Thank you, Mike, for describing your objections.
<font color="yellow">My responses</font id="yellow">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am against limiting disrupted units any more than they are. In fact, if it were up to me, I would allow disrupted units to melee at half strength like in the Napoleonics.
<font color="yellow">I respectfully disagree. There are also too many melee attacks. Often, you might think that typical CW battles were units marching up, firing a volley and then launching a bayonet attack. (meleeing.) </font id="yellow">
Wouldn't have as much of a problem limiting high fatigue units though.
<font color="yellow">I agree that high fatigue units should not melee.</font id="yellow">
I still think even that would lead to gamey tactics such as concentrating fire on one unit to run up its fatigue.
<font color="yellow">I believe that that is a legitimate tactic. It pays to cripple dangerous and weak units.
"Here comes the Old Guard! Shift all cannon fire to it before it can close!" </font id="yellow">
One problem is with weak zones of control, a disrupted unit couldn't retreat the one hex if surrounded by ZOC, even if it had an escape route. I don't think that is realistic.
<font color="yellow">I agree that total immobilization is a problem, although it can be argued that a disrupted unit might be too disorganized to move against fire.
However, I would be content with a rule that a surrounded and disrupted unit would be able to move to any adjacent open hex. </font id="yellow">
Another problem is disruption caused by terrain would make attacks across swamps, abatis and other disrupting terrain almost impossible.
<font color="yellow">I would agree to the degree that even the present program is unsatisfactory. What if units in line formation could move one hex (and only one hex) into a swamp or town hex without disruption? That would work for me. </font id="yellow">
I think also you have to look at what a hex represents. Theoretically, units in adjacent hexes could be anywhere from 1 YD to 250 YDS apart, but practically speaking the distance ought to represent center of hex to center of hex, or 125 yds. That is quite a distance.
<font color="yellow">I think that that is your best argument, although 125 yards in the open is guarenteed to be within effective rifle range bringing lots of casualties. Not so much in forests or towns. </font id="yellow">
I think the excessive casualties in the games stem more from unrealistic stacking, communications and intelligence , as well as the inherent limitations of IGO-UGO, than the overuse of disrupted units. High fatigue units are another matter, but even they ought to be able to retreat through a weak ZOC. -MG Mike Mihalik
<font color="yellow">IGO-UGO, unlimited intel on acquired enemy informations and its communication from one end of the army to the other, and limitations through pbem cannot be helped much.
Stacking could easily be done such as reducing unit factors in forested hexes, but it does not require game engine modification. Stacking could be modified by mutual agreement. For that matter, a lot of what I suggest could be played by opponents' mutual agreement. [;)]
But it would be so much easier for players if the game engine would handle the restrictions so that mistakes would not be made. [8D]
ie An inadvertent overstacking now would require wiping out progress and replaying the turn with acquired previous knowledge, possibly taking back dozens of moves... [B)] Such destroys the integrity and the enjoyment of the game.</font id="yellow"> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I believe that if we keep changes simple as possible that players will adapt quickly and easily while game designers will be more inclined to implement them.[8D]
BG Ross McDaniel
2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG, CSA
Stoop and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be shot at.-Carlos Urbizo
Possibly crawling on all fours might be safer than standing upright, but we like the view better up there. –Isabel Paterson
|