American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I'm fighting my first campaign without the multi-phases turn.
Well, I HATE IT ! [:(!]

At Dunagin's Farm, I made a few moves... I clicked the fire button to shoot some yankees... I wanted to move this regiment to reinforce this adjacent regiment.... BANG BANG BANG!!! [:0] I shoot my own boys, Sacrebleu ! 24 men out ! [V] &*%$*z [:(!]

I'm fighting my last campaign without the multi-phases turn.

Fld. Lt. Harold Lajoie 3/2/I/AoM, CSA.

Touching story. I feel for the men lost.


Fld. Lt. Brad Slepetz
4th "Hell's Rifles" Brigade
1st Division
III Corps
AoG

harold, that happened to me once and i hated it. what i hate even worse is when playing phases instead of turns is when a cav unit is 2 hexes in front of my artillery or large inf unit and the cav unit moves 8 hexes and moves all the way around my unit and thenis behind me and melles me from the rear when i did not even get a shot at the cav unit as it moved in front of my art unit.i have seen a few times where i should have been able to fire at least 6 times at a range of 2 or 3 hexes and never got a shot.
when playing with turns at least my units can fire off 2 or more rounds at the cav unit and possibly disrupt it before it melees me. now i know that playing phases sort of evens out the offensive advantage that is built into the game when playing turns instead of phases but i hate when it seems so logical that a unit SHOULD have a chance to fire at the unit and never gets a shot off.it just does not seem right to me.
i have read some posts that many people fell that the turns gives a big advantage to "offensive" operations especially using cav and that it can cause some very unrealistic uses of cav. i have taken all that info in and i am playing a campaign uses phases now to see the differences and i am just pointing out there are some unrealstic events using phases also.
i am a player who has never played computer games using phases because i don't have the talonsoft games so i have no previous bias one way or the other. sometimes i wonder if the thinking about the turns type of play being negative isn't just people who are used to phases for so long because they have played the phases types for many years and not because the phases is really better than the turn type of play. i am not saying that is the case i am posing that possibility. i would like to hear from playes who have played both types of play in the campaign series that did not have previous bias from playing the battleground talonsoft series and hear from them which is better.
ok people speak up on this please. i really do want to know which is better or at least which is more historically accurate.

Larenzo R. Brown Fld Lt 4th Bde/3rd "Virginia" Cavalry Division/Jackson's Corps/ANV
duty is mine.
consequences are God's.
ALWAYS CONFOUND,MYSTIFY,AND SURPRISE THE ENEMY

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by larenzorbrown</i>
<br />harold, that happened to me once and i hated it. what i hate even worse is when playing phases instead of turns is when a cav unit is 2 hexes in front of my artillery or large inf unit and the cav unit moves 8 hexes and moves all the way around my unit and thenis behind me and melles me from the rear when i did not even get a shot at the cav unit as it moved in front of my art unit.i have seen a few times where i should have been able to fire at least 6 times at a range of 2 or 3 hexes and never got a shot.
when playing with turns at least my units can fire off 2 or more rounds at the cav unit and possibly disrupt it before it melees me. now i know that playing phases sort of evens out the offensive advantage that is built into the game when playing turns instead of phases but i hate when it seems so logical that a unit SHOULD have a chance to fire at the unit and never gets a shot off.it just does not seem right to me.
i have read some posts that many people fell that the turns gives a big advantage to "offensive" operations especially using cav and that it can cause some very unrealistic uses of cav. i have taken all that info in and i am playing a campaign uses phases now to see the differences and i am just pointing out there are some unrealstic events using phases also.
i am a player who has never played computer games using phases because i don't have the talonsoft games so i have no previous bias one way or the other. sometimes i wonder if the thinking about the turns type of play being negative isn't just people who are used to phases for so long because they have played the phases types for many years and not because the phases is really better than the turn type of play. i am not saying that is the case i am posing that possibility. i would like to hear from playes who have played both types of play in the campaign series that did not have previous bias from playing the battleground talonsoft series and hear from them which is better.
ok people speak up on this please. i really do want to know which is better or at least which is more historically accurate.

Larenzo R. Brown Fld Lt 4th Bde/3rd "Virginia" Cavalry Division/Jackson's Corps/ANV
duty is mine.
consequences are God's.
ALWAYS CONFOUND,MYSTIFY,AND SURPRISE THE ENEMY
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well said. I have played both from the very beginning and I strongly feel that the turn-based system is best. Neither is perfect, but turn based games are better and faster.

Rich

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by larenzorbrown</i>
<br />harold, that happened to me once and i hated it. what i hate even worse is when playing phases instead of turns is when a cav unit is 2 hexes in front of my artillery or large inf unit and the cav unit moves 8 hexes and moves all the way around my unit and thenis behind me and melles me from the rear when i did not even get a shot at the cav unit as it moved in front of my art unit.i have seen a few times where i should have been able to fire at least 6 times at a range of 2 or 3 hexes and never got a shot.
when playing with turns at least my units can fire off 2 or more rounds at the cav unit and possibly disrupt it before it melees me. now i know that playing phases sort of evens out the offensive advantage that is built into the game when playing turns instead of phases but i hate when it seems so logical that a unit SHOULD have a chance to fire at the unit and never gets a shot off.it just does not seem right to me.
i have read some posts that many people fell that the turns gives a big advantage to "offensive" operations especially using cav and that it can cause some very unrealistic uses of cav. i have taken all that info in and i am playing a campaign uses phases now to see the differences and i am just pointing out there are some unrealstic events using phases also.
i am a player who has never played computer games using phases because i don't have the talonsoft games so i have no previous bias one way or the other. sometimes i wonder if the thinking about the turns type of play being negative isn't just people who are used to phases for so long because they have played the phases types for many years and not because the phases is really better than the turn type of play. i am not saying that is the case i am posing that possibility. i would like to hear from playes who have played both types of play in the campaign series that did not have previous bias from playing the battleground talonsoft series and hear from them which is better.
ok people speak up on this please. i really do want to know which is better or at least which is more historically accurate.

Larenzo R. Brown Fld Lt 4th Bde/3rd "Virginia" Cavalry Division/Jackson's Corps/ANV
duty is mine.
consequences are God's.
ALWAYS CONFOUND,MYSTIFY,AND SURPRISE THE ENEMY
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Neither is historically accurate! [:0][:D]

In reality both sides moved at the same time and could react to each other on the fly. In the games, regardless of whether you choose Phases or Turns, you are not reacting while the opponent is moving, you have to wait for them to move first. So both methods are a-historic in that regard.

That being said, I personally feel that the Turn system is less historic than the phases because it does give too much to the offensive, when in the real Civil War the defenders almost ALWAYS held the advantage. This is especially true of cavalry in the game, where the auto defensive fire is so poor and idiotic that cavalry can run rampant with little regard for their own safety, when in reality the long range nature of the rifles and artillery made mounted cavalry charges very nearly suicidal in MOST cases. The games just can’t recreate the fluid nature of cavalry combat during the CW, in either phase, but with the extra melee potential in the Turns, it just goes far beyond the realms of reality for the time period.

While the Phases aren’t more realistic in that resepect, the Phases do offer the defender more protection – which is entirely realistic – without preventing the offense from having success, especially due to the weak ZOC rules. Using all options on gives you Phases and weak ZOCs that allow a good attack to succeed if the defender is poorly positioned, etc, which is the way it should be. Yes, you can still get cavalry doing double back flips and landing in your rear – but only if you don’t adequately protect your flanks and rear. In the Turns the opponent can melee, make a small hole, then send everyone pouring through the gap into your rear without giving you any chance to escape or react even if you have your flanks well protected. At least the Phases give you a chance if you take it. If you don’t cover your own hindquarters that is your own fault, not the game engines. Allowing enemy cavalry past your flanks and rear is a fault of poor planning or execution most of the time, not a result of a bad game feature. (Of course, sometimes you get a good opponent who makes a good move with the cavalry that you can’t prevent due to lack of men or terrain limitations.)

Brief rant: Although I would prefer to see a blend of some of the features of the two systems – especially allowing infantry to move from column to line any time during the movement phase. I just don’t see the need for making the infantry form line at the beginning of the phase – 20 minutes is a long time for a unit to change formation, and if they can change formation and keep marching in the Turns, why on Earth can’t they do it in the Phases, too?


Regards,
Lt. Col. Alan Lynn
3rd Battery "Jacksonville Greys"
4th Div, II Corps, AoA
God bless <><

Gentlemen,

I too have shoot my own men, usually due to a mouse handling error while in a hurry (too excited). The problem I have is going from Phase to turn based games. When I want to fire in turn base I end up moving my troops up to the target, this is because the fire and movement are controls are different for the phase verse the trun based system. I like the Phase based system for games against one opponent. However, for multiplayer games the turn based system is the only way to go you can move fire and melee in one email then pass it on the the next player.

BG Joe Mishurda



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

Total red herring if you ask me. You shot your own guys and the game phasing had nothing to do with it. You can kill them just as easily in the OFP in any of the single or multi-phase variations, HPS or BG.

Personally I prefer it, it's much easier to catch them in column or routed with rear or enfilade fire, and I always have the advantage of surprise, especially in multi-player - now if only I could melee them too [;)].

Maj Gen Mike Kaulbars
3rd "Freiheit" Division
VIII/AoS

I'm a veteran player of the Battleground games, so I'm incline to prefer the good old phases system. In my first battle at Crane Creek, I was blitzkrieged at the ford by two succeeding melees and I lost 3 or 4 guns. It reminded me of 1940, not 1862. I tried to adjust by establishing two defensive lines to protect my artillery when possible, not very easy to do.

My readings on the Civil War tell me that it was very difficult to coordonate multiple attacks. How often do you read that a column was two hours late or that a brigade attacked at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The all-in-one phase allows to make devastating assaults that look like chirurgical operations. Artillery is very vulnerable and establishing a good defensive line is very difficult. I put my vote with the multi-phases turn; it's not perfect but, in my opinion, it offers a better simulation of 1860's fighting.

Fld. Lt. Harold Lajoie 3/2/I/AoM, CSA.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I just don’t see the need for making the infantry form line at the beginning of the phase – 20 minutes is a long time for a unit to change formation, and if they can change formation and keep marching in the Turns, why on Earth can’t they do it in the Phases, too?

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

As I understand it, if infantry could change formation at any time during a phase, it could then expend the maximum number of movement points using terrain to its advantage (roads, trails, etc.) and then drop in line formation without ever experiencing the adverse effects of being shot at while in column.

I was just thinking, what if there were a system of play that was in phases but with the defensive fire being automatic during the offensive player's movement phase? In other words, playing the game in phases as we know it except the defensive fire phase would be eliminated and instead is done automatically as an opportunity fire. Any thoughts on this?


Fld. Lt. Brad Slepetz
4th "Hell's Rifles" Brigade
1st Division
III Corps
AoG

Dear Brad,

Brad you hit the nail right on the head! What we really need is play in phases, have opportunity fire during opponent's movement and then all those units that did not fire in opportunity fire, get to fire in the defensive fire phase. Thus every one who should fire gets to fire and your opponent can't run down your line with out getting shot at. I would love to see this modification along with the infantry's ability to change formation in phase turns.

BG Joseph C. 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>
<br />Dear Brad,

Brad you hit the nail right on the head! What we really need is play in phases, have opportunity fire during opponent's movement and then all those units that did not fire in opportunity fire, get to fire in the defensive fire phase. Thus every one who should fire gets to fire and your opponent can't run down your line with out getting shot at. I would love to see this modification along with the infantry's ability to change formation in phase turns.

BG Joseph C. Mishurda

Joe Mishurda, The Cast Iron Division
2nd Div. XXV Corp, AoJ
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sounds like a good plan that could work. 100% defensive fire of course, which I understand will be in Shiloh. This would make a nice blend of the two systems. It would still favor the defense without allowing the blitzkried style of fighting, but would also give the attacker more freedom of mobility in line formation changes.

Regards,
Lt. Col. Alan Lynn
3rd Battery "Jacksonville Greys"
4th Div, II Corps, AoA
God bless <><

I have played both systems and much prefer the phased based system. In fact, I will almost never play a game using the turn based system.

CE Trog
Plebe
West Point

"My aim was to whip the rebels. To humble their pride. To follow them to their inner most recesses and to make them fear and dread us. War is cruelty! There is no use in trying to reform it. The crueler it is the sooner it will be over."

-<i>William Tecumseh Sherman</i>-

You know, it would be a nifty addition to the engine to allow a chance of "friendly fire" in the ADF...

Something like this

"A unit which appears within the LOS of a friendly unit may be fired upon in the first hex within which it is in said LOS. The lower the quality of the firing unit, the higher the chance of this happening"

Annoying, very.

Historical. very

Brig. General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA