I agree with Gary.
Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS
| American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC) http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/ |
|
| Movement Increase for Disrupted Units http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11148 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | mihalik [ Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Movement Increase for Disrupted Units |
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 |
|
| Author: | Gary McClellan [ Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
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 |
|
| Author: | D.S. Walter [ Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree with Gary. Gen. Walter, USA <i>The Blue Blitz</i> 3/2/VIII AoS
|
|
| Author: | Ernie Sands [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
<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 
ACWGC Cabinet member </b></font id="gold"> |
|
| Author: | ALynn [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
<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
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 <>< |
|
| Author: | laubster22 [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think greater movement points with less control is a fair trade off... 
General Jeff Laub Union Chief of the Army ACWGC Cabinet Member http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/ |
|
| Author: | krmiller_usa [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
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 
Army of the Shenandoah |
|
| Author: | laubster22 [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Good point, Ken.
General Jeff Laub Union Chief of the Army ACWGC Cabinet Member http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/ |
|
| Author: | Navarone [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
<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>  </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> |
|
| Author: | Rich Hamilton [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree with Gary as well...but Ken's point about the AI routing logic is valid too. LGen. Hamilton II Corps ANV, CSA |
|
| Author: | Jefferson H. Davis [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
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 |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|