Dear MG Patrick Carrol,
As far as the Fires go, why light them except as a decoy. No other benefit.
Lt Gen Joseph C. Mishurda
Lt General Joseph C. Mishurda,
"Killer Angels"
XXV Corps, AoJ
| American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC) http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/ |
|
| A Mod - Those Danged Thorny Bushes! http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9900 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | eireb [ Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | A Mod - Those Danged Thorny Bushes! |
I Posted the following text at the ACWCO Board and after 1 or 2 comments - it was suggested that I post it here for a more expansive audience . . . . . <font color="yellow"><b>Gents. 2 Thoughts struck me recently . . . I've filed charges for Assault and Battery at the local Copshot! Seriously . . . . 1. Could a function be hardwired into either or both HPS and TS games where a Unit could construct Abatis? A useful tool to have, Historical - certainly in the latter stages of the War . . . and it would be realistic/strategically useful in Open Ground. Perhaps a limit written in - Abatis can only be constructed within 1 or 2 hexes of wooded areas? 2. Campfires during Dusk, Night and/or Dawn Turns. A Unit would only require 5/10 men to be present to Light and maintain the fire. A "Life" could be assigned by the Player to the length a Fire burns, at a cost of MP's, to the whole unit. To light a Fire would require a full MP quota for a Turn. At the point of lighting the fire, He would "instruct" his 5/10 Men to keep it burning for x number of turns and the Parent Unit would then be able to move out during the next Turn, at 3/4 MP values, until the fire burns out at the appointed Turn. The "Fire Detachment" would then be automatically returned to the Parent Unit and the Unit enabled to travel at full MP quota again. Again - Historical precedent abounds and there would be the Tactical variation introduced of distracting the Enemy into considering whether the Fire constituted the True Position of some of his Opponent's Units OR whether it is a Decoy. Any Thoughts? </b></font id="yellow">" Any further Thoughts Gentlemen or modification ideas would be greatly appreciated. If someone knows how to and develops such mods . . . p'raps HPS - for one, would include it in a Patch, as the work would be already done for them. I think that the Abatis - in particular - would be a popular Optional Rule. Pat. Patrick G.M.Carroll, Major 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. " |
|
| Author: | Joe Mishurda [ Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dear MG Patrick Carrol, As far as the Fires go, why light them except as a decoy. No other benefit. Lt Gen Joseph C. Mishurda
Lt General Joseph C. Mishurda, "Killer Angels" XXV Corps, AoJ |
|
| Author: | BMG [ Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The benefit is the decoy. You might be facing down a large force hidden by woods, or surmise it is a ruse and send a large force there at dawn only to find nothing or a whole corps. But it held your units in place, or moved them where they weren't needed. Deception is a big part of warfare, and this idea was used often during the period. Fld. Lt. Bryan Gentry ANV |
|
| Author: | dmallory [ Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by BMG</i> <br />The benefit is the decoy. You might be facing down a large force hidden by woods, or surmise it is a ruse and send a large force there at dawn only to find nothing or a whole corps. But it held your units in place, or moved them where they weren't needed. Deception is a big part of warfare, and this idea was used often during the period. Fld. Lt. Bryan Gentry ANV <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Lt. Gentry, I think what General Mishurda is asking is, what are the benefits of fire OTHER than deception. If the ONLY benefit of lighting a fire is deception, the enemy will know that and the lighting of a fire serves no useful purpose. Now, if a fire could serve some other useful purpose, then it could be used as a deception. For instance, a unit in the same hex as a fire could recovere fatigue sooner. At night, this would represent the warmth generated by the fire. During daylight hours, the fire could be used to heat food. In this case, a fire COULD be used to increase fatigue OR to deceive the enemy. If there is no benefit besides deception, there is little benefit to the deception. Also, how would the fires show up? Would the enemy see them as some symbol, in much the way a question mark indicates a unit sighted only by a supply wagon? Would they be visible only if there is unobstructed line-of-sight? Would they ever be visible during daylight hours? I think there are too many unanswered questions on this one at this point, although it might be something for Tiller & company to consider. As for abatis, that one might be doable. Another abatis option I would like to see would be for the 'owning' side (the defender, currently -- or the side that builds the abatis, if this suggestion is implemented) to 'see' the abatis, even if there are no friendly units with LOS to it. In some scenarios (I'm thinking especially of the Paducah scenario of the Corinth engine), long lines of abatis are set up in the woods but the defender has no knowledge of them. If the defending player is one of those (like me) who happens to think 'offense is the best defense', or even if he likes to move forward to make the attacker fight for every hex, he (the defender) is apt to get units entangled -- and thus disrupted -- by his own abatis. If an army has spent the time to build abatis, isn't it reasonable to assume they would remember where they built them? Perhaps abatis could be treated like fixed supply wagons: They belong to one side or the other, and would indicate a question mark when the enemy moved next to them. (During the civil war, I've read of tin cans being tied to strings to indicate the approach of the enemy.) Once the abatis were 'captured', however, and fell into enemy hands, they would switch to the other side. The original side would at least have some vague idea of where the abatis were, but the benefit would then go to the other side. Just some more food for thought. 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 Department, Colonial American Army |
|
| Author: | KWhitehead [ Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Another use for fire is cooking bacon, burning Washington, cooking some politicians (refer back to bacon, all that pork).[:D] Seriously though, before we worry about deception we need to rain in the 200 foot general. Right now in HPS games you can see 4-5 miles and tell how many regiments are there, how many generals, and their strength to the nearest 100 men. Come on...[V] They(HPS) need to change any hex over a mile away to just a "?" counter regardless of number of troops in it. Then you could have some true deception. Is it a 50 man cavalry unit riding around or is a division marching down the road? You want to find out you have to send a force to check. As for abatis I agree they should have it so one side would know they are always there. More importantly though they need to make abatis prevent road use. Right now if you are in column, enemy or friendly, you can march through the most extensive fortifications as if they don't exist if a road or path happens to be there too. Abatis should negate all roads, pikes and paths. It would be nice to have a function like bridge repair that would allow either side to remove the road obstruction property of an abatis hex so they could clear the hex for movement purposes once they had full control of that part of the battlefield. This could maybe be combined with suggestion 1. Units could both place and remove abatis. Sort of a combined function like bridge destruction/repair and entrenchment. BG. Kennon Whitehead Chatham Grays III Corps, AoM (CSA) |
|
| Author: | laubster22 [ Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like the abatis build idea, to include Kennons suggestion on "bridge repair" to allow clearing for movement, etc. As for the fires, no thanks. If you're going to figure how to let me have 10-15 man detachments, that would be nice for patrols/scouting... General Jeff Laub Union Chief of the Army ACWGC Cabinet Member http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/ |
|
| Author: | BMG [ Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It could be used as fatigue recovery, and a bonus in winter conditions as well. Folks gotta eat, and stay warm if conditions warrant. As far as visability I'd say 4 hexes from the fire in wooded conditions would be fair, and visibility over the horizon if it is less than 30 feet from the crest of a hill might be warranted as well. It works in the commander's favor, and as a hinderance as well since it can also locate your units for the enemy depending on how many fires as seen. Oh, the fire is only of use by units adjacent to them as well would be a good rule. Just ideas y'all. Lt. Bryan Gentry ANV (awaiting placement within) |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|