You haven't heard from me, at least in this forum. However, I was recently heartened to hear that the CCC had a set of "optional" (nee "house rules"). My Bad for not checking these out when I first joined back up a few years ago. However, after now checking them and being told that there is a rule...a good house rule...for
NOT meleeing while in COLUMN FORMATION...I was confused
to not see that rule listed. Unless of course I carelessly read the rules. BTW, the links seem to be broken for the image examples that go with the rules.
I was also astonished also, on the assumption that there was a rule for not meleeing in column, that it has been stated by some that it was a
50-50 popular split of agreement to such a rule. While not wanting to start a "magilla" over this I am prompted to say a couple of things that might sound provocative and evoke discussion, such usually being a good thing.
About me, please note that after playing in the HPS clubs for 10 plus years...EXCEPT the CCC...I have broken service having returned only recently in 2009 and haven't been terribly active upon my return. Now that the WWII HPS clubs have become defunct, I have turned my attention once again to the CCC.
So my first comment about Meleeing (charging in column) is that John Tiller et.al. meaning Rich H. and Rich W. stated in the ACW forum that the COLUMN formation in the old Talonsoft games and the newer HPS games was strictly a ROAD MOVEMENT function and not intended to be a combat formation/tactic i.e. charging in formation EXCEPT in the Napoleonic arenas. In the Nap battles it WAS a highly used tactic and the formations of course were huge. In the CCC, F&IW, 1776, and 1812 as well as the ACW, the scale is Regimental with a half dozen companies and the tactic of Melee in Column is rare..meaning you will not find many examples of it in the history of those arenas without searching rather scrupulously, and then you may find that "it may have happened" somewhere, sometime i.e. not at all common. It was further maintained that why there had to be a "house rule" concocted was because it was not possible because of some complication of the game engine and code, to differentiate between the INTENTION of it being a road movement
formation only and the perversion...or convenient use...of it to CHARGE HOME.
Aside from it not being a common by any means tactic in these (non Nappy) HPS games, I maintain that it is consequently an inappropriate tactic. Think about what a column formation is in regimental scale...how many columns wide would it actually be in particular when charging a unit or units in LINE formation. In the play of it in our games, it is devastating while in reality it would be a relatively "small" hole in the front...being blown through and continuing on as in a cavalry charge shocking perhaps but not doing much damage except to either side "of the hole.".
Well I go on too much...it seems to me that if the designer has stated that its use is an unavoidable (a "loophole"...my word not his) but none-the-less for lack of a better word, it ought to be given more credence than "50-50" and should be respected with an actual entry in the listed "House Rules."
All this said, there is one noted exception when all have agreed in the past for Melee in Column and that is:
To avoid a "Horatio-at-the-Game" defense tactic. Meaning: When the MAP presents a situation or circumstance when a road is a "causeway" and passes over a BRIDGE while the road is flanked on both sides with SWAMP or any other impassible or disrupting terrain where one MUST ATTACK IN COLUMN because one can't cross bridge except in column and thus can't mount an attack over the bridge in LINE or with terrain disrupted units to either side...hence the Horatio-at-the-bridge result.
While my intent was to stimulate an awareness and/or discussion of the column and melee issue, it seems fitting since the premise is "optional/house rules" to bring up a couple of others...admittedly at least "touched" upon in the current "house rules" which are listed.
One is the issue of using a LONE wagon, intentionally or unintentionally, placed atop a high hill anywhere in a LOS of the enemy OR a LONE leader in such situation. Whether done purposely or by happen stance (by routing) such units irrationally cause the AUTOMATIC defensive fire mechanism to draw enemy artillery fire at them wasting, usually, precious artillery ammunition. The regular, purposeful use of the tactic should, it seem be avoided...and if purposeful...just plain gamey.
Likewise
and akin to the stated house rule of not conducting "long range scouting" sometimes extremely circuitously, to capture a wagon or raid to pick off a unit in the far rear or flank or occupy a victory hex - it is not appropriate for A
LONE LEADER to range out beyond its side's obviously "front lines" to open a LOS to possible enemy formations
UNLESS he is also accompanied by a combat unit...mounted infantry or cavalry. Perhaps in a WWII game using some speedy jeep to do so including the tactic of recon by fire is appropriate, but not by a LONE General Grant, or Lee or Arnold unaccompanied with their nose stuck out way beyond the front line. A troop, meaning more than one cavalry unit might well go into harms way in a form of scouting but not a lone leader or cavalry unit. Not only would they not be so bold but if "on high" LONE leaders also draw auto artillery defensive fire wasting the other side's ammo an much more often than not...to no avail...a LONE leader is almost impervious to artillery fire.
One last thing about melee in column. I had an epiphany thinking that maybe the War of 1812 might be an exception to the tactic...it being a war contemporaneous to a degree with the Napoleonic period, but then by chance I found the following paragraph on an 1812 website about formations and tactics of the period:
http://www.warof1812.ca/northpoint.htmMovement on the battlefield consisted of most regiments or companies moving in column and then forming into line once they had position on the field. Once in the firing line, most units remained stationary in their two-rank formation. In terms of light troops, as stated earlier, American militia forces had at North Point utilized riflemen for their skirmishing need and could deploy line troops, if necessary. The British infantry regiments at North Point were mostly made-up of light troops. This was the case of the 1st British (Light) Brigade consisting of light companies from various regiments to include the 85th Light Infantry. This type of formation was effective in the terrain of North America and could be deployed to fight in line or in the traditional light formation that was to move in pairs, using an extended-order formation.Notable is the fact as it talks nowhere about "charging" or meleeing in column formation. The reference to "Lights" fighting in pairs doesn't mean a column of pairs, but that broken down for "extended" action...skirmishing...was done in pairs...like in the modern "buddy system" so to speak.
Well you get my drift whether you agree or not. I would add that I was encouraged that pointing out such things, as well as the issue of the HPS list of "optional rules" (at some point in the future), are healthy topics for the forum...we all learn from them and especially if they prompt a little discussion and research into their historical origins. Everyone usually has some experience or sensible opinion or historical knowledge to share. I would also add that a poor agreement to the "set" of optional rules in a single game or a tournament can mean an devastatingly unfair playing field for one side or the other. But that is a discussion for another time.
Thanks for you for your kind and patient attention. Once again, my intent is for the good of the club, not to idly waste anyone's time with controversy for controversy's sake.