No, no, NO! Enough of this tweaking and fiddling and beggaring about with this, that and the other. I am sure we will disappear up our own backsides soon if we continue with our insatiable pursuit of..."more realism".
If we go down the road of factoring into the game such arguable traits as 'quality' and 'morale' then I think we risk trying to invent hard limits for things that are simply not calculable. Troop quality is an abstract idea that is NOT simply down to how much fighting experience a unit has had. It is derived from experience, leadership, training...but also things like food, rest, equipment, physical & mental fatigue etc. Abstract ideas that are difficult to repesent in game turns.
More mathematical tweaking of the system will further play into the hands of the members of this site (and I think there are more than a few of them) who play their games using a coldly logical application of the game engines results calculations. These games don't deal with the reality of civil war era combat. They are about player A versus player B.
Units already have a quality of 'A' through 'F' PLUS the benefits of other modifiers such as leader, terrain, flank morale etc. 600 'E' quality troops dug in behind breastworks, in wooded terrain, behind a stream and on raised elevation are already likely to run away when someone shouts BOO! as it is, without making them even more susceptible to shock.
I think what we have at the moment with the HPS games is...adequate, and will be further improved as patches bring all the titles up to standard. There is already a big optional rules table that can be used to tailor the games to an individuals personal taste. (Though I think the countless options may be themselves a problem, as they act to skew the standard game environment that ALL players should be on)
I have read, some years ago, an interesting piece on WWII's Normandy D-Day landings. It suggested that the objectives might not have been acclomplished on 6th June 1944 if the Invasion forces had comprised only Veteran troops! describing how experienced troops, whilst steadier and more reliable in action were also less likely to take risks. It found that highly trained 'Green' troops, as were largely used on the day, could be relied upon to perform with greater 'zeal' the first time in action (because they hadn't experienced the horror of combat before). It is this kind of paradox that makes representing things such as Quality such a headache in the game system.
It is very difficult to gain agreement on subjects such as this, but I think the game experience is more likely to benefit from a few standardised 'house rules' rather than endless adjustment to the program itself?
Lt.Col. Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.
|