American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I find myself wondering how difficult it would be for the game engine to require morale checks before melee? Maybe for both, maybe just on the attacker who would disorg on a fail.

And/or, a "Pin" fire result? Thinking of all those orders to units to keep moving and not to stop and fire back...and they did anyway!

Neither of these are new suggestions, but I don't remember what the outcome was...

Maj Gen Sean Turner
3rd Cavalry Division, "The Bishop's Men"
I Corps
Army of Alabama

One could argue that the def fire prior to a melee acts as a moral check. It's very possible that one or more of the attacking units will become disrupted prior to melee. And with the new rule that allows full def fire prior to a melee, units are more likely to disrupt and thus fail to melee.

Rich

That's true, and with the new full FP option more likely. There's still the case of those coming from the flank/rear, but you can find exceptions to everything... I just like things that take control away from us the player and allow units in the field to "make mistakes" on their own.


Maj Gen Sean Turner
3rd Cavalry Division, "The Bishop's Men"
I Corps
Army of Alabama

And once a melee is ordered if part of the units disrupt are they required to continue under dismal odds, I would think it likely that this would occur as theer would not be time to re-evaluate the situation. But likewise in a gaming system it would be poor for a really small unit to effectively disrupt the unit they are about to melee, I would think.
MG Michael Laabs
3/III A of M

I think there are a lot of problems with the melee system and some of the fixes would work for "Turn" based play but not "Phased" play and viceversa. From a game design point of view it really doesn't matter whether you have a whole bunch of morale checks and firing or just a single resolution of the whole melee. Statisically you can make both come out the same. But the multiple resolutions do give one more a feel of combat going on.

That said I'll put in my dimes worth (inflation [:D]):

For Turn based games they really need to separate the melee back out as a phase after move/formation/fire combined phase. It allows to much flexibility to the attacker and ways to circumvent any system you come up with to limit melees.

Melees need to become a more unpredictable event and more morale based in determining their success. The better system for determining a melee's success (not the same as casualties) in my view is a die roll based on comparison of unit morales with modifiers for strength ratios, terrain, enfiladed, etc. Actual casualties for the attacker would be based on the defenders firepower and whether they stood or ran. The defender's casualties would depend more on if they ran with only a small addition for attacker fire.

I would like to see the game take a lot more things into account than it currently does in making the melee. Currently, its a pretty limited list and they tend to be lumped unlike fire which is per unit. For example having one 20 man regiment attack from the rear gets you the enfilate modifier. Would a 1000 man stack even notice 20 men? Would 20 men even attempt to attack a thousand from the rear? It would be a nice touch to have each attacking and defending unit evaluated for its contribution to the melee based on its position (terrain and facing), morale and strength. It would be even nicer if external situations were also included like units of same organization, adjacent units, in command, etc. Also, terrain should provide a much more important role in the melee, particularly hexside terrain. Units in a sucken road, trench or other fortification tended to stay there against impossible odds. That was because the trench was the safest place around and far safer than trying to run.

Anyway all that and a dollar (inflation again) will get you a cup of coffee (in a cheap place).[:D]

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

I believe a common trait among gamers is that if there is more detail to the calculation, there is more precision in the result. I'm not sure that is true.

I'm also a big picture person, so don't think the goal of any system is to have every event conform to some historical benchmark -- which incidently I don't think exists.

We've also discussed before whether melee represents hand-to-hand combat or close contact fire -- I assume close combat fire.

If I understand the system the attacker needs around a 2:1 advantage to have a 50-50 chance of success. That ratio is based on modification of strength after all the factors are taken into account. I have frequently see people observe only the actual numbers in a melee, make an observation about whether it is historical and ignore all the puts and takes that already exist. If you only play with on screen results you may find the more detail reports educational - note both players have to select this option to see the info during replays. (In a recent Nap game, the opponents were complaining about why so many 1:1 melees were successful -- however with the modifiers they were more like 2:1 and 3:1. When the opponets saw actual melees around 2:1 they were effectively more like 4:1)

I agree that small units can have an excessive impact on some results such as by using them to attack from the flank for a flank side modier. But if the defender indeed had 1,000 troops, you would still have to attack with around 1600 to get to 50-50. I can't get too excited about that situation. My opponent is not going to win if he has a lot of 20 men units!

I haven't done a very detailed analysis of the HPS casualty process, but my sense is that it is pretty good. I think what is lacking in all these types of discussion is any agreement on what are "expected results" for specific situations and how much variation there is in the HPS results. Some well thought out examples of typical situations might be informative.



Lt Gen Bob Breen
Commanding XIX Corps, AoS
"Defenders of the Right"

Hi, Gen Laabs,

You can always cancel a melee by clearing it under "melee" on the tool bar. In the single phase, you can replace a disrupted unit with another undisrupted unit, but every time you add a unit, you draw another round of defensive fire. I am talking single phase here, as it isn't an issue in multiphase.

I like General Whitehead's idea of having the computer calculate a myriad of modifiers separately for each unit involved in fire or melee. I think it would make the game more intuitive and less analytical. Precise mathematical calculations were impossible during Civil War battles because so much of the intelligence we have in these games was not available to the participants. So I say the more variables considered by the computer the better, as long as it can process the data quickly and efficiently. Hopefully we will have a game engine one day that reflects Civil War combat as realistically as available historical data makes possible. Until then, I think that what we have is pretty good and getting better.



MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

I think the easy way for melee would be to have the engine perform Def Fire when the attacker clicks the button to resolve the melee. That way you don't know who's going to be disorganised, you can't order in a "replacement" unit and the rest go on in at lower odds. More power to the defense, which is a good thing! The only change is that at the moment coming from multiple hexes draws Def Fire to each, but you can't have everything...

Maj Gen Sean Turner
3rd Cavalry Division, "The Bishop's Men"
I Corps
Army of Alabama