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 10:04 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:22 pm 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Banshee</i>
<br />I agree with others, it makes good reading and you should be
commeneded for the effort you've put in this exercise.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, Shannon, Tris (in memory), and I thank you for the Club Members' encouraging comments.

At this time, Shannon and I are playtesting Ver. 2 of the "Mounted Reconnaissance" house rules. For us, the beauty of House Rules is that as wargamers, we have more custom control over the kind of historical wargaming experience we seek. House Rules provide us the level of personal control that is otherwise unavailable to us, given an otherwise 'fixed', proprietary pc code.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">On the other hand, the games in which we engage are abstracts of real life. Many of the rules built into the game would never be
observed in a real life encounter. An example: As the game enters
a player's melee phase, a victory hex, determining the scenario's
outcome is occupied by a single mounted cavalryman. Six regiments
surround him, yet they cannot melee him. He'd be dead meat in real
life, if he didn't surrender. But it's an abstract designed to
prevent infantrymen from meleeing on foot, against a mounted
cavalry regiment that could ride right through them.

Your suggested house rules alter a number of important facets of
our abstract scenarios.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, "altering" is the general direction if not underlying guiding "point" and spirit, underlying a custom mod like ACW House Rule Essentialsâ„¢.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">By the same token, a unit moving adjacent to an unlmbered artillery battery is forced to undergo a second volley of canister. Well placed 2 gun batteries along a defended line would almost have
the effect of abatis, even though none was provided in the scenario.
An attacking general, faced with the prospect of leaving his regiments out in the open to be butchered by artillery and supporting infantry, ...just wouldn't attack.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">General Cuneo,

I share your concern about the potentially devastating nature of charging, shoulder-to-shoulder, a well positioned array of heavy enemy ordnance.

The point, however, governing "Artillery Capture" as per ACW House Rule Essentialsâ„¢ (please, see section VIII), is to "show not tell" just how heavy ordnance simply can't disappear without a trace -- in an instant, no less -- from an otherwise contentious battlefield situation.

ACW House Rule Essentialsâ„¢ delays 'capture' but for one additional 20 minute simulated phase. Obviously, this too is but a trying compromise to history, General Cuneo, but only because Mr. Tiller's code demands that once you win a simple melee over an enemy artillery hex, all enemy (or likewise friendly) guns -- no matter how many might actually be <i>stacked</i> in hex, eh -- <b>instantaneously</b> disappear into thin air without a trace - indeed, without any allowance or possibility for "recapture". This is simply too regrettable (fictional) to ignore.

I will note here that our original Version 1.0 of our "Artillery Capture" rule, required that any combat units that wished to melee an artillery hex could do so in the same turn -- with the single caveat that they could expend no more than 1/2 of their MP's (movement points) in order to remain eligible to melee enemy guns in the same turn -- again, the thinking herein was to observe how some additional <i>time</i> was demanded in being able to not only 'capture' the guns, but likewise was required to remove the guns from the contentious part of the battlefield and/or 'spike' the guns.

Current version 2.0 of our "artillery capture" rule simply affords a bit more potentially lethal (bloody), hence, challenging contest for securing 'victory' over an artillery hex. This remains our current game-play preference; however, feel free to try some or any other idea(s) you might feel better expresses the essential factor of <i>time</i>, underlying capture/recapture/spiking/and removal of enemy guns from a contentious portion of the battlefield.

Perhaps, in closing, one only need review the contest on Henry Hill (First Bull Run) to appreciate just how the capture -- and recapture -- of enemy guns proved one crucial turning point in the battle proper? And, by the example provided in ACW House Rules Essentialsâ„¢, regarding Gen. Manigault's (CSA) capture of the yank's 20 lbers, the subsequent recapture -- "within 30 minutes" -- and the turning of the guns back upon the rebs by XV Corps, proved but one more 'turning point' in the Battle for Atlanta.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've mentioned just two, but in my eyes, there are many others. The games are designed, for the most part, to be playable, as is. Many of these suggested house rules hinder a player from using the mechanics of the game to succeed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Playable" without mods is just fine - it's all a matter of personal choice between you and your worthy, venerable opponent(s).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I would suggest some heavy play testing before we agree to incorporate any of these rules as club house rules.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Actually, what I might <i>offer</i> is that you consider trying a single section . . . say, "Breastworks" (please, see section X) or "Stacking" (Section I) and consider even modifying any House Rule you feel might benefit from your own personal perspective or readings on tactical / grand-tactical ACW period warfare.

Honestly, one of the inherent beauties of House Rules is that you any your opponent can agree to play with as few or as many rules as fits your own level of interest and commitment to historical simulation wargaming. You are even free to "edit" and/or add to any rules you like in order to fit them more in line with your own insights! God speed!

(Or as you rightly observed), you are free -- as always -- to continue to play the game exactly the way it was fixed and pre-recorded in the first place for generic, general consumption.

In any case, General Cuneo, suh, there be no right or wrong herein -- ACW House Rule Essentialsâ„¢ simply remains a humble, pro-bono <i>offering</i> at absolutely no cost to anyone. The choice as to <i>how you play the game</i>, forever remains the strongest point, underlying your ACW Game Club. May victory pave your way all the way to Washington, good General! :)

Denny
Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA, Retired


<i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
If you and the club get really serious about developing these "House Rules" it would really facilitate it if a separate Forum was created for it. You really need threads on each rule or rule section with players who or using or testing posting their experiences. It requires a lot of dedicated feedback to verify that the rules are having the desired effect and aren't introducing new problems (like the Turn based play in HPS did).

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:33 pm 
"An attacking general, faced with the prospect of leaving his regiments out in the open to be butchered by artillery and supporting infantry, ...just wouldn't attack."

Attention: General Cuneo,

Isn't it ironic, general, that "butchered by artillery" regrettably even woefully defines so much of ACW period warfare?

One of the more memorable historical examples herein proved to be Lee's suicidal orders to assault McClellans infantry reinforced artillery deployment on high ground, no less, at Malvern Hill? Butchery and possibly worse? Again, Lee's orders to Longstreet and Gen. Pickett on the 3rd day likewise ranks right up there with the notion of sheer butchery if not chivalrous lunacy . . . and, yet, it happened time and again, eh? :(

In any case, the underlying aim of ACW House Rule Essentialsâ„¢ is to provide some o' us with a simulation that in part must invariably provide for such butchery while at the same time seek something more akin to a wagon-esque capture/recapture routine for Mr. Tiller's heavy ordnance on the field, which simply don't vanish without a trace when melee'd for the first time.

Although Mr. Tiller has not as yet provided a retooling "wagon-capture" routine for your ordnance, House Rules strive to factor in both the butchery and the essential <i>time</i> necessary to remove captured ordnance from a contested portion of the battlefield. Again, the point is, artilly simply don't vanish into thin air upon 'capture'.

We approach all House Rules as a living, breathing means to explore ACW period warfare beyond the scope of what Mr. Tiller's game provides. House Rules is 'open code' -- i.e., open to instant edits / modifications / revisions with but a stroke of the keyboard, limited only by one's imagination and, of course, Mr. Tiller's closed source code.

All this, of course, assumes -- beyond mere club-gaming interests -- that we indeed share an inquisitive, genuine <i>passion</i> for history as well, eh?

Field Lt. shoeless,
Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA -- Retired

<i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:49 pm 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br />It requires a lot of dedicated feedback to verify that the rules are having the desired effect and aren't introducing new problems (like the Turn based play in HPS did).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Greetings
BG. Whitehead,

I confess this isn't quite clear to me.

Could you, please, provide a hands-on example or two -- as well as the game(s) you are referencing, hence, what you mean and are referring to by "Turn-based play in HPS did"? Thanks!

Meanwhile, I'm not sure if there is a touch of confusion brewin' here. But, keep in mind <b>ACW House Rule Essentialsâ„¢</b> was nor is intended to be the equivalent of some "ACW Game Club House Rules".

OTOH, if a purposeful ACW Game Club sought to endorse an array of House Rules, please, feel free to borrow any you find herein -- or create a completely unique set of your own device and making.

All you need to 'playtest' house rules of any kind is an agreeable, willing opponent (or 'victim' if you prefer :))

God Speed, Brigadier Whitehead!

Field Lt. Shoeless,
Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA -- Retired

<i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
Just thinking along the lines of a separate Forum like the "Smoking Room" for discussing the optional House Rules so that the threads don't get lost. Especially once some games are started testing the rules it may be months between some posts and in the main forum the threads may be lost.

Ideal would be a thread started on each rule or rule subset. As people use the rules they can enter observations on how well they are working, what problem situations they ran into trying to apply them, and any changes they would recomment. The main set of rules could be made a "sticky" so it would always be available and periodically edited to incorporate changes and additions.

My reference to "Turn Based" in HPS games is an example of what can happen when rules are added without a lot of testing of how they interact with other rules. In our "Phased" based games there is always the problem of what us old board games called "Panzer Bush" tactics. Some regiment would march righ across the front of an entire brigade or division and deposit itself in some choice piece of covered ground without so much as losing a man. The solution in the board games was "opportunity fire" where those brigades had a random chance of firing at the offending regiment in the open before it got to cover. HPS took this a bit further and made a combined "Turn" that included movement and combat so that there would be "opportunity fire" to stop this practice. Unfortunately, this backfired since the "Turn based" system also allowed combat followed by movement and futher combat. A system that works well for simulating modern armored combat but gave CW regiments abilities they just didn't have. So the cure for "Panzer Bush" brought on the worse problem, "Blitzkrieg in 1863".

It takes a lot of games in a lot of different situations to be sure the rule that is suppose to fix say stacking doesn't introduce ten more situations that are far more ahistoric.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 12:37 pm
Posts: 356
Location: USA
The command rules listed here are very similer to the house rules I used in a couple games against Generals Adams and General Thayer and reported here at the tavern as we played.. Outside of having to remember to use them we all felt that the system worked quite well. Silly flanking moves with tiny units was somewhat avoided and units running all over without Brigade and Division command was quite restricted. Balance seemed unaffected as we used the game radii as the command radii. The "feel" was great!![8D]

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:32 pm 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br />The solution in the board games was "opportunity fire" where those brigades had a random chance of firing at the offending regiment in the open before it got to cover. HPS took this a bit further and made a combined "Turn" that included movement and combat so that there would be "opportunity fire" to stop this practice. Unfortunately, this backfired since the "Turn based" system also allowed combat followed by movement and futher combat.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ah! yes, this is why we added both [url="http://www.shoelessbivouac.net/acwhr_mainframe2.html#VI"]Phase-based Combat "Friction"[/url] qualifiers (which work quite well -- the Field of Fire routine feels about right in our play experience!) as well as
[url="http://www.shoelessbivouac.net/acwhr_mainframe2.html#VII"]Turn-based Qualifiers[/url] that, I think, effectively restores the balance to Mr. Tiller's original I-Go / U-Go phase-based game.

Two simple -- manual override house rule solutions -- that serve us very well, indeed. Consider giving them a run-for-the-money. I think you might find them a viable course change.

Of course, Keenon, I'd prefer a game that provided just such options already in the game code . . . but, John Tiller has 'taught' me that sometimes I/we can't afford to wait to see issues addressed on our own time-table life-cycle.

In any case, quite excellent observations all in all, Brigadier, suh! Thanks!

Regards, Denny
Secretary of the [CSA] Cabinet, Retired w/o shoes

<i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:43 pm 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tony best</i>
<br />The command rules listed here are very similer to the house rules I used in a couple games against Generals Adams and General Thayer and reported here at the tavern as we played.. Outside of having to remember to use them we all felt that the system worked quite well. Silly flanking moves with tiny units was somewhat avoided and units running all over without Brigade and Division command was quite restricted. Balance seemed unaffected as we used the game radii as the command radii. The "feel" was great!![8D]

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Excellent! I feel the same way. In our experience, "friendly FOG" command and control limits puts a brake on rampant, a-historical misuse from individual combat units on up to run around the map like elite *special* units. Given that both sides share the same constraints, one gains a bit more of the feel of what it was like to command one's own troops before the advent of the walkie-talkie, eh? :)

That some members of your ACW Game Club have indeed ventured in this more <i>determined</i> direction is, I confess, extremely gratifying to see. Kudos, Colonel Best, Army of Georgia! ==Denny

Secretary of the Cabinet,
Retired n' shoeless still

<i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 12:37 pm
Posts: 356
Location: USA
Denny
You alluded to a response from Mr. Tiller. Has he addressed your rules directly and what did he say?

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:55 pm 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tony best</i>
<br />Denny
You alluded to a response from Mr. Tiller. Has he addressed your rules directly and what did he say?

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia

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

Sorry for the lag time in getting back to you, but I have been away for slightly more than a week -- saw an S.F. Giants game last Tuesday (great game!) then did a little backpacking in Yosemite high country (intoxicating!). :)

As to your question, I did email John a "thank you" as per your earlier suggestion. At the time I also had a question of my own on the difference between "independent" brigades and "separated brigades" (as witnessed first hand in the "Northern Virginia" scenario of Mr. Tiller's Gettysburg Campaign.

To date, I have not heard back from John, so will make a point to follow-up our request to offer some hopeful criticism / insight / feedback regarding the current version of ACW House Rule Essentialsâ„¢.

For example, it would appear that with very little pc-code conflict would occur by offering Turn-based options -- as per Section VII, which would foreseeably resolve two key issues with a Turn-based game viewed as unplayable/unthinkable by many. Such changes would be offered solely as <u>options</u>, thue permitting any gamers who nonetheless still entertain the "blitzkrieg" game ('strike-fust-n'-keep-a-rollin'-up-the-line' style of play) will still have that option too.

As for <i>essential</i> 'friendly FOG' constraints on Command & Control, perhaps, one can do no more at this point than wish upon a star? But one should never give up hope.


I will report back any and all news that should arrive at my shoelessbivouac inbox.

Warm Regards, Denny
Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA
Retired Fd Lt. shoeless
First 'Separated Pontoon' Regiment

<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2002 11:44 pm
Posts: 19
The Separate Brigades for 8th Corps/Department of the Middle are independent brigades. They are referred to as Separate Brigades because that is how they are listed in the Abstracts of the Returns for 8th Corps/Department of the Middle during the relevant time period for the game.

The 8th Corps/Department of the Middle/Middle Department was problematic from an OOB standpoint, as it never acted as a cohesive whole. The Department of the Middle/Middle Department was the administrative controlling body while 8th Corps was the (in theory anyway) field organization. As a practical matter the units of the organization were spread all over the middle atlantic states from what is now West Virginia to Pennsylvania/Maryland. The divisions of the 8th Corps operated as independent units, not just the Separate Brigades.

Doug Strickler


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:53 pm 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Douglas Strickler</i>
<br />The Separate Brigades for 8th Corps/Department of the Middle are independent brigades.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

A union corps with no less than four (4) "independent" brigades on the same "what-if" battlefield, no less! Wow.

An astonishing set of redundant circumstances, to be sure. One might even imagine just how hard it might / must have proven to be -- historically speaking, of course -- to coordinate the operational / tactical conduct of just so many "independent" formations on a single battlefiled, eh?

But, of course, absolute "coordination" under Mr. Tiller's "200 Foot General" command & control routine never proved a serious (historical) contest, no matter how many new maps and/or OOB's might be offered on the niche-retail auction block. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">They are referred to as Separate Brigades because that is how they are listed in the Abstracts of the Returns for 8th Corps/Department of the Middle during the relevant time period for the game.

The 8th Corps/Department of the Middle/Middle Department was problematic from an OOB standpoint, as it never acted as a cohesive whole. The Department of the Middle/Middle Department was the administrative controlling body while 8th Corps was the (in theory anyway) field organization. As a practical matter the units of the organization were spread all over the middle atlantic states from what is now West Virginia to Pennsylvania/Maryland. The divisions of the 8th Corps operated as independent units, not just the Separate Brigades.

Doug Strickler<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Good OOB work, Doug.

The net result of your OOB work, alas, historically offers little compelling effect, under Mr. Tiller's marginalized command & control routine.

Instead, I confess the notion of "eye candy" comes more to mind here, which in no way is to disparage your otherwise fine OOB work. It's simply that such OOB details are virtually nullified -- made moot -- by Mr. Tiller's visibly less qualified command & control routine. So it goes. We spin and toil, but to little actual effect on the pc-driven battlefield . . . assuming, of course, no manual overrides are the norm.

On a corollary front, the "provost" gaurd -- which I know for a fact was your contribution (along with bigger maps) on my "Battleground II - Housekeeping Wish List" way back in 1999 on ye ole Talonsoft boards - is a highly specialized unit that now appears in Mr. Tiller's latest rash of games.

Again the notion of eye-candy comes to mind, if only because they actually have no special (intrinsically programmed) capabilities nor limits that might, still, conceivably complement these little gems.

In other words, if provost guards might actually serve in some historical capacity to actually function as special rear-guard units -- limiting excess losses, resulting from "stragglers," due to combat and/or marching, then Mr. Tiller would actually have something historically more compelling to offer all players from novice on up.

No being the case, manual "house rule" over-ride to govern the use of provost guards appears in order. I might imagine you have already come up with a set of manual rules to govern your own provost guards? If so, by all means, please feel free to post them asap. Thanks.

Otherwise, provost guards, very much like "separated" brigades, merely tend to serve Mr. Tiller's game as another sample of historically-moderated eye-candy.

In any case, again Kudos for your otherwise fine OOB work.

Denny
Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA
Retired.


<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:47 pm 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tony best</i>
<br />Denny
You alluded to a response from Mr. Tiller. Has he addressed your rules directly and what did he say?

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tony, I wrote John Tiller again this evening (9-13-06), employing a slightly more 'urgent' tone, to wit.,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Greetings Mr. Tiller,

While comments regarding our (Shannon and I) "ACW House Rule Essentials" have been quite generous, wonderfully positive even, a fellow member of the ACW Game Club has now twice asked me to (to paraphrase):

a) please, ask John to review the posted house rules: www.shoelessbivouac.net/acwhrules.html
b) please forward any comments fit for public consumption to the ACW Club

It has not been my intent to personally ask something of you, John, but I have not been able to ignore what is perceived to be an earnest request from a fellow gamer, hence, I write asking if it might be possible for you to provide a brief comment or two for the benefit of a handfull of your wargaming fans?

Thank you for your kind consideration and especial attention to this matter of game importance. :) ==Denny<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Knowing John has always proven quite reliable to reply without undue delay, we should not have long to wait to hear back from him. Thanks, again, for your encouragement.

warm regards,
Denny
Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA -- Retired


<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:02 am 
fyi<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Denny,

I’ll look this over and get back to you. Looks like nice work.

John [9-14-06]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> <i>Eternal Vigilance</i>, Col. Best. [:)] ==Denny

<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 12:37 pm
Posts: 356
Location: USA
Well done!! Now, if we can get more feed back from designers and programmers as to how difficult this all is to implement then you will be one step closer to really doing a service for us Talonsoft, HPS gamers who desire another level of realism. It would be great if a lot of this was optional so two guys could really "self design" the Battles according to how they perceived Civil War battles to be fought.

We might chop down that ole two hundred foot high General yet!![:D][8D]

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 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 83 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