I find it annoying to be replied to in this fashion (since the days of usenet) but, I'll give it a go.
Christian Hecht wrote:
With the 1:1,66 in place and defender fire already more effective with the proper OR, there is no need for it unless the melee calculation is set down to a 1:1 modified by each sides formations, quality, etc.
A density multiplier has nothing to do with the base combat results. The density multiplier should affect both sides in a melee depending on their state of being overstacked.
Christian Hecht wrote:
There is somehow because fire value from shortened line is reduced compared to normal or extended line. For melee see above, and for artillery... why hampering grand batteries even more with the already too low fire values on distance?
Frontage density means firing into either a packed line of infantry in 3 ranks or a single line of skirmishers and that firepower being divided by the possible men struck. Melee and artillery would affect the entire target hex and not just the unit up front like musket fire (although some balls would beat around and behind the front unit).
Christian Hecht wrote:
There is, if you move stacks of any size along road for example, seems unnecessary in open terrain as even the 1800 stacking limit isn't enough to fill a 100x100 meter hex, and that 2 battalions trail behind or side by side doesn't seems to make it necessary. ALl I could think of is the CW or "Mixed Organization Penalty" as battalions from different brigades might run into each other.
One way I could correct my statement is to say terrain should have a density value and that would be the primary obstruction. Easier still is to just use the PzC road transport function which is what I really meant. You should be able to march 500 man sized units down a road no matter if they're in different units.
Christian Hecht wrote:
They do, either by disordering the attacker or by taking the highest hexside modifier if attack is conducted from multiple sides.
Ahh, I another thing I've forgotten. Thought I made an attack across a fort recently and the defenders didn't benefit.. maybe because he had just moved there.
Christian Hecht wrote:
What??? For melee disorder is automatic I think so it doesn't matter, and hex sides and hex terrain should definitely cause disorder.
Disorder should represent the unit being out of order not slowed by moving through woods or crossing a stream.
Christian Hecht wrote:
Charge multiplier doesn't work on obstructed terrain, that makes any charge by cav into such terrain futile.
Cavalry cannot turn while charging naturally the easiest means of having them cross streams during a charge would be to deny them the ability.
Christian Hecht wrote:
Well if this is not so what are ZOCs there for anymore? If the one who ZOC it is doesn't get a chance to react the whole point about ZOCs is gone. Unless we get somekind of auto reaction system into the game this can't be changed
ZOC should not halt the progress of the enemy immediately because he has marched too close. It should slow them before they enter the hex due to the care needed not being shot at or suddenly charged.
Christian Hecht wrote:
Would be nice but that is a simple conversion of the whole engine to an action point driven system. I doubt that this could even happen if WDS takes the series over.
That is the current format in Panzer Campaigns the father of this engine. Although, in PzC fire requires 1/3 movement and melee requires enough MPs to move into the hex.
Christian Hecht wrote:
Why should a battalion passing behind another battalion face in the same direction? And what about skirmishers, the joke about the is that these companies can be used for flank cover so can't face in the same direction.
Of course skirmishers shouldn't be used to 'protect flanks' from assault columns. Breaking troops and shiltroming columns is retarded and gamey. All hexes without actual flank protection should be vulnerable to flanking. Units should be spread out to disallow flanking not bottled up and turned thats the opposite of right.
Christian Hecht wrote:
Well stacks will face drawbacks like loosing road movement, and this 1 by 1 already happens with using the alt key and ordering movement.
Well stacks should face drawbacks than if they're moved in such a way. Group movement disallows defensive fire and is used to suddenly order several units to do something without automated response. It is a simple technique Kroger developed to allow per-move responses by the tactical AI.
Christian Hecht wrote:
Melee for example was always a test of will(or balls if you want to say it that way), so why not do a moral check before combat to actually see if hand to hand combat takes place at all, the outcome will then result either in a bloody(high casualty) melee or one side withdrawing respectively holding its attack what comes with much less if any casualties but high fatigue gain as they failed to show their will to fight(or their balls).
A unit under command should attempt melee. Units should follow all orders while in command I think. Disordering due to formation change while the enemy is closer is pretty silly. The threat level should be used to influence morale checks not movement orders.
This looks awful and I will never do it again.