American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:37 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 11:25 am
Posts: 1022
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ALynn</i>
<br />In Peninsula I once had an artillery unit on an island in the river NE of Richmond and even though my Rebs held the left bank and there was a ford to the river from my bank and no way to cross over from the Yank side, that unit still became isolated due to the river...

Col. Alan Lynn
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Gentlemen,

I had the same experience as Colonel Lynn. I slipped an unescorted artillery unit across the ford onto the island, knowing it would be entirely safe from capture by enemy forces across the river since there was no other crossing of any sort onto the island. At the beginning of my next turn I was shocked to see my artillery unit isolated. In the same game, I have other units entirely across the river without being isolated.

I like the idea that river hexes count toward isolation. My guess is that bridge hexes do not count as river hexes for isolation purposes, but ford hexes do. If that's correct, I would like to see fords treated the same as bridge hexes, unless there is some historical reason the designers have for making them different.


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  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:00 pm 
Rich,

I would have no problem with Pittsburg Landing being a supply source ONLY if it had no other effect on the game besides keeping the Yanks from becoming isolated. If the Rebs capture the hex and hold the crossing, they shouldn't arbitrarily route the next turn that Buell shows up just because it is a reinforcement hex, etc. (I've not checked the Shiloh map, so I'm not sure - I've been having too much fun with all of the other maps! [:D] )

Regards,

Col. Alan Lynn
2nd Div, II Corps, AoA

Signal Corps, Assistant Editor

"The only accurate news is well researched history."

God Bless <><


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 870
Location: USA
My new patch will read the following, plus the adding of a supply source for Pittsburg landing, Nashville scns. ( I'm still waiting for some more feedback)

Also, some new engine changes (not yet announced)

<b>Changes for Campaign Shiloh 1.03
- Adjusted OOB's (Fewer A and B ratings)
- Removed protection for Pittsburg Landing reinforcements
- Adjusted pdt files (slightly lower fire values)</b>

Rich

P.S. I've had this done for a while now, but for testing reasons, I've not released them. Would anyone like to test this new patch, unoffically? My email address is: richardw@multipro.com







<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ALynn</i>
<br />Rich,

I would have no problem with Pittsburg Landing being a supply source ONLY if it had no other effect on the game besides keeping the Yanks from becoming isolated. If the Rebs capture the hex and hold the crossing, they shouldn't arbitrarily route the next turn that Buell shows up just because it is a reinforcement hex, etc. (I've not checked the Shiloh map, so I'm not sure - I've been having too much fun with all of the other maps! [:D] )

Regards,

Col. Alan Lynn
2nd Div, II Corps, AoA

Signal Corps, Assistant Editor

"The only accurate news is well researched history."

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 192
Location: USA
Hey Bill,

I'm not upset anymore but I was.....and very!!!! Perhaps crossing the ford with 30,000 rebs, dug in and waiting for the Yanks to come is not the soundest/safest move, but what if the yanks only could muster 20,000 men before I reinforce or assualted their flanks...we don't really know do we. (Oh...I getr it, I just caught myself using "what if".....So good point!!!!)

The ford which I owned was protected on both of my flanks so no, I did not allow the yanks to get around me....(At least at the time being)

So no big deal, we ended the game in a draw and have moved on but I will ask my Union opponent if he wishes to finish the game.

It would be nice if you could share your knowledge as to how to turn off/on rules once the game is in progress?





Colonel R.E.Daley
1st Corps of the ANV
3rd Calvary Divsion,
3rd Brigade
"We are the Midnight Riders"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 2:58 pm
Posts: 206
Location: USA
As I see it the issolation rule is a devise to keep people more in kind with what actually happened. We all tend to be more careless since they are imaginary men. Allowing someone behind you was a no no. Not because it meant mass surrender, but because of the way tactic were. Clearly flanks and rear areas should be protected as such, rules are made with obvious flaws from reality. Yet, it likely keeps tactic more or less intact. Take it as a trade off. As for the oddities that rules like this bring about, I suppose they are a necessary evil. But we can all understand the frustration when something comes up and surprises one, not only because of an opponents move, but moreso because of the necessary trade off of making a computer thinking move.
MG Michael Laabs
3/III A of M


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 1324
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Mass surrenders never happen in our game.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi, Bill,

That has not been my experience. Mass surrenders do happen, when one side or the other decides to throw in the towel. And that is as it should be. As near as I can tell, it is what happened at Ulm, which in game terms probably would have had a supply source anyway. Aspern-Essling I think is the better example from the Napoleonic wars. My point is that veteran units don't generally lose their will to fight twenty minutes after they are cut off, particularly when they don't even know they are cut off. But HPS in their wisdom has decreed that we don't have to agree on this. That is why isolation is an option.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 870
Location: USA
The problem with turning off isolation is that it removes the possibility to apply pressure on smaller pockets that have allowed themselves to become separated from their main force.

I agree that some isolations on the massive scale need fixing, that's why I'm thinking about including a supply source at P.L., and Nashville. I've thought about it with F.D., but I don't believe the Union has enough troops to do it and still attack, but I'm still considering it. One reason Nashville needs it is because Gunboats can be placed on the bridges and this will block the brigdes LOC.

But I would strongly disagree with turning the rule off. It's there for a good reason. It might be interesting if the effects of isolation could be incremental, say 25% each turn until it reaches 75%, meaning 25% less each turn until the defenders defend at the current level of 25%. This would also give the defenders a chance to break the isolation before they feel the full effect.

I could ask John about it, what do you think?

Rich


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:56 am
Posts: 57
Location: United Kingdom
<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ALynn</i>
<br />In Peninsula I once had an artillery unit on an island in the river NE of Richmond and even though my Rebs held the left bank and there was a ford to the river from my bank and no way to cross over from the Yank side, that unit still became isolated due to the river...

Col. Alan Lynn
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Gentlemen,

I had the same experience as Colonel Lynn. I slipped an unescorted artillery unit across the ford onto the island, knowing it would be entirely safe from capture by enemy forces across the river since there was no other crossing of any sort onto the island. At the beginning of my next turn I was shocked to see my artillery unit isolated. In the same game, I have other units entirely across the river without being isolated.

I like the idea that river hexes count toward isolation. My guess is that bridge hexes do not count as river hexes for isolation purposes, but ford hexes do. If that's correct, I would like to see fords treated the same as bridge hexes, unless there is some historical reason the designers have for making them different.


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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:56 am
Posts: 57
Location: United Kingdom
Apologies gentlemen, I will try again

Col Daley

I res[ectfully suggest that Troops are isolated by fords when rivers rise following a rainstorm. These days we do not get much flooding because for 130 years the Corps of Engineers has been working to prevent it. Before all the dams on the Potomac and Tennessee (1930s)flooring was pretty regular. The bridges at Harpers Ferry washed out several times during the war. Lee was nearly trapped at Falling waters.

I will spare you Hydrology 101 - but an inch of rain across only 10 square miles of the Potomac water shed upstream of your position would cause the water to rise a foot for a couple of hours - enough to make the ford impassable for 6 turns. It takes a more severe storm to wash out a bridge.

So - if a ford can leave you isolated, capture a bridge.

I remain etc

Ian Miller
IX Corps AoO


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 1324
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But I would strongly disagree with turning the rule off. It's there for a good reason. It might be interesting if the effects of isolation could be incremental, say 25% each turn until it reaches 75%, meaning 25% less each turn until the defenders defend at the current level of 25%. This would also give the defenders a chance to break the isolation before they feel the full effect.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi, Rich,

I thought the panzer campaigns model was better, but I still feel there are plenty of bad effects from being surrounded without isolation. These include flanking fire and an inability to retreat routed units. One thing I really liked about Panzer Campaigns was that if a unit couldn't retreat when it lost a melee, it lost a number of prisoners. That way the unit was eliminated over time if it couldn't get away.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I thought the panzer campaigns model was better, but I still feel there are plenty of bad effects from being surrounded without isolation. These include flanking fire and an inability to retreat routed units. One thing I really liked about Panzer Campaigns was that if a unit couldn't retreat when it lost a melee, it lost a number of prisoners. That way the unit was eliminated over time if it couldn't get away.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Surround in HPS without Isolation rule on has very little effect unless at least four enemy units are present. It's one of the reasons I favor the rule. One small unit shouldn't require a brigade to neutralize it. I do like the idea of retreating through a ZOC causing captures. This would probably be a better way to represent isolation. Probably requires more programming though. The graduated affects (25%/turn isolated) probably is easier to implement though and would help considerably. Also having Isolation flag cleared as soon as the unit breaks isolation would help rather than checking only in the friendly Command Phase.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:11 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
Also having Isolation flag cleared as soon as the unit breaks isolation would help rather than checking only in the friendly Command Phase.

BG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Here, here!

Regards,

Col. Alan Lynn
2nd Div, II Corps, AoA

Signal Corps, Assistant Editor

"The only accurate news is well researched history."

God Bless <><


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 2:58 pm
Posts: 206
Location: USA
Personally, I do think people are a bit too worried about it all. Of course I am almost always in the minority on any number of things. I fear ruling something to death. If one breaks issolation, why should a flag immediately arrive? If one is looking too correct realism, would the units men know, or even the commander? It is likely under the clouds of battle they would not. Also it is equally likely that they would not magically appear to fight better. Could not one argue that mearly appearing to be issolated would be as effective as actually being issolated. Thus if one can't see through the trees, or over a ridge, but men appear on many flanks, wouldn't it seem no different than actually being issolated? Perhaps stragglers should atomatically become added when men rout, or apear issolated.
I do think by fighting for realism, one often rules oneself into other issues that become unrealistic. I wonder if it should not be accepted for being a game, and not a perfect similation, and deal with the flaws of the systems.
Boy, I think I could take the other side of this arguement also. I must watch "Arguement Clinic" from Monty Python, because I think I am just in that type of mode.
MG Michael Laabs
3/III A of M


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by CSAML872</i>
<br />Personally, I do think people are a bit too worried about it all. Of course I am almost always in the minority on any number of things. I fear ruling something to death. If one breaks issolation, why should a flag immediately arrive? If one is looking too correct realism, would the units men know, or even the commander? It is likely under the clouds of battle they would not. Also it is equally likely that they would not magically appear to fight better. Could not one argue that mearly appearing to be issolated would be as effective as actually being issolated. Thus if one can't see through the trees, or over a ridge, but men appear on many flanks, wouldn't it seem no different than actually being issolated? Perhaps stragglers should atomatically become added when men rout, or apear issolated.
I do think by fighting for realism, one often rules oneself into other issues that become unrealistic. I wonder if it should not be accepted for being a game, and not a perfect similation, and deal with the flaws of the systems.
Boy, I think I could take the other side of this arguement also. I must watch "Arguement Clinic" from Monty Python, because I think I am just in that type of mode.
MG Michael Laabs
3/III A of M
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
While true, one can come up with actual examples of almost any result either justifying or debunking the idea of an Isolation rule, I do think the game should try for as much "realism" as can be expected in a game that has turns representing 20 minutes of time. So an Isolation rule should reflect what typically happened during such a situation in the CW. While I agree it is just a "game" it is also something more or we would all be playing Chess which is perfectly balanced and represent a battle in a very abstract since.

I mostly think the HPS system has the potential of much better simulating CW combat in a turn environment than it does. The game engine hardly touches on the processing power of todays home computers. It's current state only approaches the degree of sophistication that board games on the Civil War achieved in the seventies. Unfortunately, as a group we are to small to demand much. Much less get anything from the game companies. Mostly these arguments help clarify what would constitute a good implementation and maybe what would be acceptable if that's all we can get.

Isolation is one of those rules that needs some work. Maybe just some slight tinkering with the existing system could fix it's worse problems without introducing new ones. They put in soft zones which helped a lot. It still leads to situations that are atypical of Civil War combat like Corps being isolated or a regiment one hex in front of the main line being isolated even though it can easily move back into the battle line.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 92 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group