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 Dec 16, 2017 3:51 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Another Artillery Capture Oddity
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1643
Location: USA
I observed the following in an ongoing Battle of Shiloh (Historic):

A small Rebel regiment was occupying a captured Union artillery hex. A large Union regiment moved up on it's flank. In the fire phase the Rebel regiment was wiped out leaving just the crewless Union artillery unit in the hex.

Normal game mechanics at this point would have marked the hex for automatic melee entry during the coming melee phase. However, under the new rules this did not occur and since the now vacated hex contained a "Union" gun, it could not be meleed under regular melee rules.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 835
Location: USA
Why would a crewless Union gun need to be meleed by a Union regiment? They would just occupy the hex during the next movement phase. Later, they can recrew if desired.

Lt. Col. 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: Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 2:58 pm
Posts: 201
Location: USA
Lt. Col. Walker,
I am assuming that the issue would be that the Union troops would be better off not firing given such a situation, and that the if they closed to shoot away the crew they would have moved to "take" the artillery unit. I would suspect many would apply the same thought about a unit destroyed by fire. "Why the open triangle, they can just take the hex next turn".
Not sure how I feel about this, as I could see points on each side of the issue, but I suspect that is what commander Whitehead is getting at.
MG Michael Laabs
3/III A of M


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 952
Location:
The whole thing would make more sense if the guns were owned by the last side occupying them. But that has already been said several times. It is interesting to note that even though the guns revert to control of the original owner, the victory hex remains in control of the last side occupying it. So if it was the last turn of the game, it might be better to melee the unit than destroy it by fire. But here is an interesting thought. Rather than have just melees allow for the extra hex, let all phasing units advance one additional hex during the melee phase, whether attacking anyone or not. Sounds logical to me.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1643
Location: USA
The problem is the presence of a gun changed what would and would not work against the hex in question. In this particular case since the objective was to occupy the hex, the unit shouldn't have fired so that it could melee normally and occupy the hex. But if the guns hadn't been present the offensive fire would have elliminated the enemy unit and the attacking regiment could have occupied the hex during melee using the auto rule and done it without being disrupted.

If one says as Rich states this is a valid handling then the lack of having a gun should have resulted in the same handling, which it doesn't. One or the other is in error but there is a game mechanics error regardless.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 7:32 pm
Posts: 300
Location: USA
Yes. That was what I was just thinking because the same thing happened to me...didn't seem to be a matter of melee, but just "walking into the hex" on the next movement turn...unless of course some Reb was close enough to it to put another enemy unit into it before my next movement phase....THEN I would have been able to melee if not disrupted and strong enough. Or am I reading this situation incorrectly? Though I do see the original point..that formerly when you wiped out a unit with gunfire, you saw a red triangle and then you could melee it...but wasn't that red triangle just a marker for a now evaporated enemy unit and as such you are entitled to "exploit" by occupying the hex? BUT since your own arty remains there you ARE already occupying it and apparently the triangle trick isn't appropos for that particular circumstance...duhh..is that the long way around the barn or what [:)] However, I may be close...Rich?

<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 />Why would a crewless Union gun need to be meleed by a Union regiment? They would just occupy the hex during the next movement phase. Later, they can recrew if desired.

Lt. Col. 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">

Colonel Tom Ciampa
Image
2nd Bgde,1st Cav
XIV Corps, AoC
Games: TS/BG: AN, BR, CH, GB, SH - HPS: AT, CTH, GB, OZK, SH, VK


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 835
Location: USA
I see what your saying. Logically, you can't melee your own unit, hence the problem (which btw is only present using MDF). I hate MDF! Sorry! So I'm not that familiar with the habits of those using MDF.

But I will try to find out if this can be addressed.

Stand by

Lt. Col. 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: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1643
Location: USA
I on the other hand have the opposite view which I will express on the other post as soon as its clarified so everyone knows what is be referred too.

Turn based play is extremely flawed. It allows tactics more appropriate to modern warfare in a game that is suppose to be about the Civil War. Panzer blitz tactics shouldn't be possible by soldiers in two rank lines. Their formations were just not capable of breakthrough attacks followed by changes of front and exploitation which that system allows.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 835
Location: USA
This problem has been fixed, and will appear with the next round of patches.

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


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 23 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: