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 Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:16 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2001 1:45 pm
Posts: 164
Location: USA
I would like to comment on the Antietam game Rich and I have started. I will first say that I was totally wrong in saying that the game was unbalanced in favor of the Union. That is simply not the case. I am playing the Union and Rich is killing me. Hooker and Mansfield's attack is pretty much crushed. What I have learned is that it is imperative that you attack. Also you must fire all units in a stack combined. Rich has moved almost the entire Confederate army (at least that's what is looks like) against my I & XII. He has abandoned most of his positions in the center of the battlefield and is attacking the East Woods. Basically the same thing that happened to me as the Rebs is happening to me as the Yanks. Also I have learning that Confederate counter battery fire is very effective if you fire all the guns in a stack together. He is hitting almost a gun per turn and in one instance 2 guns with one shot. In my earlier game I would fire each gun in a stack seperatly at a single target and seldom get a hit (4 guns in about 15 turns) I can see now why it has been discussed that these games favor the Rebs since many of them have the Confederates on the offensive.

I liked what Gen Whitehead wrote about opportunity fire being a "free shot"

Lt General Jon Thayer
III Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 952
Location:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>What I have learned is that it is imperative that you attack. Also you must fire all units in a stack combined. Rich has moved almost the entire Confederate army (at least that's what is looks like) against my I & XII.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"></i>

That is my point. The firepower advantage ought to be with the defender, not the attacker.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:49 am
Posts: 392
Location: USA
Gentlemen . . . In conversations about "single-turn" versus "phased play," we must remember that comments such as "dancing around in front of lines" and "crossing fields without drawing fire" and the like are completely out of place. This is <u>turn-based</u> gaming. Generally, twenty-minute turns. Each unit's firing/moving/etc represents what happens over a twenty-minute period of time. The defensive fire that happens after that "dancing" unit stops represents what firing happened as they were crossing the field, etc. No amount of design cleverness or tactical tweaking can change the turn-based foundation we all play in.

I play both single and phased methods, although more phased as time passes. Why? Two reasons: first, because some players cannot function historically and take advantage of parts of the game engine too much. Second, because of the illogical and unpredictable defensive fire in single-turn play. Say what you may about the advantages of single-turn play, until such time as the crazy defensive fire is fixed, single-turn play will remain a poor second choice in my mind.

Other than that, I enjoy the heck out of these games, and thank God for the many hours I've spent killing my enemies!

Sincerely,
Brig Gen Dwight McBride
V Corps/AOP/USA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:15 am
Posts: 180
Location: Canada
I have to echo Mike's short but very true statement regarding the description of Jon's new game with Rich.

If the key to winning tactically is in attacking, then the lesson is totally wrong. That's more of an Ancient World tactic where the attacker had an advantage in shock effect. Not so in the Civil War.

For the historical battle of Antietam, Lee did indeed counter attack on a divisional level which completely upset McClellan's 'mind set'. But Lee's objective was to defeat McClellan, not the Army of the Potomac, something he did remarkably well.



Bg. General Gilbert Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 835
Location: USA
Thankfully, players can chose their mode of play.

But I would like to make a couple comments.

First, Antietam can be won as the South with either a defensive or offensive strategy. Alot depends on who you are playing and how they play.

Second, your comment about the 20 minute post movement defensive fire representing the fire during the march. Well that doesn't explain the movement from point A to point B and once at Point B the defender may not be able to fire because he is not facing the enemy or has no LOS. In turn play, that same unit will (but not always) take fire and may become disrupted before point B is ever reached. And if disrupted during opp fire, that unit may become stranded in a very bad and vulnerable position due to the fact that movement points are reduced once becoming disrupted. Changing formation will trigger opp fire in turn play, but not in phase play.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DwightMcBride</i>
<br />
Gentlemen . . . In conversations about "single-turn" versus "phased play," we must remember that comments such as "dancing around in front of lines" and "crossing fields without drawing fire" and the like are completely out of place. This is <u>turn-based</u> gaming. Generally, twenty-minute turns. Each unit's firing/moving/etc represents what happens over a twenty-minute period of time. The defensive fire that happens after that "dancing" unit stops represents what firing happened as they were crossing the field, etc. No amount of design cleverness or tactical tweaking can change the turn-based foundation we all play in.

I play both single and phased methods, although more phased as time passes. Why? Two reasons: first, because some players cannot function historically and take advantage of parts of the game engine too much. Second, because of the illogical and unpredictable defensive fire in single-turn play. Say what you may about the advantages of single-turn play, until such time as the crazy defensive fire is fixed, single-turn play will remain a poor second choice in my mind.

Other than that, I enjoy the heck out of these games, and thank God for the many hours I've spent killing my enemies!

Sincerely,
Brig Gen Dwight McBride
V Corps/AOP/USA
<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 E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 835
Location: USA
Mike, your statement doesn't take into consideration certain defensive tactics and terrain. I challenge the player here to tell me that the attacker has the advantage at Kennesaw.

If a player defends in open terrain, they deserve what they get.

<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>What I have learned is that it is imperative that you attack. Also you must fire all units in a stack combined. Rich has moved almost the entire Confederate army (at least that's what is looks like) against my I & XII.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"></i>

That is my point. The firepower advantage ought to be with the defender, not the attacker.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/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 E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 7:49 pm
Posts: 423
Location: USA
Good thing we all have choices, so everyone can play the way they wish...you'll never convince me phases are better than turns. [:D]

LGen. Hamilton
II Corps
ANV, CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 835
Location: USA
Just for clarification:

Mike said:

<i>That is my point. The firepower advantage ought to be with the defender, not the attacker.</i>

In point of fact, this is and always has been true in the sense that if the attacker moves, their firepower is halved. As so a defender that remains in place, will fire at 100% FP.

So with this in mind and defensive terrain, in most cases, the defender will have superior FP, and so the attacker better have greater numbers.

This is as it should be.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:07 am
Posts: 10
Location: USA
Rich W.,

Could this be made to work in "phased" play:

1) Allow Op Fire during the Movement Phase. Same triggers and frequency as in "turn" play. Op Fire at 1/2 strength.

2) Allow formation change at any time during the Movement Phase, given enough MPs remain.

3) During the Defensive Fire Phase, units who did not fire Op Fire would fire at 100% just like they do now. Units who fired once would fire at 1/2 strength and units that fired 2 or more times would not fire at all.

Would this not solve most of the issues "turn" players have against "phased" play: "dancing" and formation change freedom? The only other issue I hear is the number of e-mails double with "phased" play. I always play with ADF on so that's never an issue for me. I feel ADF on is more realistic in that it removes some of the "godlike" control away from the player.

I think you saw the Champion Hill file from BRBII that Nick Kunz had sent you. Some of the results in that battle were borderline ridiculous. A defender in good terrain, not having moved, should not get run over that easily.

Thanks for all you do for us and thanks for taking the time to listen to our gripes! :-)

Col. Mark Crawford
Commanding
"Lone Star State Volunteers" Division
"The Rough & Ready" Corp
Army of Georgia


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 6:59 am
Posts: 266
Location: USA
But Rich,
so everyone can half fire, but the attacker will get more close ranges shots off almost everytime.


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 835
Location: USA
Sorry, I don't understand your statement

Opp fire is 50%

Exception: Defender will fire at 100% before a melee.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim Pfleck</i>
<br />But Rich,
so everyone can half fire, but the attacker will get more close ranges shots off almost everytime.
<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 E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 835
Location: USA
Hi Marty,

No I'm sorry, that won't work. That would have the defender firing during opp and def fire phase.

And changing formation anytime wouldn't work either

I'm not sure if I saw the file or Rich H.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MartyTurco</i>
<br />Rich W.,

Could this be made to work in "phased" play:

1) Allow Op Fire during the Movement Phase. Same triggers and frequency as in "turn" play. Op Fire at 1/2 strength.

2) Allow formation change at any time during the Movement Phase, given enough MPs remain.

3) During the Defensive Fire Phase, units who did not fire Op Fire would fire at 100% just like they do now. Units who fired once would fire at 1/2 strength and units that fired 2 or more times would not fire at all.

Would this not solve most of the issues "turn" players have against "phased" play: "dancing" and formation change freedom? The only other issue I hear is the number of e-mails double with "phased" play. I always play with ADF on so that's never an issue for me. I feel ADF on is more realistic in that it removes some of the "godlike" control away from the player.

I think you saw the Champion Hill file from BRBII that Nick Kunz had sent you. Some of the results in that battle were borderline ridiculous. A defender in good terrain, not having moved, should not get run over that easily.

Thanks for all you do for us and thanks for taking the time to listen to our gripes! :-)

Col. Mark Crawford
Commanding
"Lone Star State Volunteers" Division
"The Rough & Ready" Corp
Army of Georgia
<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 E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:44 pm
Posts: 1200
Location: USA
Nothing wrong with the Union winning![:D]

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:07 am
Posts: 10
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>

No I'm sorry, that won't work. That would have the defender firing during opp and def fire phase.

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

Yes, but the fire wouldn't exceed 100% unless a unit Op Fires 3 or more times, and that is allowed in "turn" play today. A unit who fires Op Fire 2 or more times would not fire in the Defensive Fire Phase.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>

And changing formation anytime wouldn't work either

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

Why? They can in "turn" play. The only reason given that they can't in "phase" play is to prevent units from marching to the front in column without taking Op Fire, changing into line formation and blazing away. With Op Fire added to "phase" play they could still march up in column, but risk Op Fire as they do with "turns".

Basically, with this idea, Defensive Fire would be spread out over the opponent's Movement Phase and your Defensive Fire Phase instead of just being during the Defensive Fire Phase as it is now.

Make sense?

Col. Mark Crawford
Commanding
"Lone Star State Volunteers" Division
"The Rough & Ready" Corp
Army of Georgia


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 952
Location:
Hi, Colonel,

I would much rather have a turn-based system where something similar to what you suggest happens after you hit the end of turn button. In other words, all units that didn't fire in opportunity fire would fire full strength, units that fired only once would fire at half strength, (all units that fired twice or more would not fire), and then preplotted melees would be resolved. I don't play the phase system because it is a better system, and my impression is most others who play the phase system don't either. We play the phase system because the defensive fire in single turn play is capricious and inadequate.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 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: