American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:11 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 1324
I have been playing the Champion Hill scenario with all options and am pleased with the movement increase for disrupted units. It gives you more flexibility in plugging holes and getting weakened units out of harm's way. I only wish they would increase movement for routed units now. Any other opinions?

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 12:13 am
Posts: 335
Location: USA
Actually, I'd rather see the ability to "control" routers taken away outright. Maybe increase their "run" distance, but until they're rallied, you have no direct control of them.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 5:41 am
Posts: 873
Location: Somewhere between D.C. and the battlefield
I agree with Gary.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 4:51 pm
Posts: 3524
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 Gary McClellan</i>
<br />Actually, I'd rather see the ability to "control" routers taken away outright. Maybe increase their "run" distance, but until they're rallied, you have no direct control of them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And that solution is probably more historical then the present method of being able to control the routed unit. There is plenty of documented (I don't have the sources, specifically)evidence about troops only stopping their rout when someone got them to rally.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:20 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ernie Sands</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
<br />Actually, I'd rather see the ability to "control" routers taken away outright. Maybe increase their "run" distance, but until they're rallied, you have no direct control of them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And that solution is probably more historical then the present method of being able to control the routed unit. There is plenty of documented (I don't have the sources, specifically)evidence about troops only stopping their rout when someone got them to rally.

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

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

Perhaps only allow us to control a routed unit's movement if a leader is present? Still no movement towards the enemy, of course. If no leader is present, then we can't tell them what to do. Is that possible programming wise?

But I also think that routed units should be running faster than half-movement. The inability to fire, melee at full strength, or advance towards the enemy is all well and good, but routed men probably were moving at least at the double-quick if not full out running.

Regards,

Major Gen. Alan Lynn
CSA Chief of Staff
3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA

God Bless <><


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:44 pm
Posts: 1200
Location: USA
I think greater movement points with less control is a fair trade off...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 10:10 pm
Posts: 1035
Location: USA
Taking away control of routed units would be fine with me provided they eliminated the AI's tendency to rout units behind enemy lines. If routed units moved directly back it would be okay but I've seen units go back one hex then turn right, turn right and turn right until they are behind the unit that caused them to rout. The way things are now if they give control of routed units to the AI they're liable to rout in circles and never get away from the enemy.

Gen. Ken Miller

Image

Army of the Shenandoah


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:44 pm
Posts: 1200
Location: USA
Good point, Ken.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:10 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
<br />Actually, I'd rather see the ability to "control" routers taken away outright. Maybe increase their "run" distance, but until they're rallied, you have no direct control of them.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree as well.

I Concurringly Remain,

<center>Image</center>
<font color="limegreen"></font id="limegreen">
<center><font size="3"><b>Captain Patrick Q. Mullen</b></font id="size3">
<font size="2"><font color="maroon">Officer Commanding:</font id="maroon">
<font color="limegreen"><b>Mullen's Fenian Cavalry </b>(4th Bde)</font id="limegreen">
<font color="yellow">1st Division/II Corps
Army of Mississippi
Western Theater
CSA</font id="yellow">
<font color="red">ACWGC</font id="red"></font id="size2"></center>


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 7:49 pm
Posts: 461
Location: USA
I agree with Gary as well...but Ken's point about the AI routing logic is valid too.

LGen. Hamilton
II Corps
ANV, CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:15 pm 
CWG2 used a system where units initially routed towards their Leader, but you did not have direct control over them....You could move their Leader to a point where you wish then to rally and that would somewhat guide them....sometimes they would rally near their leader, but if the rout was bad enough...they'd tell him, no thanks they'd had enough and they'd run right off the map....there were some problems with units running around behind enemy lines though....

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Division CO
Carroll's Corp


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 97 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group