American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I have to voice a gripe with the latest Peninsula patch - the embankments are way too powerful. When 700+ units at point blank range that have not moved and are not disrupted can't cause a single casualty against embankments with breastworks added, there is a problem. There should at least be SOME casualties. As things stand it is impossible to break a defended line of embankments - the fire results are so much stronger after the last few patches that defenders can cause severe casualties, but the attackers can't even get a single hit. No casualties = no moral checks, no chances of disruption or route. And since the embankments are so strong, melee is almost out of the question as well - assuming your units aren't disrupted by the 50-100 casualties you will take when getting next to the embankments to begin with.

I'm all for strong defense, but quite frankly the current setup errs way too far on the side of defense.

With so many scenarios involving embankments on the disk, making them too strong ruins the entire campaign because those scenarios often become unplayabale - the attacking side stands no chance unless their opponent is a complete idiot...[V]

Regards,

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

God Bless <><

Hi, General,

A lot depends on the parameter data. My experience in the Peninsula battles is the opposite of yours. When I tried to defend the embankments, which in the scenario I played had -50 modifiers, my opponent parked his powerful artillery a few hexes away in woods with -40 modifiers and blew me to smithereens. We were playing a scenario where units were unable to build breastworks, which is reasonable I think for that period in the war. I agree wholeheartedly that breastwork and embankment effects shouldn't be combined. I believe the same holds true for woods and defensive hexsides such as fences, stone walls or embankments. I had great success defending in woods hexes behind entrenchments because my opponent's firepower was reduced to 10%. There are hexes at Devil's Den in the Gettysburg game where it is mathematically impossible to kill anything by fire due to accumulated modifiers. I feel the highest defensive modifier ought to apply and others be disregarded.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

I think Peninsula is an excellent game and I don't have such a big problem with the high protection value of the fortifications (although I agree that 100% modifiers are excessive). But I do think the game would be more realistic if the big siege guns could actually damage and gradually reduce the defences - a bit like how we can damage bridges, except with the applicable combat modifier for the fortification within a given hex being gradually reduced rather than just it's strength. You could bombard a section of defences and then assault the weakened sector - standard procedure in a siege. At the moment the big guns don't really fulfil their historical purpose. At best they are like long range snipers and you don't <i>feel</i> the effect of their power. This for me would add a lot to the longer 'siege' scenarios.


[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acw/acw.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/aoc/Western_Theater.htm"]Commander, Western Theater, Union Army[/url]

Hi, Bill,
I'd rather hash it out here first. Other folks may have different opinions and like system the way it is. Maybe there are other factors or historical precedents I'm unaware of. Posting it in the Tavern gives other folks a chance to weigh in pro or con.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Since I play with soft ZOC I usually find that the Rebel can't hold the fortifications since you usually can infiltrate them since they don't have enough regiments to make a continuous line. I suspect this makes for two extremes whenever using larger maps. One with hard ZOC resulting in fortifications that can't be taken and one with soft ZOC where fortifications can't be held.

I prefer playing with soft ZOC and fortifications being a little weaker. If I had my choice of fixes I would like to see regiments able to form extended line in fortifications. I would like to see their defensive value lowered some but their a morale addition for being in one given on route/disrupt checks. They should be hard to take but shouldn't impossible to take. But if supported by fresh troops should be close to impossible to take.

For that matter being in covering terrain like woods, trenches,etc. should always benefit the defender on morale checks.



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

I agree with Mike, In general, I like to read the opinions here before making a decision about changes. This particular issue would be Drew's to decide. But I like to see it discussed here first.

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