American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Many players ignore FA. I'm quilty

Suppose the engine would not allow units with a FA of say 400 or 500 to move closer to an enemy (except for routed enemy units)? Much like a routed unit cannot move closer to an enemy.

Good, bad or ugly



Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

Hi, Rich,

Personally, I think the morale penalties for higher fatigue ought to be adequate to dissuade players from advancing 400-500 fatigue units. The problem with rules like this are unintended consequences, such as enemy units routing behind your lines preventing you from withdrawing the high fatigue unit from the front lines. Another trick would be running a sacrificial cavalry unit behind a line of fatigued units so they would have to stand and fight rather than withdraw. Also, 400-500 sounds like pretty low fatigue when the max is 900. It would make more sense to set a fatigue limit on initiating melee.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

How about something rather different, and giving units in that situation a high change of disrupting upon forward movement.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

I like Mike's idea of limiting them in melee but not advancing. In some scenarios they may be the only troops you've got to plug a gap or move to cover a flank.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nelmsm</i>
<br />I like Mike's idea of limiting them in melee but not advancing. In some scenarios they may be the only troops you've got to plug a gap or move to cover a flank.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

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

You see, that's kinda my point. We keep using these high FA units to plug holes and attack, or at the very least, exploit holes in enemy lines. If the computer were not so willing to allow tired units to be used like fresh units the loses would be more historical.

The simple fact is, we as armchair generals have no regard for the lives of our men in combat. That was not historically true. Had McClellan been a little more willing to use his men, Lee would likely have been defeated in 1862.

If high FA was not allowed to move forward, then the WHOLE line would have to act more conservatively. And remember, since both sides would be equally affected, that would cause both sides to be more conservative and reduce the staggering unhistorical loses we see in our games.

Anyway, this type of rule would likely be included in the optional category, so not defaulted.

Just a thought to help reduce game loses and force US armchair generals to be more conservative.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

BTW, Mike may not have seen my original comment clearly. I said <b><i>(except for routed enemy units)</i></b>

By that I mean enemy routed units would not prevent movement in any direction.

But Mike's second point about melee would be better then nothing.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

I don't think it would be a good idea to limit a medium or even high FA unit from advancing toward the enemy. I'm already frustrated enough when I can't move a routed unit back because there is an enemy unit it can't see behind it, even when that unit is on the other side of a river. If you wanted to introduce an optional rule that would prevent a D'd unit or a high FA unit from moving adjacent to an enemy unit that might be acceptable but preventing them from moving forward to fill a hole in the line or retreat because the enemy snuck a small cavalry unit behind them would make the game even more biased towards the attacker than it already is.

Union players who advance high FA units are asking for trouble as these units are more likely to rout and with the HPS engine that results in units that have routed units move past/through them getting D'd this is a sure way to stop an attack in it's tracks. There are times when you have to use high FA units when defending but it is not a good idea to do so when on the attack.

Personally this is a non issue with me as I have used house rules to do this sort of thing in the past. I'd rather see programming time used to address the problems with the artillery, especially the supply and gun kills now that something is being done about the crew kills. The ammo by tube is a step in the right direction but I still think artillery units need to have some type of inherent supply that would require them to be pulled out of the line rather than able to shoot continuously as long as that side has ammo.

Gen. Ken Miller
1/2/VI
AoS

<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nelmsm</i>
<br />I like Mike's idea of limiting them in melee but not advancing. In some scenarios they may be the only troops you've got to plug a gap or move to cover a flank.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

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

You see, that's kinda my point. We keep using these high FA units to plug holes and attack, or at the very least, exploit holes in enemy lines. If the computer were not so willing to allow tired units to be used like fresh units the loses would be more historical.

The simple fact is, we as armchair generals have no regard for the lives of our men in combat. That was not historically true. Had McClellan been a little more willing to use his men, Lee would likely have been defeated in 1862.

If high FA was not allowed to move forward, then the WHOLE line would have to act more conservatively. And remember, since both sides would be equally affected, that would cause both sides to be more conservative and reduce the staggering unhistorical loses we see in our games.

Anyway, this type of rule would likely be included in the optional category, so not defaulted.

Just a thought to help reduce game loses and force US armchair generals to be more conservative.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

But how do you define forward? What if I wanted to move these units up to back stop a line? Also, fatigued means that and not disrupted. I'd think the penalties would be more in line for disrupted units rather then highly fatigued. Which is more likely to hold, a 475 FA A quality unit or a D quality unit with 80 FA that is disrupted? I think by trying to say limiting forward movement you could open up a whole can of worms, at least if measured by fatigue levels.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

OK,

Thanks for the comments. You see, you guys are a real help. I now believe my idea was not so good.

Just a thought

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

Perhaps units with high fatigue - and also disrupted units - shouldn't be allowed to move adjacent to the enemy?

Wouldn't this help reduce unhistorical casualty levels and encourage players to rest troops and keep some fresh reserves to plug gaps?


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

<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 />Perhaps units with high fatigue - and also disrupted units - shouldn't be allowed to move adjacent to the enemy?

Wouldn't this help reduce unhistorical casualty levels and encourage players to rest troops and keep some fresh reserves to plug gaps?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi, General,

The problem I have with this one is those times when your line gets broken by a melee and adjacent units are disrupted by a rout. This means that the disrupted unit can't withdraw a hex, like in the days before weak ZOC. If we are trying to limit casualties, this situation would be counterproductive, like the old days of hard ZOC.

I wonder, does anyone who plays HPS still use hard ZOC? It wasn't an option in Talonsoft, I don't think.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<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 />OK,

Thanks for the comments. You see, you guys are a real help. I now believe my idea was not so good.

Just a thought<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi, Rich,

Thanks for soliciting our input. Nobody else in a position to influence the development of this game system bothers. I know I must come across as a royal PITA sometimes, but want you to know that I really appreciate the additional options you have brought to the game, and your accessibility to the common man.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Well you guys are why we make the games.

Thanks

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

You have to be careful when messing with Fatigue effects. The current system doesn't work because it tends to penalize the defender more than the attacker; therefore, rewarding an attacker who continues to push units into battle regardless of Fatigue level.

While limiting their ability to move closer to the enemy will help it is not the underlying problem. I think the problem results from how FA is gotten (lossing Melee's being the main source which tends to be the defender) and the fact that attackers disrupt and defenders route.

To follow the logic of this you have to consider two lines in contact of equal force. In the Civil War it was very difficult for an equal force to attack an equal defender that they didn't have a significant morale and leadership advantage over and win. The rule of thumb is you need 3:1 odds to break a line. In the HPS engine though the attacker will win. I have run this through a spreadsheet. The odds say the attacker will always win. The cause is the unequal affects of fire. The attacker moves adjacent and receives defensive fire which may cause some disrupts. When the attacker fires it is at half strength but every hit they get can cause a route which permanently takes a defender out of the line. Then the attacker has a choice of selectively meleeing where he has the best odds. He will usually choose the stacks that can get 3:1 odds. This results in all the defenders beign disrupted and subject to route checks. Since odds are they will lose the melee they also suffer the more severe FA penality. When the defender's turn comes he becomes the attacker but the odds have already shifted against him, he can no longer win the exchanges.

As I see the solution it, it requires more than a single twink. Not only restrictions on what a high FA unit can do but changes in how they accumulate FA. An attacker should pick up Fatigue at a higher rate than a defender. An attacker receiving fire should be subject to route which would discourage people from using those high FA units as line fillers. But I think having an attacking unit subject to route in addition to disruption would quickly stop the use of high FA units in offensives. People are using them because they can absorb some of the damage in attack since the defender doesn't know which ones they are. The AI for sure will waste fire on them.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)

Though I don't see this change as the untimate fix.....it would be better thn the present situation.....Hank

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding