American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Fields, crops and visibility
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18091		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Richard [ Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:12 am ]
Post subject:  Fields, crops and visibility
Surely the height of crops in field hexes should vary depending on time of year?

However, I've noticed that at 1st Bull Run the height of fields is 0ft, which really doesn't seem right for late July unless the fields had been left fallow or the crops trampled/cut down prior to the battle. Anyway, this would make a real difference to any fighting that occurs in the cornfield near Matthew's Hill, so it's something that ought to get fixed.

I haven't checked yet if this is an issue for any other battlefields, but I'd suggest that folks check before starting up any new games as it's something that could have a real impact on gameplay, but it can easily be fixed by anyone who knows their way around the pdt file. It's also worthwhile reporting to HPS support so that it can be permanently fixed for the next round of updates, along with any other issues, such as wrong-facing embankment hexes at Atlanta.

Maj. Gen. Rich White
2nd (Palmetto Guards) Division III Corps
ANV
Author:  KWhitehead [ Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fields, crops and visibility
Cornfield in Antietam has the same problem (or lack of a problem seeing). I suspect that designers went with the no blocking of LOS by fields because of HPS games aren't really designed to handle fields other than for movement effects. They really need to be like a bridge. Blocking LOS at 6 feet until they get stomped on a bit then they are reduced to 0 feet.
Author:  simovitch [ Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fields, crops and visibility
Yep, I'm 6'-4" and I took this photo standing next to the cornfield at Antietam on Sept 17th (last week). I imagine the soldiers got a false sense of security moving through this field, as they would be quite concealed, yet still vulnerable to fire.
Image
Author:  dalelast [ Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fields, crops and visibility
Rich,

I was at Antietam on the 17th as well. Were you there for the 6:30 AM Sunrise at the Cornfield program?
Author:  simovitch [ Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fields, crops and visibility
Dale, I got there at about 9AM and walked the trails on my own (except I did drive down to Burnside's Bridge).

I did overhear a few of the discussions going on at Mumma Farm and Bloody Lane and the Parks folks sounded like they really knew their stuff. Awesome day it was.
Author:  nelmsm [ Sun Sep 23, 2012 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fields, crops and visibility
One thing to remember is that the cornfields of today are taller then the cornfields of that time. Hybridization has brought about a taller corn plant over the years. Of course the soldiers of the day were generally shorter too but I'm sure that would be a factor in reducing the LOS effect. Plus it would only involve the corn fields, wheat fields and other small grain fields wouldn't present an LOS issue.
Author:  Richard [ Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fields, crops and visibility
Wheat today is shorter (about 1m) than in the past. For instance Emmer wheat is 2m high. I'm not sure what varieties were most common in the 19th century, but I'd imagine they'd have been taller than present-day wheat.
Author:  mihalik [ Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fields, crops and visibility
Hi,

There is a map for sale in the Gettysburg NP store that shows what crops were planted where, what types of fences and walls enclosed the fields, etc. It was compiled by several historians, including Pfanz, who was a historian there. Pretty impressive information.
Author:  D. Groce [ Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fields, crops and visibility
A little off topic, but when discussing missing obstructions, has anyone discussed the missing fence in Gettysburg, the one that broke up Pickets charge, or is it there and I just can't find it? This fence was a major factor in the failure of the charge and should be on the map, I know rebs will complain that the scenario is already wieghted agains them, but this is a major feature of the battlefield.
Author:  KWhitehead [ Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fields, crops and visibility
Actually if you look at the Warren map there were up to nine fence lines that had to be passed through. That would almost be every hex in our game would have a fence. :D The problem from the gaming point of view is how many were real obstacles to movement? That is hard to say. Some were post fences which compared to worm are probably relatively easy to knock down and provide little cover unless a regiment makes a breastwork out of them. The worm or zigzag fences can be quite formidable structures and can provide very good cover. They can't be just pushed over like a post fence. The problem here is how many were still standing after two days of fighting? Did the Rebel brigades properly handle their advance by sending out detachments to tear down these fences before the line reach them?

Then there are the fences that ran the same direction as the charge. These tend to channel the regiments since they must follow the fence line. Part of Pickett's division had only one worm fence to cross and a couple of post fences. But Garnett and Kemper had to angle across the frontage and crossed about seven fences.
Author:  D. Groce [ Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fields, crops and visibility
There is one fence that is always brought up as a major factor in "the charge", that is the one that should be on the map. I would not want the map cluttered with every fence, but this one had a major effect on the battle.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/