American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

If I have a unit in a hex with a wall or fence hexside (or breastwork hexside) and an enemy unit enters the neighbouring hex. Do both units benefit from the defensive modifier of the wall? Surely only the original unit is 'behind' the wall? They can't both be. Do the rules cover this situation or is it a quirk of the game system?
Tactically, one unit is defending behind the wall and the attacking unit (although technically also 'behind' the wall) is actually in the open.
Also, I'm just going to go and see if there are any quirks with the breastwork rules. If I build them, does an enemy unit gain a defensive benefit when it enters the opposite hex?

Capt. Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

Hi, Captain,

Folks on either side of the wall enjoy its protection, as long as they are adjacent. The same is not true for breastworks, which, if you will note, are depicted within a hex rather than as a hexside. Embankments work the same as breastworks, although a historical case could be made that even folks on the wrong side of an embankment probably enjoyed some protection, at least from ranged fire.

One of my pet peeves is there are hexes (in woods behind walls and uphill, for example) where cumulative modifiers make it mathematically impossible to hit a defender. I think defensive modifiers need to be capped at -80%. If someone can shoot you, you ought to have a chance, however small, of hitting them.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i>
<br />One of my pet peeves is there are hexes (in woods behind walls and uphill, for example) where cumulative modifiers make it mathematically impossible to hit a defender. I think defensive modifiers need to be capped at -80%. If someone can shoot you, you ought to have a chance, however small, of hitting them.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have seen this in the latest patch for Peninsula where the embankments are pretty much impregnable. I was playing a mirror as the Union and we were in the final Seige of Richmond scenario and though I could move units of large size right next to the embankments, not move them during a turn to have full firepower, they would still cause zero casualties to the Confederates behind them, but in the meantime would be slaughtered by the return fire. It might be the combination of embankments and breastworks, however. I think that if one exists (embankments) we should not be able to build the other (breastworks) on top of them.

Regards,

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

God Bless <><

We good Southern Men kinda enjoy those defenses....Kinda fun slaughtering ya'll....Sides, this way it works out right, Yanks is good fer gittin themselves kilt and thats about it.....Regards, Hank

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding

In Vicksburg, 2 reb guns fought back my 1000-men assault with no casulties for itself and some hundreds for me... rather impregnable, I'd say![xx(]

Gen Lars W
1/XIV
Army of the Cumberland
USA
West Point Instructor

I don't have problem with fortifications being strong, but I do think the bigger guns should be able to gradually reduce the defensive value of a defensive feature through prolonged bombardment - a bit like the way we can reduce the strength of bridges. That's how sieges were conducted. Make a breech and then storm the defences with infantry...


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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Antony Barlow</i>
<br />I don't have problem with fortifications being strong, but I do think the bigger guns should be able to gradually reduce the defensive value of a defensive feature through prolonged bombardment - a bit like the way we can reduce the strength of bridges. That's how sieges were conducted. Make a breech and then storm the defences with infantry...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Perhaps in the future embankments will have a strength value and when you fire into a hex with an embankment hexside we will be able to select the embankment instead of a unit from the pop up window and gradually whittle down the stregth, and the protection offered would correspondingly decrease over time. For instance give a full strength embankment a value of 80 = 80% protection and as we batter it down it loses points: 60 = 60% protection, 30 = 30% protection, etc.

Regards,

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

God Bless <><

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Antony Barlow

I don't have problem with fortifications being strong, but I do think the bigger guns should be able to gradually reduce the defensive value of a defensive feature through prolonged bombardment - a bit like the way we can reduce the strength of bridges. That's how sieges were conducted. Make a breech and then storm the defences with infantry...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Perhaps in the future embankments will have a strength value and when you fire into a hex with an embankment hexside we will be able to select the embankment instead of a unit from the pop up window and gradually whittle down the stregth, and the protection offered would correspondingly decrease over time. For instance give a full strength embankment a value of 80 = 80% protection and as we batter it down it loses points: 60 = 60% protection, 30 = 30% protection, etc.

Regards,

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

God Bless <><



Antony Barlow



United Kingdom
555 Posts
Posted - Mar 20 2008 : 08:08:13 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have problem with fortifications being strong, but I do think the bigger guns should be able to gradually reduce the defensive value of a defensive feature through prolonged bombardment - a bit like the way we can reduce the strength of bridges. That's how sieges were conducted. Make a breech and then storm the defences with infantry...


General Antony Barlow
Commander, Western Theater, Union Army



Gen Lars W



Sweden
94 Posts
Posted - Mar 19 2008 : 7:31:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Vicksburg, 2 reb guns fought back my 1000-men assault with no casulties for itself and some hundreds for me... rather impregnable, I'd say!

Gen Lars W
1/XIV
Army of the Cumberland
USA
West Point Instructor



Jefferson H. Davis




546 Posts
Posted - Mar 17 2008 : 10:58:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We good Southern Men kinda enjoy those defenses....Kinda fun slaughtering ya'll....Sides, this way it works out right, Yanks is good fer gittin themselves kilt and thats about it.....Regards, Hank

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding




ALynn



USA
935 Posts
Posted - Mar 17 2008 : 08:51:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mihalik

One of my pet peeves is there are hexes (in woods behind walls and uphill, for example) where cumulative modifiers make it mathematically impossible to hit a defender. I think defensive modifiers need to be capped at -80%. If someone can shoot you, you ought to have a chance, however small, of hitting them.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have seen this in the latest patch for Peninsula where the embankments are pretty much impregnable. I was playing a mirror as the Union and we were in the final Seige of Richmond scenario and though I could move units of large size right next to the embankments, not move them during a turn to have full firepower, they would still cause zero casualties to the Confederates behind them, but in the meantime would be slaughtered by the return fire. It might be the combination of embankments and breastworks, however. I think that if one exists (embankments) we should not be able to build the other (breastworks) on top of them.

Regards,

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

God Bless <><



mihalik




350 Posts
Posted - Mar 16 2008 : 5:48:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Captain,

Folks on either side of the wall enjoy its protection, as long as they are adjacent. The same is not true for breastworks, which, if you will note, are depicted within a hex rather than as a hexside. Embankments work the same as breastworks, although a historical case could be made that even folks on the wrong side of an embankment probably enjoyed some protection, at least from ranged fire.

One of my pet peeves is there are hexes (in woods behind walls and uphill, for example) where cumulative modifiers make it mathematically impossible to hit a defender. I think defensive modifiers need to be capped at -80%. If someone can shoot you, you ought to have a chance, however small, of hitting them.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA



Topic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you are going to do that, are you gonna be willing to see repairs made by the defenders.....probably mostly at night.....I think we need the ability to have bombproofs for the infantry...I think way too much damage is done to the defenders in many cases......Those guys were hiding in holes and coming out to defend....they weren't standing there in battle line daring the Yanks to blow the to hell....Regards, Hank

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding

I believe I accidentally copied more than I wished to on that last post....Oooops....Hank

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ALynn</i>
Perhaps in the future embankments will have a strength value and when you fire into a hex with an embankment hexside we will be able to select the embankment instead of a unit from the pop up window and gradually whittle down the stregth, and the protection offered would correspondingly decrease over time. For instance give a full strength embankment a value of 80 = 80% protection and as we batter it down it loses points: 60 = 60% protection, 30 = 30% protection, etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes that's exactly how I would like to see it done. At the moment the big siege guns serve no useful purpose except as long range snipers. It would be great to see them fulfil their historical role.


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