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 11:45 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:40 pm 
Gentlemen:

I would like to offer up some discussion material for you.

This involves a change to the basic game engine for the HPS series that may be proposed at the upcoming Tiller Con.

First, as play is now, when a unit moves into the zoc of an opposing unit, all movement points are lost.

Change: When a unit moves into the zoc of an opposing force only one-half of the units remaining movement points are lost.

Second, as play is now, when a unit fires on an opposing unit, the firing unit cannot move again in that turn.

Change: When a unit fires on an opposing unit, it can move again after firing if there are movement points available. Another words, I could move to an opposing unit, fire and then move back from that unit. Of course the unit would be subject to defensive fire.

I don't know how these changes might be implemented, and they would potentially create the greatest impact during phased play.

Feel free to comment on this.

Col. Richard Meuleveld
"The Old First"
3rd Brigade
1st Division
XIV Corps
Army of the Cumberland


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 12:37 pm
Posts: 356
Location: USA
Sir
Different ideas for sure;

What do YOU want to accomplish with these rules changes? How do YOU feel that these rules changes will make the games more realistic?

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
These changes would heavily favor the attacker over the defender. Considering the HPS system already heavily favors the attacker over the defender in what was suppose to be a war that heavily favored the defender over the attacker, I question whether this is the right direction to go with modifications. Also, what is the justification for the proposed change? Does it better simulate tactics during the CW or is it proposed for some other purpose?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:51 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>
<br />These changes would heavily favor the attacker over the defender. Considering the HPS system already heavily favors the attacker over the defender in what was suppose to be a war that heavily favored the defender over the attacker, I question whether this is the right direction to go with modifications. Also, what is the justification for the proposed change? Does it better simulate tactics during the CW or is it proposed for some other purpose?

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

I agree. These modifications seem expressely designed to give the attacker even MORE advantages. If you want attacker oriented games, play Panzer campaigns. That is not what the Civil War was about, nor should it be what Civil War games are about.

Go Fish. [xx(]

Regards,

Brig. Gen. Alan Lynn
2nd Div, II Corps, AoA
VMI Training Staff

God Bless <><


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 215
"Change: When a unit moves into the zoc of an opposing force only one-half of the units remaining movement points are lost."

-----------------

This would be a really dreadful change!!! The attacker already has too much of an advantage. I'd really hate to see this change and imagine most other players would feel the same.

..................

"Change: When a unit fires on an opposing unit, it can move again after firing if there are movement points available."

-----------------

I suspect this might actually be more beneficial to the defender. It would allow units to fire (at close range) and then retreat, rather than retreat and either fire at long range or not be able to fire at all.

It wouldn't give the attacker any advantage, since his troops can already move into contact and then fire (and of course melee too). After all, why should the attacker fire at 2 or 3 hex range and then continue moving forward into contact, rather than fire more effectively once in contact?

Such a change would also allow a unit to move forward, fire and then fall back again. But all this extra movement might draw unnecessary ADF.


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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:10 am 
As with the other responses, I disagree with these ideas. The only exception might be for scouting cav units of 50 or a hundred or less if they bump into something and then be allowed to pull back. I can't see how this could easily be implemented, so it's probably not worth trying.
But as mentioned, since the attacker is already more advantaged, it's probably best to leave things as they are.
A while back we had some long threads on ideas for future patches and there were many good ideas there, and some were implemented. Maybe more of those ideas could be looked at again.

MajGen, 2/VIII/AoS
"Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 12:37 pm
Posts: 356
Location: USA
Gentlemen
My first inclination was the same as the general theme so far presented-that these rules favor the attacker. But consider this-no longer would the checkerboard defense work-you would HAVE to present solid lines and strong ones at that. Flanks could NEVER be left hanging. This could lead to more realistic defenses. VP conditions could just be altered accordingly.

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:53 pm 
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 tony best</i>
<br />Gentlemen
My first inclination was the same as the general theme so far presented-that these rules favor the attacker. But consider this-no longer would the checkerboard defense work-you would HAVE to present solid lines and strong ones at that. Flanks could NEVER be left hanging. This could lead to more realistic defenses. VP conditions could just be altered accordingly.
Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

True but this would shift the balance so heavily to the attacker that no force that couldn't match the attacker with equal numbers could stand. With soft zones the checkerboard defense only can be used as a delaying action. It limits the attackers ability to melee but cannot hold ground. With a rule allowing movement through zones a line would have to be continous. But without linking that rule to significant changes to melee rules such a line would quickly be overrun since the attacker, who usually has a superior force or he wouldn't be the attacker, picks and chooses where to break the line by melee at overwhelming odds.

Usually in turn based games a rule allowing movement through zones is tied in with "modern" war ideas of defense in depth. Surrounds don't auto kill, defenders have a reaction phase as part of their defense, and there may be auto retreats for units bypassed. I think you will find a move through zone rule will badly unbalance the HPS system and would require a whole reworking of the combat system to accomodate the change. It would have to be coupled with other ideas to make it work including things like command control to limit spreading of lines, skirmishers to limit enemy advances, limitations on ability to melee, ability for the defender to react not only with defensive fire but with partial retreat, and on it would go. In other words, a whole new game engine that would make supporting lines, reserves, and many other concepts not supported by the HPS system work together in a realistic way. Something very difficult to do with hexes and turns.

My own approach is to create a simulation that correctly (hopefully) models what a regiment can do and implements a command control system that (really hopefully) raines in the 200 foot general. Put this on a 3D map with simultaneous turns and maybe it would work out, and maybe not. [:D]

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 215
Any changes contemplated to the game engine, pdt, etc should <b>strengthen the defender</b>, not the attacker. Otherwise, with the turn-based system, ZOC melee elimination tactics will dominate the battlefield even more than they currently do, and the game will have about as much resemblance to the ACW as one of the PzC titles.

But, as I've said in my previous post on this thread, I suspect that allowing movement <i>after</i> firing would probably benefit the defender more.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
You are quite right in your observation that the bane of commanders in an attack was that the troops would stop walking and start shooting instead of closing with the enemy. Some commanders resulted to not allowing them to load before an attack to force them to close. Melee itself was a battle of wills not weapons. Most of the casualties suffered were due to fire after closing as men ran or captures. Or as Nosworthy observed only 4 casualties were due to bayonet wounds at the Wilderness.

The "Turn" based option tried to address this with opportunity fire but failed. But one way to implement what you suggested would be to elliminate the "Melee" phase and make it a choice in the "Fire" phase. You can shoot or you can melee. The other part, the tendancy of troops if fired on while advancing to stop and return fire, probably can't be simulated in HPS unless a better implementation of opportunity fire is come up with or HPS switches to a plot and move system.

MG Whitehead

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />When units moved in close they rarely would change formation (for instance if you allowed a unit to do this as it has 1/2 MPs available) and if it came into contact would either FIRE or MELEE.

I would like to see a rule whereby the attack can only do one or the other.

The bane of most commanders of this period was that the units would stop to fire rather than close. The scale: 1 hex = 125 yards means that if you get that close you should only be able to do one or the other.

Now you can disagree with me all you want but I dont know of too many instances where the attacker would fire, then attempt to close and then see the men decide to stop and fire again (basically a "DRAW" type melee).

I like to play the Phased system for the most part but feel that if a unit fires it should not be able to melee. Even in the phased style of play.

Maybe you guys can find evidence that I am dead wrong. I welcome this as I would any other dispute about something I put up here.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:36 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">The other part, the tendancy of troops if fired on while advancing to stop and return fire, probably can't be simulated in HPS unless a better implementation of opportunity fire is come up with or HPS switches to a plot and move system.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Hi, General,

Actually, I think it would be quite possible to simulate this by either increasing the chance of disruption due to opportunity fire, or instituting a pin result that would cause a unit to lose any remaining movement points and prohibit it from meleeing for the rest of the turn. In the Panzer games, they require you to expend movement points to fire or melee, so that is another possibility. But I still think preplotted moves ought to be the ultimate goal. It would require a lot of work on AI though.


MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 12:37 pm
Posts: 356
Location: USA
instituting a pin result that would cause a unit to lose any remaining movement points and prohibit it from meleeing

I am a big fan of the "pin" result. Obviously from Terrible Swift Sword

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
"But I still think preplotted moves ought to be the ultimate goal. It would require a lot of work on AI though."

Actually the problem isn't in the AI but the interface. How do you display the moves to the player making them in such a way that after trying to get about twenty regiments plotted he doesn't become totally confused as to who is going where. Games simulating on brigade level aren't as sensitive to this problem. Fewer units and broader fronts so you don't have to be so precise but regiment level its a problem. Trying to remember who you moved, haven't moved and where becomes serious when moving 200+ units.

In theory they could introduce a "plot" phase into the HPS system where you just gave orders and paths to your units, had the game execute them in something more resembling their "Turn" system, but it would be a major rewrite of the game engine.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:35 pm 
Gentlemen:

Now that I have your attention, and given your comments, please allow me to elaborate further on my thinking.

First, Cavalry units that ride up on a column would in all probability have turned immediately and withdrew. They would not have stayed in place and allowed themselves to be shot up. In all likelyhood running across an enemy unit in column formation would have certainly meant there were more enemy troops nearby. The 1/2 movement point loss would allow the cav unit the chance to retreat.

Second, two columns who ran into each other would more than likely have looked at each other and been forced to decide whether they fall back or take a stand. In both of these situations with the game engine as it is now, the unit that "runs" into the enemy is locked and the enemy can change formations on the next turn and blast away. This often causes disruption which limits any future movement and results in greater loss to the unit that inadvertantly stumbled into the enemy force. It seems to me that this gives a unit a small chance to retreat or to at least change formation and prepare to defend itself.

If the rule change were to lead to units approaching an enemy and changing formations then shooting or meleeing, perhaps that could be limited somehow so that a unit in column formation could not change formation and shoot or melee in the same turn.

With regard to the second part that would allow a unit to move up fire and withdraw, this is fairly standard ambush tactics and was used during the civil war. If I have some units hiding in the woods and you come marching by, I could move in to firing range, open up and move back. As it stands now I move up, fire and have to wait for the enemy to change formation and fire before I can move back. If I am using a small force to try and harass the enemy I am going to be in a lot of trouble once I open fire.

Whether these are workable ideas or not I don't know. I do not know how difficult it would be to implement. It was a discussion topic and if nothing further becomes of it, then that is as it should be.

Your Humble Servant

Col. Richard Meuleveld
"The Old First"
3rd Brigade
1st Division
XIV Corps
Army of the Cumberland


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:49 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rpmeule</i>
<br />
With regard to the second part that would allow a unit to move up fire and withdraw, this is fairly standard ambush tactics and was used during the civil war. If I have some units hiding in the woods and you come marching by, I could move in to firing range, open up and move back. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Not in twenty minutes you couldn't. But you could in forty minutes, which is how the game is currently set up.

2nd Lt. Beno
5/2/I AoP
USA


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 99 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