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 15, 2018 10:45 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Artillery blocking retreat
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2001 1:45 pm
Posts: 164
Location: USA
I am interested in what most of ya'll think about artillery being used to block retreat. I am of the opinion that it should not be done unless the batteries are in an established position and the defender is "cornered". To move guns around and enemy unit to block seems rather unrealistic I would think.

Major General Jon Thayer
Old North State Divison
3/III
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:35 pm
Posts: 192
Location: USA
I agree Jon. It's a gamey tactic (as is column melee's) in my opinion. It's something though, that would have to be agreed upon by both parties not to do.

BG Boyd Denner,
2nd Division Commanding
II Corps
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - The Wilderness 1864


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:00 am
Posts: 444
Location: USA
Gentlemen,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the new artillery capture rule allows artillery by it self to be run over and captured by the unit retreating into the hex as a reslut of losing a melee. So to use the artillery to block would be a grave mistake.

Lt Gen Joseph C. Mishurda



ImageImage

Lt General Joseph C. Mishurda,
"Killer Angels"
VI Corps, AoS, USA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 865
Location: USA
Unlimbered arty can still block retreats

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 1032
Location:
How is blocking with an unlimbered artillery any more gamey than blocking with a ten-man unit? or a 1-man unit, for that matter? Yes, I actually saw a 1-man unit in a game I played. Must have been John Wayne.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1681
Location: USA
It tends to be gamey because its a game trying to simulate reality. Unfortunately, the game handles things to granularly to simulate all the situations possible when a unit routes.

Examples are a unit needing to retreat (not route) would probably fall appart if it found its only retreat route blocked by a six gun deployed battery. Those guns would be tough enough if they were well formed and lead but not in the middle of a withdrawal. However, it it was one gun they might rush it rather than surrender. Here is one of the problems with the HPS engine it makes no comparison between the relative size of two units when it resolves situations. One man is good as a thousand. One cannon is as good as six. I would be nice to have the old board game rules where when the ratio was to great the smaller unit suffered an automatic displacement and the big one kept going.

But to give things balance why would a limbered gun be captured by retreating regiments? They are limbered, they would displace not surrender. They should be able to block the retreat but they should be overrun in most cases. A better rule would be a partical loss followed by retreat one hex for the limbered battery.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 865
Location: USA
There will always be room for improvement. And that process will continue.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br />It tends to be gamey because its a game trying to simulate reality. Unfortunately, the game handles things to granularly to simulate all the situations possible when a unit routes.

Examples are a unit needing to retreat (not route) would probably fall appart if it found its only retreat route blocked by a six gun deployed battery. Those guns would be tough enough if they were well formed and lead but not in the middle of a withdrawal. However, it it was one gun they might rush it rather than surrender. Here is one of the problems with the HPS engine it makes no comparison between the relative size of two units when it resolves situations. One man is good as a thousand. One cannon is as good as six. I would be nice to have the old board game rules where when the ratio was to great the smaller unit suffered an automatic displacement and the big one kept going.

But to give things balance why would a limbered gun be captured by retreating regiments? They are limbered, they would displace not surrender. They should be able to block the retreat but they should be overrun in most cases. A better rule would be a partical loss followed by retreat one hex for the limbered battery.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 7:53 pm
Posts: 117
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
<b>or a 1-man unit, for that matter? Yes, I actually saw a 1-man unit in a game I played. Must have been John Wayne.</b>

That would depend on whether that one man destoyed all of your 700+ men regiments or not. If it did, then you know it <i>was</i> the Duke.

[:D] [:p][8D][:X][^]

Maj. Gen. Philip Roubaud
1/XX (Cumberland Rifles)
Army of the Cumberland
United States of America


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:05 am 
I think the facing of the unlimbered artillery unit has some bearing. Retreating or routed units, with no choice but to head straight into tubes which were trained upon them, would quite likely pack it in. However, if the artillery has purposely unlimbered itself <u>to face away from the enemy which it's being used to encircle (i.e. essentially has it's back turned to the enemy force, with none of it's 3 potential "firing sides" facing that enemy)</u>, I think it's pretty much the same thing as the broadly dismissed tactic of using limbered arty to encircle.

I agree there are so many facets to these games that's it's very tough to screw down the lid on what's allowed and what isn't. Even when there are agreed upon house-rules for a battle, I think that if the clear intent was to try to avoid unrealistic or gamey play, the onus is on the combatants to try to keep things within the spirit of that objective.

Gen. Den McBride
ANV
swampfox_csa(at)yahoo.ca


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2001 1:45 pm
Posts: 164
Location: USA
I tend to think of house rules as being added to stop situations that the game engine allows but realistically would not happen. The original house rules came about I believe with the BG Napoleonic games. In fact the first one I recall was to give skirmishers a "leash" to their parent unit. The desire was to keep from having roving commando companies. This evolved in the HPS games with "embedded melee' to curtail "blitzkreg" tactics where one unit would melee and then others follow into the breach. With a two hex ZOC in these games it was very easy to run around behind defending units. These were issues that were just not realistic.

Yes, a one man unit blocking retreat is unrealistic and I would not do that because I feel like that would be using a shortcoming of the game engine to my advantage. I also think moving artillery up, unlimbering them in the face of an enemy to block retreat falls under that same category.

In general it goes back to other threads posted here and in the Rhine Tavern. There are two types of players, those searching for a more historically realistic game and those who like to play with with less regard for those characteristics. Neither is right or wrong but when they meet issues arise. There have been several threads lately regarding house rules and other issues along this line and they all are coming from issues that have arisen in several mulitplayer games. I cannot help but believe that this is due to the different opinions of how these game are to be played by different players on each team.

To address the original question, i think it could be solved much like the skirmisher overrun option in the Nappy games. In that a skirmisher will be eliminated if it attempts to block the retreat of a battalion. In the Civil War games perhaps a unit should have at least half the strength of the defender being displaced in order to block retreat.

Major General Jon Thayer
Old North State Divison
3/III
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 865
Location: USA
Ever heard of Sgt York :-)


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jon Thayer</i>
<br />I tend to think of house rules as being added to stop situations that the game engine allows but realistically would not happen. The original house rules came about I believe with the BG Napoleonic games. In fact the first one I recall was to give skirmishers a "leash" to their parent unit. The desire was to keep from having roving commando companies. This evolved in the HPS games with "embedded melee' to curtail "blitzkreg" tactics where one unit would melee and then others follow into the breach. With a two hex ZOC in these games it was very easy to run around behind defending units. These were issues that were just not realistic.

Yes, a one man unit blocking retreat is unrealistic and I would not do that because I feel like that would be using a shortcoming of the game engine to my advantage. I also think moving artillery up, unlimbering them in the face of an enemy to block retreat falls under that same category.

In general it goes back to other threads posted here and in the Rhine Tavern. There are two types of players, those searching for a more historically realistic game and those who like to play with with less regard for those characteristics. Neither is right or wrong but when they meet issues arise. There have been several threads lately regarding house rules and other issues along this line and they all are coming from issues that have arisen in several mulitplayer games. I cannot help but believe that this is due to the different opinions of how these game are to be played by different players on each team.

To address the original question, i think it could be solved much like the skirmisher overrun option in the Nappy games. In that a skirmisher will be eliminated if it attempts to block the retreat of a battalion. In the Civil War games perhaps a unit should have at least half the strength of the defender being displaced in order to block retreat.

Major General Jon Thayer
Old North State Divison
3/III
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
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 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: