American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I think a density modifier would be worthwhile (again, it is already there in the Panzer Campaign and Nappy games), however, even without it the casualties from the passthrough fire would of course have to be divided up between the units in a hex so that three units wouldn't suffer more than one unit.

Playing in phases (as has been mentioned before, the logic of the one-phase turn is so flawed that it isn't worth bothering with it), a good chance of disrupting all attacking units with defensive fire would be an easy to implement fix (I think) for the gun overrun problem.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

The multiphase system certainly has its advantages - although it's a pity that the weak ADF from the single phase system couldn't be incorporated <i><b>in addition</b></i> to the normal full defensive fire during the defensive phase. That would make it a bit tougher for the attacker to advance across open ground and then suddenly hide in a hole at the end of his move!

But to be honest, what's really required is a complete overhaul of the whole game engine to replace the turn based system with some kind of simultaneous movement system - after all, why on earth should a computer game be constrained by traditional tabletop turn-based wargaming conventions? That sort of approach was already pretty much obsolete back in the 90s when the BG games first appeared. The fact that we're still using the same antiquated wargaming system ten years later is almost incredible - it's about as sensible as an army retaining muzzle loaders instead of upgrading to breechloaders because it would deter soldiers from wasting ammunition!

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

Gentlemen,

When considering modification to the artillery melee strenght, you must remember to keep in mind faceing. The modifications should be to the business end of the cannon not the rear or flanks. When attacking from the rear or flanks the guns should be easly over run.

So, is a Committe going to be formed to put together a unified suggestion for changes to be voted on by the general body and presented to HPS as suggested changes, approved by at leat 3/4 of the voters? or are we going to talk this to death and Hope some takes note?

Col. Joe Mishurda


Joe Mishurda, The Cast Iron Division
2nd Div. XXV Corp, AoJ

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jmishurda</i>
So, is a Committe going to be formed to put together a unified suggestion for changes to be voted on by the general body and presented to HPS as suggested changes, approved by at leat 3/4 of the voters? or are we going to talk this to death and Hope some takes note?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The latter is usually the preferred course.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

Your best hope is to convince one of the people who has worked closely with John on these titles (i.e. Drew or Rich), and let them champion the issues with John. No guarantees then, but it's better than nothing.

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

I think the idea of a committee of game players to look at the problem and make suggestions is the best way to go.

I work as a programmer analyst and can tell you from first hand experience that up front analysis is the hardest part of software problem solving. If you present a thought out structured approach with well thought out suggestions for resolution, the gang at HPS would be more likely to respond favorably to it. After the up front analysis is done for them (by you guys).

Just my two cents worth :>

Colonel John Corbin
Commanding officer
2nd Division
XVIII Corps
AoJ

I think that "putting together a committee" may end up being counterproductive. While well thought out ideas and concepts will influence John more heavily than random schemes, I'm also afraid that it will get people's hopes up more than may be warrented. There is no guarantee that John would accept the suggestions of a committee, and considering his schedule, I'd say that any changes beyond fairly simple and straightforward changes will be very unlikely.

I don't want to be negative, just realistic, and in my opinion, a committee would probably just end up causing more hard feelings than doing real good. Drew or Rich Walker would be able to comment on this better than I can (obviously), but that's my $.02

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

From what I've seen in Tiller's games, unless the fix is fairly simple (and I don't know what programming implications any of these ideas have) it is not likely to be investigated. I thought I read before that the programming implications of gun capture and recapture may be more than we think. On the other hand, treating limbered guns as unlimbered seems to me that it ought be simple to change, and shouldn't potentially imbalance scenario victory conditions that changing gun vp's might. And in the end, isn't it more realistic that a battery faced with overrun would fire until they try to limber and retreat? And that some guns would be lost and others saved unless the attack completely overwhelmed the battery? And that the guns that are saved are in a state of disruption since they are retreating helter-skelter? If my guns are captured they might as well be destroyed because I doubt I'd be able to launch a rescue mission to get them. You probably would have to allow enemy guns to be recrewed by your men or they would essentially become victory point hexes in the scenario that you'd have to garrison or risk easy recapture by roving cavalry companies after the fighting moved on.

Major General Dirk Gross
CAV DIV/XIV Corps/AoC

Just so everyone knows, your comments are noted and taken into consideration. In fact, all the designers have formed an internal committee to determine what changes would be most worthwhile. John has agreed to certain changes and they should be ready by early summer(of course, I should never mention dates as they are unreliable, so don't quote me). But don't expect a complete overhaul, be realistic!

The problem is that sometimes the cure causes more problems then they solve. So caution must always be used.

Rich Walker

I don't suppose you could provide a bit more information on what might get changed? I'm sure everyone here is really keen on finding out what the committee's decided on. Anyway, this is what I'd really like to see:

1. Gun capture / recapture feature

2. A fix for the ADF, preferably with automatic ADF prior to melee

3. Target density modifier


I'd also like to see proper artillery supply wagons at some point and maybe a few other things I can't remember right now, but if we can get the three features listed above that would be really great!


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

In general, the policy of HPS is that, until something is released to the general public, we don't talk about it. At least not in specific terms. But as I said before, your comments are noted and considered.

Rich

The timing and nature of any changes to the game engine are problematic. What can be done at the moment to address the impotency of guns at close range and in Melee?

The only reason that an attacker would intentially move troops into the 1 hex range of a gun section/battery is to Melee same. (Anyone who does this routinely with no intention of Meleeing the gun hex, please contact me. I look forward to playing you.) This could be considered a continuum of movement from start to finish. So let's refer to the Melee hex as the "0" distance.

What I am suggesting here is simply a synthesis of others views expressed in this thread. I think a large majority would agree that guns have little value in Melee, and that this is ahistorical. Given the fact that guns must defend with no option to move, how can they be given a reasonable prospect to defend themselves? The defense for both attacking and defending infantry/cavalry in the Melee hex is clearly established in the game engine. Guns, however, cannot fire in hex "0". No such construct exists. If they were allowed to fire TWICE at hex 1 range, this might approximate the situation. The "Melee defensive value" of the guns would be FRONTLOADED. This could be accomplished by DOUBLING the PDT value for guns at 1 hex range. The average value of losses would be the same as if the gun were firing in both hex 1 range and in hex "0" with the original factors. In addition, this would increase the probability of "D"ing the target unit.

Is this the answer? No, but it is better than what exists currently.






BG Robert Frost
Army of Cumberland

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Robert Frost</i>
<br />This could be accomplished by DOUBLING the PDT value for guns at 1 hex range. The average value of losses would be the same as if the gun were firing in both hex 1 range and in hex "0" with the original factors. In addition, this would increase the probability of "D"ing the target unit.

Is this the answer? No, but it is better than what exists currently.






BG Robert Frost
Army of Cumberland
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You guys are the experts, and most have more actual playing time then I do. I agreed with this idea about a year ago and redesigned my <i>Campaign Franklin</i> pdts as a result. Please tell me what your thoughts are on this issue. I toned down my new pdt, but they are still much higher than the other games in the series. As designers, we can mostly do what we want, but I don't want to be left too far in left field.

Rich

The main problem I see in increasing the power of guns in melee instead of helping survivability of limbered batteries is that it is defeated by attacks of numerous small units rather than a large single unit. I admit in the BG series I became quite good at meleeing with two or three regiments shielded with a weak "sacrifical" regiment on top. In phased play, the top unit gets blasted while the regiments "in back" are in good order and wipe out the battery in melee. I don't play HPS in phases so I don't know if the same technique can be used. But the Union is often at a disadvantage because he usually has large regiments (typically of lesser morale) than the Rebel and therefore is more apt to get disrupted than the Rebel units that may not take any hits at all. In turn play, the same would probably hold true too to some degree as a stack of 5 200-man regiments advancing on a battery to melee would stand a better chance of success than one thousand-man regiment assuming the battery got off, say, 5 shots during the advance. So, unless ALL adjacent attacking units take damage from artillery defensive shots, I'm not seeing how this will be very helpful.

I think the answer lies in survivability of artillery from melee rather than massive firepower increases. Firepower increases runs the risk of increasing casualties to where we get the ahistorical results of the BG series where it was common to have 50% or more of the army wiped out. I also wonder if the firepower would lead people to fortify their front lines with gun sections just to help hold the line from melee.

A change to the game should have the result that successful game play is rewarded by using historical tactics. Any change should be tested to make certain that the rules don't create "gamey" tactics in order to succeed.

Major General Dirk Gross
CAV DIV/XIV Corps/AoC

If we make Artillary too survivable do we not turn them into Panzers?Whats to stop a commander from advancing them, lined up like so many tanks and blowing the enemy away-especially the Union guns? In the HPS system they can be rather maneuverable. I understand that they are too weak on the defense but we must take care not to turn them into offensive juggernauts because they are too tough to counter attack. [xx(]

Major General Tony Best
AOJ