| American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC) http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/ |
|
| Melee http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12256 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Richard [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Melee |
Do players rely too much on melee rather than firepower? Would it be worthwhile considering the following: 1./ The possibility of defensive fire "pinning" attacking units and preventing them from continuing to move or meleeing - but not from firing - that turn. (Perhaps like the Squad battles system?) 2./ For units to still exert a movement penalty ZOC on enemy units moving in proximity to their front hexes, even if no skirmishers are deployed. Perhaps also for guns to exert a movement ZOC, or for units frontally assaulting guns to have a chance of getting routed if they come under heavy fire. 3./ For frontal infantry v infantry/artillery melees to be possible only against disrupted and/or highly fatigued units Brig. Gen. Rich White 3rd Brig. III Corps Phantom Cav. Div. ANV |
|
| Author: | Ian Coyle [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pinning would get my vote of the 3 above. I'd propose a 4th option. Melee check. In order to melee each attacking unit has to pass a melee test. If it fails it can't attack. Would provide intersting situations in multi unit attacks where not all the attackers are allowed to attack. Strictly speaking I'd say that it should really be the defender that rolls to see if he stands but I guess thats not possible within the game engine or either 'setting' ie Phased ot Turn. Col Coyle Army of Georgia Georgia the Brave |
|
| Author: | mihalik [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Since HPS went to the melee formula that weights melees in favor of the defender, I don't see it near as often as in the old Battleground games. I don't have anything against pinning, but I think disruption plays that role in preventing units from meleeing. MG Mike Mihalik 1/III/AoMiss/CSA |
|
| Author: | Richard [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
But how frequently does defensive fire actually cause attacking units to become disrupted? Does anyone know the probability? Or even the probability of defensive fire occurring in the first place? Is this (ie. the probability of defensive fire) something that might be put into the pdt rather than hard-coded? Brig. Gen. Rich White 3rd Brig. III Corps Phantom Cav. Div. ANV |
|
| Author: | Ian Coyle [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The last serious pbem game I played versus a Yank opponent was one where he continually melee'd at every opportunity. And this wasn't just for VP hexes, it was his game play. I had no problems with it as he was just trying to use the fact that his units were bigger and more numerous than my Reb ones....but it ruined the game for me. Personally I think that the cost of using melee has disproprtionately changed when we moved from Bg/Talonsoft to HPS. In BG each successful attacking unit involved suffered a 2 fatigue point hit when they won. That was a significant amount and players knew that the unit would have to be used wisely from then on. In HPS I've seen units not take a scratch in terms of fatigue gain and be ready to melee again and again. If we can't make melee costly to do then I agree the next best thing is to look at ways yo prevent it. Georgia the Brave |
|
| Author: | Digglyda [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Rebs ability to melee my line, reorder his high quality units and melee me again on the following turn has always been my biggest fear when playing. I would like to see more strict controls on the ability of units to melee, some kind of system to represent real physical fatigue. Say a unit can melee 3 times and then is all melee'd out. Could fix it by making units on max fatigue unable to melee. I think that making no attempt to simulate the limits of physical endurance is a real mistake in these games, especially as some of the scenarios recreate 3, 4 or even 5 days of action. The present fatigue system just isn't enough in my opinion. Historically, the 3 day Gettysburg battle was decided over consecutive days by different units of each army, units engaged heavily on the 1st day were largely inactive on the 2nd etc, etc. I would like to ask why the designers didn't feel it was necessary to represent the physical effects of combat and movement on troops? with limits on the amount of marching that a unit could do without becoming exhausted. Capt. Jim Wilkes. 2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps. AoC. U.S.A. |
|
| Author: | KWhitehead [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Since the HPS system requires about a 2:1 advantage in men for a melee to have even odds off success, I don't see it being used that much. However, I tend to try to keep my stacks in the 400-500 range making them very difficult to get those odds on. If your line for some reason is relatively weak with many stacks below 300 you are going to see melee used to break it up quickly. Reducing the stacking maximum is one of the quickest ways to reduce the use of melees. As the maximum number of men in a stack goes down the ability to set up melees with the minimum 2:1 odds goes down dramatically. The combination of not being able get regiments into the attack with the right total plus loses to defensive fire make it difficult. LG. Kennon Whitehead Chatham Grays 1/1/III AoM (CSA) |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|