giving you the choice of leaving a hole in the line or pulling back.

I think the real solution would be some type of command system that affects movement. During the Command Phase each officers status would be determined and his units movement depended on his status. Units could be given full MP, 3/4 or 1/2 based on their current brigadier's status. Thus the better commanders are able to maneuver their commands better. I doubt we'll see anything along these lines as it would require a major rewrite as the current command check is a Pass/Fail system and all units currently are assigned their MP allowance based on their type and current status.

Gen. Ken Miller

Image

Army of the Shenandoah


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:32 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">I think the real solution would be some type of command system that affects movement. During the Command Phase each officers status would be determined and his units movement depended on his status. Units could be given full MP, 3/4 or 1/2 based on their current brigadier's status. Thus the better commanders are able to maneuver their commands better. I doubt we'll see anything along these lines as it would require a major rewrite as the current command check is a Pass/Fail system and all units currently are assigned their MP allowance based on their type and current status.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi, Ken,

Actually, SSI implemented such a system in their ACW games better than 15 years ago, but it was a more action point oriented system. Action points were determined by leader quality and the distances between commanders, subordinate leaders and units. There is a separate thread about going to an action point oriented system where I think they agreed it would probably require a major engine change. Being a functional computer illiterate, I wouldn't know, but the panzer campaigns games work on an action point system, so there's no question John could do it. But if he is going to go that far, I would like to see preplotted simultaneous turns, another feature pioneered over fifteen years ago by SSI.


MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 4:51 pm
Posts: 2795
Location: Massachusetts, USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br />

For a MP game it would also be great (and a lot less radical) if each player could be assigned units (the way it already works for online games) and were only be able to move these units and would see only what they see. This already exists in the HPS Naval Campaigns games.

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

I brought this up to John Tiller, during TILLERCON II. I mentioned that online ACW games already have the capability of assigning specific commands and that making this available would make MP games (VIA PBEM) much more enjoyable and easier to play.

He did not commit, but did not dismiss the value of the change, either.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
General, Commanding, Army of Ohio
Image
ACWGC Cabinet member
</b></font id="gold">


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:35 pm
Posts: 192
Location: USA
<font color="yellow">Gentlemen,

Multi-player games are near and dear to my heart. I think MP games really add a lot more enjoyment to these games. Many consumers/gamers (especially the younger ones) won't even buy games unless they can play online and against human opponents.

Several of us have been playing "live MP games, semi-regularly, online on Friday nights as well as the regular email MP game variety. One night we had a 4v4 going. The "live" game is quite fun and you can get several turns in. I think we were able to finish a 16 turn scenario (in-between all the taunting) in about 3 hrs.

I started a post back in April about ways to enhance MP features. See here for additional comments</font id="yellow"> http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... ms=mp,game <font color="yellow">and suggested an "Extreme FOW" as a way to really make the games more realistic and would cut down on "radio" communication.

Ernie, I'm really glad you brought the idea up to John Tiller at TC II. I hope they look into doing something like that.

<i>"Second...it would be nice to have the Fog of War option enhanced to what I'll call "Extreme Fog of War". Extreme FOW would make it impossible for you to see any friendly units not under your command unless they were in line of sight of a unit under your command. For example, Boyd is commanding Longstreet's corps on the far right flank and trying to capture Little Round Top. Den is commanding Ewell's corps on the far left trying to take Culp's hill... With Extreme FOW, Boyd, since he is only commanding Longstreet's I Corp, could only see those units of Den's (Ewell's) command that are in line of sight of I Corps units... which is probably not many. Not knowing what's going on on the other side of the battlefield with units of your own army would create a more realistic fog of war, more unknowns, and help eliminate some of the "radio" or GPS communication that we have discussed as an unrealistic feature in the games."</i></font id="yellow">

BG 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  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 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: