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 Oct 20, 2017 1:07 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
Altering the pdt fire factors and playing in phases is one option, but this still won't solve all the problems. Perhaps the best solution would be to just chuck the ACW engine and use the Nappy one instead, with its proper detachable skirmishers and effective artillery? If Nappy cavalry had the option of dismounting and troops could prepare defensive works then this would almost certainly be a better choice of engine, especially if indirect fire could be carried over from the EAW series.

For some bizarre reason, the Nappy engine smoothbore guns are far more effective than the ACW rifled ones - I've absolutely no idea why this should be the case. Besides, it makes sense that even the ACW smoothbores ought to be <i>no less effective</i> than their Nappy counterparts. Of course rifled guns, if still muzzle-loading, would take longer to reload than smoothbores, so might be less effective at delivering cannister.

Overall, I'm starting to feel that the old 1996 game <i>Age of Rifles</i> is a better choice of game engine for the ACW than this one ... and this is a real pity, because with a few little changes the HPS games could be so much better.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 8:16 am
Posts: 328
Location: Canada
Lets not forget that we still need engineers/pioneer units in the ACW games

Colonel John Corbin
Commanding officer
2nd Division
XVIII Corps
AoJ


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 5:41 am
Posts: 873
Location: Somewhere between D.C. and the battlefield
Too true.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 12:37 pm
Posts: 356
Location: USA
I have been trying to get a Historical HPS Gettysburg Historical July 1-3 battle going to no avail. One main reason I want to do this is that BG Gettysburg 13H is by far the most fought battle in the club. It was my thinking that if we could get some folks doing the HPS version than we would get an excellant "feel" for all the aspects discussed since we could do direct comparisons. Problem is; HPS is a campaign and folks apparently are doing that which is understandable since that is the defining feature. Perhaps the stand alone battles are not tenable but only function in contex of the campaign, but would it not be neat if they too were great? Has anyone done the Historical version 1 July 1-3 battle? If so how about an after action!!??

Major General Tony Best
AOJ


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
I'm currently about 1/2 way through a Norris-Frost BGG game of the 3 day battle, but haven't played the HPS version yet, although I'd certainly like to be able to compare it with BGG.

So far my main impression of HPS Gettysburg is of Brandy Station and, as a Reb, I've not had too favourable an impression of this encounter. I'm hoping that subsequent battles will prove less unfortunate, although the over-valuing of artillery and cavalry has encouraged me to conduct some rather unconventional manoeuvres in the second battle of my ongoing campaign against Gen. Walter - tactics that now seem highly unlikely to prove successful.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
Regarding engineers & weather - I suppose we could always try requesting a Nappy engine version of the various ACW games, but including cavalry capable of dismounting and with the earthworks feature unlocked. It's quite possible to convert everything to Eckmuhl_101a, but that wouldn't include the engineers let alone the weather or dismounted cavalry. A real pity.


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 8:16 am
Posts: 328
Location: Canada
I would think from a maintanance point view that having all games run off one engine would be easier ...

Colonel John Corbin
Commanding officer
2nd Division
XVIII Corps
AoJ


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
So would I ... but unfortunately it's unlikely to happen.


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 12:13 am
Posts: 335
Location: USA
I have to disagree. I think that going to the Eck 1.01 engine would be a major step backwards.

You would lose:
Dismounted cav
Breastworks

You would "gain" inappropriate things like
Square
Charging Cav at 3x value

You would have to do a major pdt shuffle to accomodate the fact that Column was a manuver formation, not a battle formation.

I'm also not that convinced that separate skirmishers would be a step forward. You would then have to start including all the house rules you need in the Nap games to keep them from getting silly.

While I think that the ACW game needs some tweaking, I think the engine as it stands is closer to ACW warfare than any adapting of the Eckmuhl engine would give us.

Also, stacking limits are pdt adjustable, so that's "easily" fixed. Density mods are necessary, but there needs to be a better solution than the one we have in the Naps. The one used in Eckmuhl is badly broken, since it is based on number of counters more than number of troops. A unit of 1100 Austrians would take far fewer losses to arty fire there than 3 stacked units of 300 French.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 8:05 pm
Posts: 846
Location: Panhandle of Texas
Got to agree with Gary on this one. In my opinion all they really need to do is fix the defensive fire and make artillery a little more effective. I don't mind routing units disrupting units they rout through though I wonder about the path they choose.

General Mark Nelms
Union Chief of the Army


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
I don't really want the Eck101a engine for the ACW games - just more effective artillery, improved ADF, pioneers, weather and the option of deploying proper skirmishers and to break down cavalry into squadrons.

For instance, in heavily wooded terrain a unit can't see more than 2 hexes ahead even if deploying ACW style skirmishers, so if there's a stack of enemy troops 2 or 3 hexes into the clear then this can't be detected until the <b>whole</b> unit moves to the edge of the woods. The ability to deploy independent skirmisher sub-units would solve this problem.

Also, I'm not sure that ACW infantry might not be better represented by Nappy style skirmishers rather than formed infantry. Another alternative (although not one I particularly favour) might be the extended line formation of the EAW series - the ordinary line formation just seems too close for ACW infantry and, with the large maps, the <i>option</i> to spread troops out in a thin line of skirmishers makes quite a lot of sense. (If necessary, I suppose having an optional rule that allows mounted cavalry the possibility of riding down skirmishers in the open might be a worth considering as a counter-balance to hordes of skirmishers - perhaps allow formed infantry to do so too, provided they outnumber the skirmishers at least 2:1.)

Certainly the possibility of most ACW infantry being capable of deploying a single skirmisher sub-company (or, especially as the war progresses, allowing experienced infantry to count as Nappy style light infantry) seems worthwhile considering. I really don't see ACW infantry being compelled to fight in close formation like 1870 Prussians.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 12:13 am
Posts: 335
Location: USA
Too many examples of ACW infantry being crushed when hit in the flanks for me to think that you'd represent most ACW infantry (even the good ones) as skirmishers.

For me, I'd like to see
Better arty
D fire upgraded and I'd be happy.
Maybe a percent chance that deployed skirmishers would be able to find out what's really out there as well.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>

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
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Just curious on a couple points:

1) Are you saying you can't find examples of artillery batteries routing, or do you mean, routing as a result of seeing other units rout through them? (Sorry if this seems a dumb question)

2) What's your opinion of artillery in <i>Campaign Franklin</i>? I increased fire power to ensure quality wasn't diminished by other factors.

BTW, the optional rules window in the ACW series is getting a bit large. If that trend continues, it will become confusing to newer buyers, so difficult chioces must be made to limit an otherwise limitless well.

Perhaps, becoming undisrupted as a result of this already mentioned rule, could become easier. For example, units that disrupt as a result of routed units, could rally 50% quicker than other routed or disrupted units.

Rich W.


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:01 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 Rich Walker</i>
1) Are you saying you can't find examples of artillery batteries routing, or do you mean, routing as a result of seeing other units rout through them? (Sorry if this seems a dumb question)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Seeing them *disrupt* as a result of units routing through them. How does a disrupted battery look like, anyway? Maybe that's my pertinent point. Of course an infantry or cavalry outfit in close order can disrupt in a very literal sense and have its effectiveness reduced, but how do six cannon in battery "disrupt" so seriously that they move and fire with half effectiveness?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
2) What's your opinion of artillery in <i>Campaign Franklin</i>? I increased fire power to ensure quality wasn't diminished by other factors.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am only in the third game of a campaign, in the first one of which I had practically no ammo for my guns, and the second one ended after six turns because my opponent yielded rather than try scale the walls of Franklin. But from what I've seen so far, now that you mention it, Franklin artillery may be a little more effective than Corinth/Gettysburg one. Still nowhere near as effective as the one in the Nappy games though.



Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>

Seeing them *disrupt* as a result of units routing through them. How does a disrupted battery look like, anyway? Maybe that's my pertinent point. Of course an infantry or cavalry outfit in close order can disrupt in a very literal sense and have its effectiveness reduced, but how do six cannon in battery "disrupt" so seriously that they move and fire with half effectiveness?


Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'll pass the idea along that artillery be exempted from this rule, or be only disrupted for 1 or 2 turns. Why? Perhaps, after seeing 700 men pass through their battery in a panic, it would take 20 minutes or more to regroup and fire all the cannons. It takes a large number of artillerist to load and fire a single cannon. So a large number of routed men passing through their ranks might encouage a few artillerist to join the mob. At least temporarily!

Rich


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

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 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: