Just got Antietam a couple days ago. I can't wait to try the Optional Melee Resolution and Artillery Ammo by Gun. I think those will go a long way to helping the games play better.
Lt. General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC
| American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC) http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/ |
|
| Optional Rules and Phase vs Turn Play http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12092 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Opdyckes Tiger [ Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Optional Rules and Phase vs Turn Play |
Okay pards, I'm looking for the opions on ALL Optional Rules from a UNION perspective AND advice on Phase vs Turn. I used to play phases, got lazy, went to Turn based, and see to get overwhelmed every time I turn around. I'm contemplating going back to Phasing as my only acceptable option. Please be detailed on your advice. Lt Col John Lutes 2/2/XIV |
|
| Author: | Rich Walker [ Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Have you tried Antietam? The new melee rule should help with your problem. The other games will get patches, but not sure when. Lt. Col. Richard Walker I Corps Army of the Mississippi 2nd Brigade, 3rd Division "Defenders of Tennessee" |
|
| Author: | Dirk Gross [ Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just got Antietam a couple days ago. I can't wait to try the Optional Melee Resolution and Artillery Ammo by Gun. I think those will go a long way to helping the games play better. Lt. General Dirk Gross XIV Corps/AoC
|
|
| Author: | Rich Hamilton [ Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I won't play a game in phases...allow troops to march in front of your positions and not take any fire? I think not... LGen. Hamilton II Corps ANV, CSA |
|
| Author: | ALynn [ Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Hamilton</i> <br />I won't play a game in phases...allow troops to march in front of your positions and not take any fire? I think not... LGen. Hamilton II Corps ANV, CSA <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Allow players to use WWII tank tactics in the Civil War? I think not... [:D] I am so far liking the changes in Antietam, however - segregating the melee phase from the movement and fire seems to be a good compromise. Of course, that is based on less than ten turns of Cedar Mountain, but so far so good. Regards, Lt. Gen. Alan Lynn Interim CSA CoA CSA Chief of Staff 3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA God Bless <>< |
|
| Author: | Rich Hamilton [ Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ALynn</i> <br /> Allow players to use WWII tank tactics in the Civil War? I think not... [:D] <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> With a little self-control on players part, this isn't really an issue. Just because the engine will allow you to do something, doesn't mean it should be done. And there are penalties for over extending your forces that a properly handled defense will impose. [8D] LGen. Hamilton II Corps ANV, CSA |
|
| Author: | Rich Walker [ Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Though not a perfect cure, the new enhancement will (IMHO) reduce the "Blitz" tactics. Also, it will reduce the high loses suffered as a result of the blitz tactics. A win win! Enjoy! More coming! Lt. Col. Richard Walker I Corps Army of the Mississippi 2nd Brigade, 3rd Division "Defenders of Tennessee" |
|
| Author: | Dwight McBride [ Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can avoid playing those with blitz tactics simply by never playing a second match after seeing their tactics in a first battle. If it's a campaign, I will abort after the first scenario when faced with panzerining. This also applies to other overly non-historical practices. We can avoid the advantageous melee practices by using the new optional rule, just as we avoided it with an "embedded melee" house rule previously. BUT, what can't be avoided in single-turn play is the insane, illogical defensive fire. I know it's controlled by the AI, but does the AI have to be quite so 'dumbed up' in doing it? It's not so incredibly left-field when playing phases, which is why I still play phases except for cases where it's unavoidable, such as multi-player. Sorry. Until the single-turn defensive fire is better, I'll continue with phases. Sincerely, Brig Gen Dwight McBride V Corps/AOP/USA |
|
| Author: | Dirk Gross [ Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Poor AI shots or not, I can't see how a single shot in the defensive fire phase is better than opportunity fire as Rich said. Plus, I don't want to give up changing formation during my move. Lt. General Dirk Gross XIV Corps/AoC
|
|
| Author: | Rich Walker [ Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
One thing about poor defensive fire, it works both ways, so it should balance out. Plus, it generates the FOW aspect of battle. Not every unit should be expected to fire 100% at 100%FP. That's not very historical either. So taken as a whole, now with the melee fix. You have the option of Playing with imperfect defensive fire, or allowing units to dance out in front of the enemy and never being shot at. Which is the lesser of two evils??? Lt. Col. Richard Walker I Corps Army of the Mississippi 2nd Brigade, 3rd Division "Defenders of Tennessee" |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|