Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

"1) Give a +2 morale modifier for units facing an embankment hexside with a down-elevation step (i.e., units manning a defensive position)."

"2) Disallow negative morale modifiers from enfilade fire passing over such a hexside except when coming from a higher elevation level."

Rich used the 'embankment' hexside for natural cliffs as well as fortification hexsides in his maps, in other cases he used the embankment hexside without giving elevation to the 'defender's hex'. So the second request either would effect areas not intended, or would not take effect at all without some maps being touched up.

I recommend asking John to add his 'golden morale' feature from his Napoleonic engine to the EAW engine.

As for enfilade fire effects, that was the nature of the beast. Vauban spent his whole life trying to overcome it, and he still found ways to bring enfilade fire onto defenders. Again, a simpler solution would be petition Rich to bump up the combat terrain modifier for embankment terrain.

The need to assist the defender is there, but I think the requests won't fly. Asking John to add a feature in his other game, is an easy task for him to do, and therefore more likely to be added. It is not a perfect solution, but for those who play in the spirit of the scenairo it would help.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />"1) Give a +2 morale modifier for units facing an embankment hexside with a down-elevation step (i.e., units manning a defensive position)."

"2) Disallow negative morale modifiers from enfilade fire passing over such a hexside except when coming from a higher elevation level."

Rich used the 'embankment' hexside for natural cliffs as well as fortification hexsides in his maps, in other cases he used the embankment hexside without giving elevation to the 'defender's hex'. So the second request either would effect areas not intended, or would not take effect at all without some maps being touched up.

I recommend asking John to add his 'golden morale' feature from his Napoleonic engine to the EAW engine.

As for enfilade fire effects, that was the nature of the beast. Vauban spent his whole life trying to overcome it, and he still found ways to bring enfilade fire onto defenders. Again, a simpler solution would be petition Rich to bump up the combat terrain modifier for embankment terrain.

The need to assist the defender is there, but I think the requests won't fly. Asking John to add a feature in his other game, is an easy task for him to do, and therefore more likely to be added. It is not a perfect solution, but for those who play in the spirit of the scenairo it would help.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

1. Yes, sometimes a fort does not meet the requirements for the suggested rule while sometimes other terrain does. Still, most forts do. In any case, as I argued in the other thread (don't intend to repeat all my arguments), being on the higher side of a wall or embankment <u>would</u> boost my morale to no end, so I'd say it simply makes sense.

2. Again, as discussed in the other thread, the problem with enfilade fire is the bastions many of these small forts have. You can't leave them undefended, but manning them <u>always</u> means exposing the defenders to enfiled fire. Yet, as Gary has pointed out, there is no sense in assuming that you could put down enfilade fire on defenders while firing uphill--you wouldn't even see them. And in any case the moral effect would be nil.

3. The introduction of "golden morale" would give a morale boost to the defenders, regardless of whether they actually man fortifications or not. They would keep that bonus even when making a sortie and standing in the open like everyone else. Makes no sense to me.

So, while the suggested solution is certainly not perfect, for me it comes closest to fixing the problem while making inherently sense.

Now, my question to you, Al, is--what is your reason for lobbying <u>against</u> a petition? Even if you don't agree with the solution proposed, can't you just let it alone and let us try? What is your interest in trying to kill it?

Alot of the problem is that forts, especially small ones, push the game engine a bit further than it should go. The fort at Louisbourg works tolerably well, but it is not a "small" fort.

Back to the enfilade effects, yes there were ways to create enfilade effects, generally using either parallels and the like, or by taking a commanding piece of land. No doubt. However, in this game, there is never a "true" siege, such as Liege in the War of the Spanish Succession, or Prague in the 7 Years War, or Badajoz in the Napoleonic Wars. Thus, the "parallel" example can be set aside for the moment.

The "dominating terrain" effect on the other hand is very much pertinant to this game (just ask George Washington on the importance of fort siting). Thus, the idea of disallowing enfilade fire unless it is coming from a great height. Otherwise, you end up with nightmares like Fort Stanwix in 1776, where it is literally impossible not to have every single troop on the front line exposed to flank fire, unless you deploy outside the fort.

Dierk,

It is nothing personal.

I think I have come to know a bit about John over these few years, and I think that the simpler the required fix the more possible the request will be honored. No slam against John, he's human and his time is limited. In my opinion aksing him to insert an existing feature would be easier and more likely to be done than asking him to make changes that could have other 'unforseen' side effects.

Gary,

Perhaps getting the forts on the maps to be 'rebuilt' would solve this problem then. Although somewhat labor intensive for Rich, it could be a more viable alternative to having an engine change done.

As in miniature gaming, where the physical fort miniature is a lot bigger than the ground scale would permit, perhaps in our maps the forts should be enlarged for 'play feel, and balance' sacrificing exactness of size and scale.

(BTW, althought Rich made the maps, I take full blame for the existing forts to not be 'workable' in the engine.)

Al,
No reason whatsoever to talk about "blame". That's not an issue in the least.

Gary,

I wanted to be clear that I wasn't pointing fingers.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />Gary,

Perhaps getting the forts on the maps to be 'rebuilt' would solve this problem then. Although somewhat labor intensive for Rich, it could be a more viable alternative to having an engine change done.

As in miniature gaming, where the physical fort miniature is a lot bigger than the ground scale would permit, perhaps in our maps the forts should be enlarged for 'play feel, and balance' sacrificing exactness of size and scale.

(BTW, althought Rich made the maps, I take full blame for the existing forts to not be 'workable' in the engine.)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I for one like the tiny forts and I'd favour the engine change over having artificially "oversized" forts.

I think I'd rather ask for a sensible change, even if the chances of getting a "simpler"--but at the same time less convincing--solution are better.

Is there some way of altering the pdt file to get the desired effect? Increasing the fire and melee penalty for 'embankment' hexsides and, if necessary, increasing the troop quality of the defenders might be enough.

If this won't work, another possibility might be to convert these little fort scenarios over to the Eckmuhl engine and then make the fort hexes "chateaux" and the defenders fanatical skirmishers - that way the attackers will never get in, unless they have at least 10 to 1 odds and are prepared to take heavy losses.

Major Rich White
28th North Glos Rgt
Right Wing
British Army 1776

Gary - well I will point the finger! Al - it was ALL your fault!!! [:D]

(please read this as my best attempt at Ernie Sands' type humor!)

Frankly, the need for a general order was debated some time ago but we wont see it happen. For instance when a unit enters a town and occupies the buildings it would go into General Order. On the other hand I have read of Lines forming up inside of towns. Its a hard decision to make.

Al is right in many cases here. I just wrote to John and he is really tied up with a contract he has. He cant give us much in the way of mods for some time I think. At least nothing in the way of mass engine changes. For instance I wont put out a new patch for Wagram as I know he doesnt have the time at this point.

Toning down the flank fire mod is not the answer (and noone suggested it - just thinking out loud). Upping the mod for the fort doesnt always work either.

Flanking fire on a fort perhaps should only be allowed by ARTILLERY? Comments on that? If only Artillery could get a Flank Bonus that would go along way to stopping some of the shots that we are getting. After all Gary the elevation issue wouldnt apply to artillery which fires OVER obstacles anyway.

How about asking for a SIMPLE mod to get the Flank Fire bonus to apply only for Artillery that fires on a fort flank hexside? Sort of like skirmishers in the Nap series. They dont get the flank bonus if I remember correctly.

Al? sound good? Easy for John to do as it has been done before?

But dont expect it to happen by Christmas is my bet.