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 Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:34 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: HPS ACW games
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 10:10 pm
Posts: 808
Location: USA
Ok, I've put up with locking out the maps and the oobs in the latest HPS games. I've gone to playing the game in multiple phases to get around the poor defensive fire rates in the single phase system and the ridiculous stacking limits with no fire modifier for higher unit densities. I've bought all the games even though I've barely played anything but Corinth.

I've had Gettysburg since it first came out and have finally gotten involved in my first major battle in a campaign but either I'm having some serious bad luck or there is something wrong with the morale system. I've gotten used to the yankee troops routing sooner and more often than the rebels but it seems to me in this one every time I have a unit rout everyone within sight of it gets D'd.

Is anyone else having this problem or am I just having a bad run of luck ?

Lt.Gen.Ken Miller
Veteran's Divsion
VIII / AoS


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 5:41 am
Posts: 873
Location: Somewhere between D.C. and the battlefield
The problem that you may having is with the rule that was introduced with one of the latest patches to the series and that makes every unit disrupt that is in the path of a routing unit. I absolutely hate this rule and can't understand why they haven't made it optional, at least. It means our cannon are constantly disrupted, especially as the routers seem to deliberately seek out any artillery that they can positively find to rout through it.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:06 pm
Posts: 232
Location: USA
Gen. Walter,

I have noticed that, too. You could have a unit retreat through a 5 hex wide, straight to the rear, open, level ground route, but instead, they choose to turn 90 degrees and pass through any artillery or infantry located there and then turn and go through some other unit in an entirely different direction! All this time, avoiding the most direct and easily traced route to the rear.[:(!] I, too, would like to see this optional in the future.

Lt. Gen. Don Adams
5th Texas "Lone Star" Cavalry Brigade
I/III ANV
http://www.rootsandsaddles.com/index.htm
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 8:45 am
Posts: 190
Location: Australia
Oh, goody! We have two of our better Generals, one from each side, both upset with the automatic disruption of units that have had the misfortune of being routed through.

Or is it that they have a potentially legitimate complaint concerning the automatic direction of routs?

I agree with how routs seem to go - through the nearest available, friendly unit first (not towards an enemy unit - at all - not quite a valid response), rather than than seeking the 'line of least resistance' as we all would when we're trying to "disappear".


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 12:37 pm
Posts: 356
Location: USA
If this came about as a result of a "patch" can it not be "unpatched"?[?]

Major General Tony Best
AOJ


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 10:10 pm
Posts: 808
Location: USA
Gen Adams and Gen Walter,

Thanks for the prompt reply, I thought this had been brought up before but not having played Franklin and Ozark much I wasn't sure. Have played mostly Corinth 1.01 mods so I wasn't aware of the effect this change would have on the game. Guess I should have paid more attention and played the others more. Could have saved myself the money I spent on Gettysburg.

Lt.Gen.Ken Miller
Veteran's Divsion
VIII / AoS


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2001 6:24 pm
Posts: 140
Location: USA
I find that we notice bad fortune much more often than we notice good fortune, that seems to be a basic human trait. Having reviewed my routs in my current GB match (no more than one would expect, and probably fewer), I find no particular tendency of units to direct their flight through friendly units, nor have I noticed that to be happening extraordinarily often on the other side either, though its impossible to be as systematic in my observations across the lines. My men seem to be recovering pretty slowly when they are disrupted, but I suspect that's because I've managed to get three brigadiers and a division commander knocked out of the game. Ken, I doubt there's an error in the programming, I think it more likely that you are having bad luck.

I also think there's a strong case to be made for the rule - having a few hundred panicked soldiers come tearing through your lines out of a fog of powder smoke would almost certainly create confusion. It would be nice if the game engine could distinguish between that a couple dozen refugees from a devastated unit, but that's probably asking a lot of the game engine. Perhaps the rule should be made optional, but if so, I would favor playing with it on.

Lt. Gen. Matt Perrenod
<i>The Blue Ghost</i>
VIII Corps, Army of the Shenandoah


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 10:10 pm
Posts: 808
Location: USA
Matt,

Sorry I disagree, have played various minature and boardgame rules over the years. Most require some type of morale check when units pass through one another when retreating with modifiers for the retreating units condition. BG games had this feature with routing units often routing or disrupting adjacent units. At first this is what I thought was happening but when it just continued every time a unit routed I began to wonder. My suspicions are confirmed by what Dierk and Don have said that this disruption is automatic, part of the game engine and not just a matter of bad luck. No set of rules I've played produce automatic disorder in such conditions and I've read several accounts where one unit routed past/through another which stood and halted the enemy. Since I find this condition unacceptable Gettysburg will join Ozark and Franklin on the shelf and I'll go back to BG and Corinth 1.01.

Lt.Gen.Ken Miller
Veteran's Divsion
VIII / AoS


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 108
Location: Sweden
Sirs,

as a representative of the military (in real life), units tend indeed to rout more often into friendly units than into the open areas - and because of a simple reason: Safety. The non-rouitng troops represent for the routers shelter and protection from the enemy fire/bayonets. Of course, the other troops then get bad feelings, watching routed units, panicked, wounded soldiers fleeing through your lines, maybe stopping just behind, telling awful stories and rumours... Why should they run out in the open where there's no one to protect them? Where would you run if someone was hunting you with sabres and muskets? Away from friendly troops??
I wouldn't... But of course, a Cumberlander never routs..!!![;)]

Respectfully,

Gen Lars W
CO AoC

Gen Lars W
General Commanding
Army of the Cumberland
USA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1643
Location: USA
For those that hate it[:(!], it came in version 1.02 along with the much loved[xx(] locking of OOB and MAP files:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes for Campaign Corinth 1.02
- Added feature that routing units will disrupt units in hexes that
the routing units retreat into.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

For Corinth its a patch, for Gettysburg and Franklin its tough luck.

Col. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 12:13 am
Posts: 335
Location: USA
to be entirely honest, I wouldn't be bothered by this in the least, if they would just fix it that arty was immune to the disruption. Guns are too weak as is, and you get much routing ahead of you, and your guns are just worthless.

Col. Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
Not so keen on the unreliable ADF, but routing Yankees suits me fine! In addition, it would be good if all units within 5 hexes and LOS of a routing unit had to test morale - and because disrupted (or perhaps even joined the rout) if they failed. Also, maybe units might get temporarily pinned down or "frozen" (in the subsequent player turn) if they're spooked by nearby routers, or just if McClellan happens to be nearby?

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 12:13 am
Posts: 335
Location: USA
Hey, wait, does that mean that every last one of my units will always be frozen? After all, I'm always around


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />Not so keen on the unreliable ADF, but routing Yankees suits me fine! In addition, it would be good if all units within 5 hexes and LOS of a routing unit had to test morale - and because disrupted (or perhaps even joined the rout) if they failed. Also, maybe units might get temporarily pinned down or "frozen" (in the subsequent player turn) if they're spooked by nearby routers, or just if McClellan happens to be nearby?

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Col. Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 5:41 am
Posts: 873
Location: Somewhere between D.C. and the battlefield
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
<br />to be entirely honest, I wouldn't be bothered by this in the least, if they would just fix it that arty was immune to the disruption. Guns are too weak as is, and you get much routing ahead of you, and your guns are just worthless.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Exactly. I, too, find that the rule makes some sense; I just read about such a situation in the Battle of Corinth where all the regiments held in reserve behind Battery Powell were thoroughly disrupted and partially routed themselves when the frontline regiments routed through them. However, I can't recall ever to have heard about anything like that happening to a battery.

Second point, I can't understand why Rout Limiting, a rule of similar impact on the game, has been made optional but this here is made mandatory.

I find the HPS ACW games (only) to be definitely unfair to artillery. There seems to be a conviction that artillery must be rendered totally impotent by whatever means--breakdown in sections, weak PDT values, and now enforced disruption whenever kept even near the frontlines. (Alternative: keep them so far away from the frontline that they do no harm whatsover.)

I keep reading and reading about single artillery rounds that take out entire files; many battle accounts (too many to think these are exception or just made up cases) mention shells that kill 8, 12, even more people. Single shells. We are lucky to get such a kill from a whole section firing 20 minutes (one game turn). The history of Civil War artillery is full of accounts of batteries repelling infantry assaults all on their own by utterly disrupting and badly mauling the attacking formations. No such thing is possible in the HPS games.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 5:41 am
Posts: 873
Location: Somewhere between D.C. and the battlefield
Lest we open the same old debate again, this here thread has all the arguments that have earlier been presented on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of HPS ACW artillery.

http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... IC_ID=6609

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 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: