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 Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:42 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 951
Location:
I support the artillery supply wagons idea. Infantry supply wagons are certainly a limiting factor on infantry maneuver; I can't imagine artillery ammunition wagons moving faster than infantry wagons. I'm not sure where John Tiller got his figures for wagon movement, but wagons moving on a dirt road sure take a long time to come up. Expending ammo based on number of tubes rather than unit is a great idea. I have no problem with expanding the range at which artillery might be resupplied to, say, ten hexes from the wagon instead of five. Ideally, I agree each unit should have the basic allotment of ammo when they go into battle, but the infantry ammo system seems to work surprisingly well in games.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
One thing that can be fixed by the designer is wagon movement. I have given alot of thought to this and I'm leaning toward giving supply wagons the same movement as infantry (on roads, pikes and trails). What do you guys think?

Rich W.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i>
<br />I support the artillery supply wagons idea. Infantry supply wagons are certainly a limiting factor on infantry maneuver; I can't imagine artillery ammunition wagons moving faster than infantry wagons. I'm not sure where John Tiller got his figures for wagon movement, but wagons moving on a dirt road sure take a long time to come up. Expending ammo based on number of tubes rather than unit is a great idea. I have no problem with expanding the range at which artillery might be resupplied to, say, ten hexes from the wagon instead of five. Ideally, I agree each unit should have the basic allotment of ammo when they go into battle, but the infantry ammo system seems to work surprisingly well in games.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 2:56 pm
Posts: 112
Location: USA, New Jersey, Ocean County
I've never had an issue with wagon movement, so it is not on my list.

I can offer some statistics, which I think support slower movement.

While in theory wagons could move almost as fast as infantry -- wagons 2.5- mph and infantry 2.5+ mph, wagons were not able to travel much more then 8 hours a day -- so over the course of a day, they traveled less.

A Division marching by itself along a road as a practical matter would extend about 2.5 miles --- that's probably 2-3x what you might calculate. If they brought their baggage with them they would extend almost 4 miles. So having a "gap" between the troops and the supply wagons seems to make sense.

And besides this, if you are sitting on a hill and see the enemy wagons moving along a road, you can be pretty sure that's the end of the column[:)]

Lt Gen Bob Breen
Commanding XIX Corps, AoS
"Defenders of the Right"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
I'm glad there are people out there that know more about this stuff then I do. It's a good idea to bounce ideas here!

Any other thoughts?

Rich


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by bobbreen</i>
<br />I've never had an issue with wagon movement, so it is not on my list.

I can offer some statistics, which I think support slower movement.

While in theory wagons could move almost as fast as infantry -- wagons 2.5- mph and infantry 2.5+ mph, wagons were not able to travel much more then 8 hours a day -- so over the course of a day, they traveled less.

A Division marching by itself along a road as a practical matter would extend about 2.5 miles --- that's probably 2-3x what you might calculate. If they brought their baggage with them they would extend almost 4 miles. So having a "gap" between the troops and the supply wagons seems to make sense.

And besides this, if you are sitting on a hill and see the enemy wagons moving along a road, you can be pretty sure that's the end of the column[:)]

Lt Gen Bob Breen
Commanding XIX Corps, AoS
"Defenders of the Right"

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 5:51 pm
Posts: 771
Location: USA
<font color="beige">Rich,

It seems a lot of folks have a problem with HPS's "turn" play and prefer "phases". This is mostly because of Blitz attacks and the poor A.I. defense fire of "turn" play. Your last Shiloh patch has made the artillery defense fire more effective and I think it's a step in the right direction and could maybe go some more in that direction, like automatic defense fire when an enemy unit moves adjacent to a defending unit.

On the Blitz problem, is it within the capabilities of the engine to have variable movement for each unit each maneuver turn? The range could be from no movement to full movement based on modifiers of fatigue, morale and in a large percent, command, it could be done at the same time as routs and rallies are checked at the start of the turn.

Routed units would always have movement, but ordered and disrupted units could have none, half or full movement based on the above modifiers and a "die roll"calculation.

It could be done in such a way that fresh units in command would have 99.9% chance of full movement while a max fatigue, out of command unit might have a 20% chance of full movement, a 40% chance of half movement and a 40% chance of no movement.

I maybe way out in left field with this but it is a method that a miniatures rules set that I play uses to replicate the loss of command and control of troops as a battle progresses.</font id="beige">

<font color="blue"><b>Brig.Gen. R.A.Weir</b></font id="blue">
<font color="yellow">-- CALVERT LINE --</font id="yellow">
Image
<b>First--III--AoA CSA</b>


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:21 pm
Posts: 212
Location:
The Shiloh patch certainly helps defensive fire, but getting the artillery capture/recapture feature - especially the recapture ability - would have a significant impact on gameplay, since it would deter attackers from risking heavy losses to "take out" guns and clock up lots of victory points, because there's a good chance of the defender recapturing the guns in his own turn or before the attacker can recrew them and get them securely under his own control and out of danger of recapture.

So, I'd recommend using the existing "uncrewed" feature as part of this new gun capture/recrew feature. Once guns are successfully meleed, instead of just magically "disappearing" (as they currently do) they'd end up "uncrewed" with <i>either</i> side able to recrew them with an undisrupted unit that starts out in the same hex and hasn't moved yet. (Basically, the same as the current system for recrewing batteries) Of course this may mean that the guns remain uncrewed for some time while the two sides fight for control of the hex. They'd only count as points "lost" to the defender once the attacker had successfully recrewed them - and of course they could well change hands again later in the battle. This would be particularly useful for Shiloh, where most of the "Rebel" guns captured on day 2 had originally been Yankee guns on day 1.

I suspect this would be a fairly straightfoward engine change because the "uncrewed" status already exists. But perhaps the guns should belong to neither side while uncrewed, as after all they're just "guns" and don't have any uniforms or loyalties to either side!


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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 2:56 pm
Posts: 112
Location: USA, New Jersey, Ocean County
Always fun to talk about engine changes.

I think a gun capture/recapture function would be an interesting change, but the "variable movement" concept of Commander Weir's post is even more interesting to me since although it probably requries some major work, it has the potential to significantly change and (in IMHO ) improve the overall experience.

...and the way Commander Weir outlined it I think it the right thing to consider -- some "formula" that takes into account unit status, fatigue, qualtiy, command status, etc. and then apply some % to the normal movement.

I don't know if the concept of "the threat number" for a hex exists within the ACW engine as it does in the Nap engine, but if it does that could also be part of the above "formula".

I would also like to see some function that allows you to force march a unit some extra distance at a cost of fatigue -- even is this was limited to road movement.

Having some realistic variabilty in the movement of units would make play less chess like and also might get closer to the "real time expereince of what I think others call "I go, you go" play.

With regard to auto defensive fire. I believe that Tiller wants to keep the algorithm secret to prevent us from gaming it. However, I think it might be useful if someone could outline what parameters could be part of this algorithm and let us have a chance to make some suggestions as to how it might be improved. As things now stand since we don't know what kind of things can be realistically considered the only thing available is to complain about how bad it is.

However, without knowing what can be done, I will suggest a simple solution and that is to allow artillery to "fire twice as often" on every turn. What this does is make the forepower more in line with their points value. It should also mean that with the current auto defensive fire algorithm it gets two cracks at firing at each target. And while that might be pretty significant fire at a range of 1 hex, it would simulate firing "double canister" and it would also effectively mean enemy units are more likely to disrupt/rout when under artillery fire, which is also something more common in miniature games and also more realistic.

Lt Gen Bob Breen
Commanding XIX Corps, AoS
"Defenders of the Right"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:07 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>
<br />The Shiloh patch certainly helps defensive fire, but getting the artillery capture/recapture feature - especially the recapture ability - would have a significant impact on gameplay, since it would deter attackers from risking heavy losses to "take out" guns and clock up lots of victory points, because there's a good chance of the defender recapturing the guns in his own turn or before the attacker can recrew them and get them securely under his own control and out of danger of recapture.

So, I'd recommend using the existing "uncrewed" feature as part of this new gun capture/recrew feature. Once guns are successfully meleed, instead of just magically "disappearing" (as they currently do) they'd end up "uncrewed" with <i>either</i> side able to recrew them with an undisrupted unit that starts out in the same hex and hasn't moved yet. (Basically, the same as the current system for recrewing batteries) Of course this may mean that the guns remain uncrewed for some time while the two sides fight for control of the hex. They'd only count as points "lost" to the defender once the attacker had successfully recrewed them - and of course they could well change hands again later in the battle. This would be particularly useful for Shiloh, where most of the "Rebel" guns captured on day 2 had originally been Yankee guns on day 1.

I suspect this would be a fairly straightfoward engine change because the "uncrewed" status already exists. But perhaps the guns should belong to neither side while uncrewed, as after all they're just "guns" and don't have any uniforms or loyalties to either side!


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


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

Very good points and ideas, Col. White. If wagons can change hands, then so should guns, and the Victory Points for losses would also have to be something that can change depending on who is holding the guns at any given turn. So I could capture a battery and gain points, then see it recaptures and lose the same points if those guns are recaptured later. And a side should only get points for capturing guns AFTER they are recrewed by that side to make this work...

Regards,
Col. Alan Lynn
3rd Battery "Jacksonville Greys"
4th Div, II Corps, AoA
God bless <><
Signal Corps, Assistant Editor

"The only accurate news is well researched history."


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:15 am
Posts: 180
Location: Canada
Well, my suggestions are a lot simpler than everyone elses.

PLEASE have the defender fire at FULL value and the attacker at one half value IF HE MOVED! To me this would go a long way to correcting the a-historical results we are getting in single turn play.

The other suggestion would be to have the defender AI ALWAYS FIRE at ADJACENT attacking units. They don't always do this. I have seen attackers in Peninsula Campaign march right up to Confederate units and fire point blank in my face while my units just sit there and don't even fire back! What is going on? Please fix this first. Never mind all that "wagon" stuff and "recapture" options. It is far more important to have the basic HPS sytem working properly without adding bells and whistles. Lets ge the basic system perfect first so HPS can be the definitive simulation of Civil War Tactics. Presently if favours the offense which is completely the opposite of what it should be.

So my priorities are:

1.) Full defensive Fire for defender. 1/2 for attacker.

2.) Have AI always fire at adjacent attackers - no matter what

3.) Allow combining of sectional guns into batteries. They did fight as batteries not sections.


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 11:25 am
Posts: 777
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />One thing that can be fixed by the designer is wagon movement. I have given alot of thought to this and I'm leaning toward giving supply wagons the same movement as infantry (on roads, pikes and trails). What do you guys think?

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

Lt. Walker,

I think wagons should be given the same movement rates as artillery (rather than infantry). They are, after all, both examples of wheeled vehicles pulled by horses (or, as in our case out here in Missouri, mules!). Like guns, wagon movement through untracked woods should continue to be tediously slow.

For artillery ammo revamp, why not have a counter with each battery, like the ammo wagons have now, showing that battery's initial complement of ammo. This would represent the limbers for that battery, which travelled with the battery and were never very far away. Each time the battery (or section, or whatever) fires, subtract 1 from the counter for each gun in the battery (or section).

I would also like to see separate 'artillery ammo resupply' wagons.

Come to think of it, why not handle infantry ammo the same way? Instead of a percentage factor (I don't think it has ever happened to me yet, but I know it must be frustrating to bring out a fresh unit and have it run out of ammo the first time it fires), have a number associated with each regiment representing the amount of ammo they're carrying. I realize a turn represents 20 minutes and a single fire phase represents several volleys, so the amount of ammo a regiment could carry could be set low. Given that a disciplined soldier could load and fire 2-3 times a minute and optimally went into a battle carrying 40 rounds, a unit in a steady fire fight could reasonably be expected to use up its entire ammo supply in one or two turns. I would suggest the initial ammo factor for a regiment be set at no more than 6. I would also suggest the penalty for meleeing with low ammo (ammo factor < 2?) and no ammo be greatly increased. Otherwise, these games would rapidly deteriorate into bayonet charges of ammo-depleted units!

Given the very abundant ammo and the lack of any limit to marching of fresh units, is it any wonder the casualty rates in these games are so much higher than in the historical battles they simulate? There was a reason maneuver factored so heavily historically.

Finally (and I stay on topic at least as much as Shelby Foote did, and he was considered by many to be a fine writer [:D]!), the main reason I tend to melee artillery any time I can get close to it is the very high point value given to guns. When our historical counterparts took the field, was their primary goal really to take the enemy's guns? I know they were an important military target, but the loss of guns is the largest victory determination factor in just about every game I have played. I would like to see their relative value (in game points) decreased.


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory


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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
Guys,

The new CF and CS patch has implimented the number 1, 4, and 5 engine change requests.

The default night move FA is only 10 FA per unit per turn, but this can be increased to whatever number we want. I don't think ten will discourage night moves too much. Even if it adds 60-70 total through the night. But 200-300 might make a difference I think 25 per unit per turn would be better. But testing and feedback is needed.

Comments??

Rich



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />Here are the results for the ACW Engine Change Requests (I've given 3pts if placed in 1st place, 2pts for 2nd place, 1pt for 3rd place. Afterwards, in brackets, I've given the total votes ie. 1pt per vote whether put in 1st, 2nd or 3rd place)


Marching Fatigue 41 (17)

Art Capture/Recapture 38 (16)

Art Ammo pool/ supply wagons 20 (13)

Art Disruption 20 (9)

Bridge Repair 9 (6)
Campaign encryption 9 (3)
Improved (Art especially) Defensive fire 8 (4)
Cavalry Breakdown/recombine (as in Nappy) 6 (3)
Brigade combat effectiveness 6 (4)
Morale test for routing units causing disruption 5 (2)
Automatic/Increased probability disruption 5 (2)
Adapt inf formation change/op fire from single to multiphase 4 (2)
Engineering units 3 (2)
Weather/LOS limitation 3 (2)
Mtd Cavalry skirmisher ability 3 (2)
Movement ceases if entering hex that's been meleed 3 (1)
Option for no disruption/routing 3 (1)
Units outside brigade command just one hex movement 3 (1)
Action point system 3 (1)
Art with same gun type combined (not in sections) 3 (2)
Straggler recovery 2 (1)
Dynamic LOS 2 (2)
Melee Attackers only by regiments of same brigade 2 (1)
Art melee fix (limber & retreat) 2 (1)
Lower Art/Cav pt values 1
Less reliable command & control 1
No infantry column melees 1
New "bivouac" formation for faster fatigue recovery 1


It's perhaps rather surprising to find that some useful features already present in the Nappy engine - eg. engineers & weather - haven't received more votes.


Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1639
Location: USA
When will we see a patch to Campaign Gettysburg? It is the oldest of the new publishes and has one of the worse bugs in it (fails to carry forward losses from one scenario to the next).

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


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

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: