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 Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:43 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:11 pm 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Hamilton</i>
<br />Tris,

The pond error has already been addressed and will be include with the patch...when that finally makes it out. Will look at the other.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks for the attention, Rich. (Although in this case it's possible for the user to pick up the error with the editor. Still, it would be good for the company to correct this error for publication down the road.)

There's other stuff, too. For instance, all sorts of instances where the map graphics do not coincide with the map terrain--this in the Nappy games, too--that I've caught over the years. It's usually the case that you run into what looks to be clear hex, because that's what the map shows, but in reality it's an orchard or forest hex, etc. Or the map will show a road through an orchard hexside, but in reality that road doesn't exist. Not big stuff, but more than a little irritating in play, and the kind of detail that might be (should be) corrected.

Another example: in one of the scenarios that uses the Rappahannock map (not sure which one--I ran into it playing the campaign, so it might just be one of the Union options that's errant, no way to tell without going in there) one of Hill's divisions arrives off the south map edge so late in the scenario that it can barely march to Stevensburg at full throttle before the scenario ends, much less get involved in the action, which is basically all up the left-hand corner of the board.

The point is I believe there's a lot to look at. What I offer are a few <i>examples</i>.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Zip up your OOB and include a detailed note on why it is better/what exactly it will add to the game and send me a copy of it at Support at hpssims.com We'll check it out, and if its agreed to by John & Doug we'll include it with the patch.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't know about the "better" part, just more detailed. It's for the player to determine how detailed he wishes to get. Which is why it's important to offer a way to break units down inside the game, not inside of the OOB--and a locked one at that--for in such a case then players could decide for themselves.

This game is regimental level. That doesn't mean you want a bunch of regiments running around the board, unless you're trying get back to the good old days of Avalon Hill. What it <i>should</i> mean is that at the <i>regimental level</i> you're looking to simulate (more or less) this period of military history. With that in mind, it should be obvious that one would wish to have the ability to <i>break down these regimental entities into their component parts</i>. That doesn't mean you have to represent individual companies, but at least have the ability to make abstract "battalions" or whatever you want to call them from the infantry regiments, and "squadrons" or whatever you wish to call them from the cavalry. Same same for artillery. Batteries should at the least be breakable into logical sections, along with leaders to lead those sections. (Each battery ought to have its own commander as well. Those are included in my OOB, and I hope you don't need to be told why that's important. If so, what's the point in submitting my OOB in the first place? Just so everyone around HPS can have a good morning laugh at my expense?) In that manner players could then begin to employ their regimental units in a somewhat more historical fashion--you know, like spread them out when needed, keep a regimental reserve on hand, and like that.

For cavalry this is even more critical.

Cavalry in the Civil War acted primarily as the scouting arm. Even when aggressive commanders like Buford did dismount sizeable units (at Gettysburg, as we know, two full brigades) to use as a kind of infantry, these troopers would normally be spread out and employed more to <i>delay</i> the enemy, assuming it was enemy infantry in strength. And it would rarely be the case that the cavalry would suffer all that many casualties. Check out the losses to Buford's force that first day. His troopers hardly lost anyone at all (comparatively speaking), and this after hours of delaying action along a picket line that stretched for some two miles. But of course none of this is possible given the present system mechanics and the rigid and ahistoric OOB structure.

Doesn't that bother you? Especially since it would be a snap to fix. At least to fix part of the equation, the OOB part of it. The battle mechanics are a separate (but equally culpable) issue.

Regardless, cavalry did sometimes maneuver as a whole regiments, just cantering (well, at that with the mounts usually at a walk) down the road, but even then there'd be people out left, front and center looking around. You know? And sure, we have a few cavalry actions <i>per se</i>, but these were the exception, hardly the norm. In fact, these rare cavalry actions are more the <i>proverbial exceptions which prove the norm</i>.

For <i>as a rule</i> a Civil War cavalry regiment would be found broken down into countless smaller packets of men, all off these off somewhere doing this, that or the other. To neglect this reality is to render the simulation hopeless from scratch in that respect.

So, the infantry and the cavalry <i>and</i> the artillery cannot even be broken down historically, and I haven't touched on leaders yet, and all that that entails, though I easily could. So what's left? Well, a game, that's what's left. To call it a simulation is an awful stretch. It <i>could</i> be a simulation, and my work on the OOB which your software refuses to load was an effort to help the system along in that (as I view it) worthwhile direction.

Anyway, for whatever it's worth I will send that OOB along, and include my rationale for doing what I did. You people can do what you want with after that. I don't see that as a do-or-die issue. The real problem is the company paranoia with regard to home brews in general. I just can't see a whole lot positive happening until you get over that mental hurdle.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And sorry for the spelling errors...you can tell I rely on spell check a bit too much. [:0]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I didn't even know this board software supported a spellchecker. I haven't found one, but then I haven't looked awful hard, either. When I think about it I run my copy through Cetus WordPad before posting, but as often as not I don't think about it, and then I'm left to edit my copy a thousand times to eliminate the thousands mistakes I usually believe behind. It happens. <g>

Anyway, thank you for your prompt response. I realize it can't be easy to come on a board where you just want to pal around in ah hobby sense and get blasted for this or that. I don't mean to blast you, exactly. I've bought more than my share of HPS product to date, for whatever that's worth, so it's not as if I'm not willing to put my money where my mouth is at least.

Tale care, Rich.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 11:25 am
Posts: 777
Location: USA
Tris,

Re: "For as a rule a Civil War cavalry regiment would be found broken down into countless smaller packets of men, all off these off somewhere doing this, that or the other."

One of the obstacles with these games is the near-God-like view of the battlefield and the amount of absolute control we, as player/generals, have over our units. If we were given the ability to break down cavalry (or other units) into smaller units, this would lead to a map being inundated with small scouting units. The way I see it, the near-God-like view we have <i>already </i>simulates this, in much greater detail than being able to sub-divide units ever would.

Now, if we ever get to the point where these games represent the battlefield from the point of view of a single officer (you have a map, but you are restricted to the LOS of the commanding officer ONLY!), then couriers and scouts would play a much greater role. Talk about your fog of war. Of course, a much more powerful A/I would be needed to control not only the opposing side but the 'unseen' units of your own side, not to mention the reports you, as the player would receive from your unseen subordinates.

Of course, while we're at it, we may as well have smoke pouring out the back of our machines, the smell the sweat of the horses and men around us, and occasional minie balls flying out of some peripheral device ... (okay, those will probably have to wait for PS/9 [:)]!)

As for correcting errors: Personally, I'd much rather download a patch from the company than have to go in and make the individual corrections myself. As errors are discovered and pointed out, the HPS designers are pretty good about incorporating corrections in patches. I see this as a strength, not a weakness.

Keep up the good ideas. I just think you're talking about an entirely different game than what we have available now. Once you develop your game, I'm sure many of the guys here in this club would be interested in purchasing it. Who knows, HPS may even be interested in publishing it for you [:)] !

In the meantime, consider joining the club. You'll make new friends and have a ready audience to try out some of your scenario ideas. Plus, we'll give you a rank and unit so you'll be able to sign your posts in the future [:D] !


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory

David W. Mallory
ACW - General, Chief of the Armies, Confederate States of America & Cabinet Member
CCC - Ensign, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Deaprtment, Colonial American Army


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
On the subject of detachable skirmishers and cavalry breakdowns, I reckon the Nappy system is superior, since:

1./ In the Nappy engine, not all infantry types can necessarily deploy skirmishers, so this can be restricted in the OOB to prevent excessive skirmisher subunits. Of course this all depends on the scenario, since in some cases (eg. with small numbers of units in heavily wooded terrain) it might be useful if all - or at least most - units were "light" and could completely break down into skirmisher sub-units.

2./ The ACW skirmisher system prevents a unit sending skirmishers to the edge of a wood or difficult terrain to "see" what's a couple of hexes beyond. This allows the enemy to deploy just two or three hexes further into the open and yet remain "invisible" to the skirmishers. Allowing at least some Nappy style skirmishers would be extremely beneficial in such situations.

3./ The ACW skirmisher system prevents skirmishers being deployed on the parent unit's flanking hex(es), something which I've often wanted to do, especially in thick woods where visibility is severely limited and it's impossible to tell how close the enemy are.

4./ Large ACW cavalry units can't scout properly and, since they're more valuable than infantry and often armed with inferior weaponry, their effectiveness is severely limited, especially in HPS Gettysburg where they're worth a lot of victory points.

5./ In addition to detaching/recombining squadrons, it would also be extremely worthwhile if mounted cavalry could get "skirmisher ability" - ie. the ability to "see" an extra hex and slow down any enemy movement. This would represent scouting and would also help to make cavalry piquets slightly less vulnerable to ZOC elimination.


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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:15 am
Posts: 180
Location: Canada
Ok, my two cents.

I would rather have unlocked maps and orders of battle. This fact has absolutely NOTHING to do with my decision to buy a new HPS title or not. There were versions of Seven Pines, Shiloh and many other titles available through various forums utilizing the un-locked Corinth engine. And yet, despite this I still purchased Campaign Peninsula, Campaign Shiloh. IN FACT I purchased every HPS Civil War official title wether or not there were 'user created' scenarios out there.

There are several "Atlanta" battles available created by enterprising people but as soon as HPS comes out with an ATLANTA campaign game I will be purchasing it.

So this argument about user created scenarios effecting sales is complete nonsense.


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:33 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dmallory</i>
<br />Tris,

Re: "For as a rule a Civil War cavalry regiment would be found broken down into countless smaller packets of men, all off these off somewhere doing this, that or the other."

One of the obstacles with these games is the near-God-like view of the battlefield and the amount of absolute control we, as player/generals, have over our units. If we were given the ability to break down cavalry (or other units) into smaller units, this would lead to a map being inundated with small scouting units. The way I see it, the near-God-like view we have <i>already </i>simulates this, in much greater detail than being able to sub-divide units ever would.

Now, if we ever get to the point where these games represent the battlefield from the point of view of a single officer (you have a map, but you are restricted to the LOS of the commanding officer ONLY!), then couriers and scouts would play a much greater role. Talk about your fog of war. Of course, a much more powerful A/I would be needed to control not only the opposing side but the 'unseen' units of your own side, not to mention the reports you, as the player would receive from your unseen subordinates.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree in a sense, David . . . that's it's high time we stopped hopping up and down and calling that progress.

There's little reason why a simulation of this kind could not restrict one's view of the battlefield to whatever friendly unit is currently highlighted. All that would take is a map redraw for each view. This would slow things down somewhat, but so what? I'm in no great hurry, and even on my so-so box those redraws wouldn't take very long.

Of course this would still afford the gamer more information that he'd have in real life, but it would be a useful in the right direction.

In any event, the ability to break units down would not seriously alter the situation intelwise even if no designer bothered to buck it up to the extent I've just proposed. The ability to break units down realistically would still represent benefit all the way around. It is <i>never</i> correct to do what you already know doesn't work properly. Surely we all can agree on that much.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Of course, while we're at it, we may as well have smoke pouring out the back of our machines, the smell the sweat of the horses and men around us, and occasional minie balls flying out of some peripheral device ... (okay, those will probably have to wait for PS/9 [:)]!)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's a facetious argument, just silly.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As for correcting errors: Personally, I'd much rather download a patch from the company than have to go in and make the individual corrections myself. As errors are discovered and pointed out, the HPS designers are pretty good about incorporating corrections in patches. I see this as a strength, not a weakness.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well, having the ability to alter OOBs and the map and such would not preclude your right to wait until the cows wandered home to download the same correction from the company, assuming the company actually posted that material in the first place.

Why do you bend over backward so painfully to try and find excuses <i>not</i> to make progress with the system? What have you against good and healthy change? Anything in principle I ought to be aware of? <g>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Keep up the good ideas. I just think you're talking about an entirely different game than what we have available now. Once you develop your game, I'm sure many of the guys here in this club would be interested in purchasing it. Who knows, HPS may even be interested in publishing it for you [:)] !<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What I'm talking about are concrete, common-sense (as I view them) changes to a wargame system that seriously lacks in virtually every important area. Indeed, Tiller originally made no improvement on the design he "borrowed" (to put it no lower) from Richard Berg's classic board game <b>TSS</b>, in fact left some good stuff out, muffed a few aspects of play, and since then hasn't done all that much to better matters, except to publish one basic clone after another, and now even the OOBs and maps are locked!

Sorry, but I just don't see how that gets our hobby anywhere good down the road.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the meantime, consider joining the club. You'll make new friends and have a ready audience to try out some of your scenario ideas. Plus, we'll give you a rank and unit so you'll be able to sign your posts in the future [:D] !<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well, David, signing my posts with the rank of "General" or "Private" or whatever isn't high on my list of priorities. But for what's it's worth, I <i>have</i> applied to join the Union army, but as yet I've heard not a peep. Someone did write to ask if I'd asked to join immediately after signing up for the board, and I replied that I had. But since that email I've heard nothing. So, if you're <i>that</i> eager to see some sort of official signature after my posts, I'd suggest you shake a few appropriate trees. <g>


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:42 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gcollins</i>
<br />Ok, my two cents.

I would rather have unlocked maps and orders of battle. This fact has absolutely NOTHING to do with my decision to buy a new HPS title or not. There were versions of Seven Pines, Shiloh and many other titles available through various forums utilizing the un-locked Corinth engine. And yet, despite this I still purchased Campaign Peninsula, Campaign Shiloh. IN FACT I purchased every HPS Civil War official title wether or not there were 'user created' scenarios out there.

There are several "Atlanta" battles available created by enterprising people but as soon as HPS comes out with an ATLANTA campaign game I will be purchasing it.

<i>So this argument about user created scenarios effecting sales is complete nonsense.</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Another word for it besides "nonsense" (which it definitely is) is "paranoia," and this far down the pike one might imagine that game companies would have figured at least that much out. Apparently not.

I'm with you with regard to my software purchases. It sounds as if you're simply an avid ACW guy, as I am, and so your sales are fairly guaranteed. as are mine to an extent, though not so strictly. That is, I will not boycott HPS software because of this shortsightedness on their part, but on the other hand the practice hardly encourages me to "support" the company, either. I would prefer to view our business relationship as a two-way street; when the "One-Way" sign goes up, as often as not I walk. And so it goes.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:57 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>

5./ In addition to detaching/recombining squadrons, it would also be extremely worthwhile if mounted cavalry could get "skirmisher ability" - ie. the ability to "see" an extra hex and slow down any enemy movement. This would represent scouting and would also help to make cavalry piquets slightly less vulnerable to ZOC elimination.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, cavalry certainly needs to be treated discretely when it comes to skirmishing, both when mounted and dismounted. I suppose this could be handled with some kind of "order mode" where if it's toggled for "skirmish" (dismounted) or "scout" (mounted) then the cavalry in question will automatically retreat before any attempt to melee, with some kind of fire penalty I'd imagine, or somesuch mechanic. It would require some thought, and thorough playtesting (and I mean playtesting by people who are into serious simulation, not the kind who simply want to "win" games or sell games).

Also, the breadown of cavalry and infantry needs to contrived so that specific numbers could be designated, none of this Nappy 25 or 50 or 75 men per breakdown rigidity. That doesn't make it. What's needed is a way to send out 2-man cavalry pickets or three-man sharpshooter "squads" or 25-man cavalry troops or whatever the case might be, all depending on the assignment in mind. At that rate we might get somewhere with this system fast.

It's all doable, only a question of getting Tiller to bend to that extent. For myself, I'm not holding my breath. But don't ever let someone trot "it's just too difficult" past you for free, either. That just isn't so.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 12:13 am
Posts: 335
Location: USA
The argument <i>as it relates to you</i> may well be complete nonsense. That is to say, that you may well buy any new game, even if it is well covered in "homebrew" battles. However, remember, you are not everyone. There are going to be individuals who will figure "hey, I've got Fred's Second Bull Run, why should I spring for a new one?"

In a sense, it comes to a business decision. Does HPS lose more customers through irate people who want homebrew, or would they lose more through people who buy one version of the engine and then just play homebrew? Difficult question, and one that HPS has chosen to answer in their own way.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gcollins</i>
<br />Ok, my two cents.

I would rather have unlocked maps and orders of battle. This fact has absolutely NOTHING to do with my decision to buy a new HPS title or not. There were versions of Seven Pines, Shiloh and many other titles available through various forums utilizing the un-locked Corinth engine. And yet, despite this I still purchased Campaign Peninsula, Campaign Shiloh. IN FACT I purchased every HPS Civil War official title wether or not there were 'user created' scenarios out there.

There are several "Atlanta" battles available created by enterprising people but as soon as HPS comes out with an ATLANTA campaign game I will be purchasing it.

So this argument about user created scenarios effecting sales is complete nonsense.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ETA: I will also say this. If the engine is ever changed to allow breakdown to 2 and 3 man units (or even 20-30 man), you won't see me any more. Some people may think that's an ideal level of detail, to me it would become an absolute morass of unplayability, and would remove any vestiges of enjoyment from the games.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:45 am
Posts: 414
Location: Ireland
Hi Chaps!

I won't comment on the Locked OOB's etc. But - Would it not be feasible for the Scenarios/Battles and Campaigns to be <i>designed</i> on an X man per unit Breakdown scale for Cav, single cannon for Arty, etc. - and an additional Box to "Pop Up" at the beginning of a Battle - similar to the Optional Rules Box, where the initiating Player can set the scale of OOB Breakdown for that particular Scenario/Campaign?

Pat.


Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Brigadier General.
Carroll's Corps,(II)
"Spartan Southrons"
Army of Georgia.
C.S.A.Cabinet Secretary

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:47 am 
I'm with you except for your last remark, Gary. Breakdowns wouldn't be mandated for anyone, they'd simply be there to use if and when a player found it to his advantage to do so. I doubt anyone would break down all of his units just for the sake of it, but to simulate warfare of this kind that sort of flexibility <i>is</i> called for at times. Without that flexibility the "simulation" stalls, and game play develops a sort of sacharine aftertaste.

Again, it's a win-win deal. Nobody gets hurt, some will benefit. How could you be against that? <g>


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:01 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />Hi Chaps!

I won't comment on the Locked OOB's etc. But - Would it not be feasible for the Scenarios/Battles and Campaigns to be <i>designed</i> on an X man per unit Breakdown scale for Cav, single cannon for Arty, etc. - and an additional Box to "Pop Up" at the beginning of a Battle - similar to the Optional Rules Box, where the initiating Player can set the scale of OOB Breakdown for that particular Scenario/Campaign?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That sounds like the long way around the barn, Pat. It's easy to screw up an OOB (I rarely get in and out of a full session without some kind of snafu), and so that necessarily entails more work picking up the error(s). Start multiplying the number of OOBs and the man hours would begin to add up fast at HPS Central. Also, that approach doesn't actualy afford flexibility, rather just smaller increments (arbitrarily chosen by a third party beforehand at that) of the same rigidity we're already saddled with.

The point to breakdowns isn't to salt the map with pretty icons to gaze at. Fact is, sometimes (often for some players--I'd be one of those) smaller unit packages are necessary to intelligently carry out one's military plans. If you wish, I'd be happy to afford examples, but I suppose this is obvious to most everyone who's played with the BG game system much at all.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 12:13 am
Posts: 335
Location: USA
I'm against it because you'd have no choice but to break down into those tiny units.

To wit, if your foe starts breaking down and spreading 10 man units all across the board, you have no choice but to respond in kind, not so much because of the fact that the cell phones in the game are far too effective. You'll essentially have to turn your army into a gigantic sphere, with units facing in every direction. Otherwise, someone will take those scads of teeny units, and instead of using them as scouts/security, will use them as raiders, penetrating the rear of armies, harassing routed units, killing leaders, taking supplies, such and so.

I'd agree with breaking all cav down into 50 man units (or so), though that would still be crying for abuse. (And, there's been enough debates here over "historical vs whatever the engine allows" that I know people would just consider it "good tactics" to do just that) However, by far the BIGGEST fix that needs to be made for cav is that they would NOT be frozen by entering a ZOC, but could instead exit said ZOC (though the same hex they entered it from) by expending extra movement points.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:43 am 
<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 />I'm against it because you'd have no choice but to break down into those tiny units.

To wit, if your foe starts breaking down and spreading 10 man units all across the board, you have no choice but to respond in kind, not so much because of the fact that the cell phones in the game are far too effective. You'll essentially have to turn your army into a gigantic sphere, with units facing in every direction. Otherwise, someone will take those scads of teeny units, and instead of using them as scouts/security, will use them as raiders, penetrating the rear of armies, harassing routed units, killing leaders, taking supplies, such and so.

I'd agree with breaking all cav down into 50 man units (or so), though that would still be crying for abuse. (And, there's been enough debates here over "historical vs whatever the engine allows" that I know people would just consider it "good tactics" to do just that) However, by far the BIGGEST fix that needs to be made for cav is that they would NOT be frozen by entering a ZOC, but could instead exit said ZOC (though the same hex they entered it from) by expending extra movement points.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Those aren't bad points, Gary. I have to admit that I've run across at least one player who fits the bill you describe perfectly. Anything to "win," no matter how ridiculous.

I think much of your fear could be abated with the adition of judicious game mechanics designed with this kind of player silliness/abuse in mind, though. House rules would then pick up the slack. Also, just because another player makes a gazillion units wouldn't force his opponent to do likewise. However, it makes good sense to secure one's perimeter, and keep an eye on one's flanks. That's merely prudent. The problem is the present system kinda winks at these basics. Nothing really fits together properly when all is said and done.

I certainly agree that cavalry should <i>not</i> be subjected to the system's movement/ZOC rule. Actually, I think a movement penalty of so many points to enter/exit an unfriendly ZOC would represent a keener approach, but even if Tiller didn't throw us that modest bone infantry should still be excused from the rule when "skirmishers" are out (that mechanic has to be one of weakest I've seen--it's near to hopeless the way it's handled now), just for instance. All this would need to be thought through to some depth, of course, for there could be cases when a cavalry column might be ambushed, say, at dusk when visibility was lowered, or perhaps in the rain or fog (not that the system will ever get so ambitious as to recognize the element of weather) and thus be unable to make its escape before suffering significant casualties. But again, this case should, could and would be whittled down to almost never in a system that allowed proper "packaging" of that military arm in the first place, always assuming circumspect play by the cavalry's owner.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2001 12:13 am
Posts: 335
Location: USA
My concern is that you'd end up spending as much time on the "secondary" parts of a battle as you do in the real meat of it. Moving around a 10 man Cav detachment takes as much time as a full infantry battalion (more actually, because of extra movement points available). You'd get lost in so much minute detail that the entire game would end up as drudgery. I guess you would have to say that while I do want the game to reflect the period, I do think that playability is a big thing, I'm not a hardcore realism grog.

As for weather? Have you happened to peek at Campaign Waterloo? Weather is now in the Nap engine, so it's a fair bet it will find its way here as well.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:06 pm 
No, Gary I had not realized that weather had been installed in the WC release. Do you happen to know how that's handled? Has fatigue been reworked to include something other than battle fatigue? Can soldiers tire on the march, does marsh-like ground "soak up" solid shot, etc?

As for detail: what you refer to as "secondary" details are, in fact, part and parcel of what you then go on to term the "meat." A person could no more eliminate one from the other than consume an apple without breaking its skin.

There's a reason Buford was successful, there's a reason Heth got his feet tangled out of the blocks on the first day. If these kinds of "secondary parts" of battle cannot be simulated, what could be the point to the rest of it?


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 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 15 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: