Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

"pretty much universal" Mike. [:)]

But we disagree a lot less than you think. I have no problem at all either dispatching or receiving detached regiments sent out for special tasks. If I send one out of command control then obviously I'm willing to take a chance on their mission failing or their falling apart. I do not abide at all in the "all companies shoulder to shoulder at all times" theory either. It's just too darned impractical, if not impossible. Again I go back to taking the games at face value here.

What my concern was consists of sending like 1-5 man units or routed units which run the wrong way off to threaten far away objectives etc., so we're in agreement there. It's bad enough that these wayward deserters can scope out behind your lines, and is my only serious complaint of the EAW system. But I also think that one or two units in good order wandering off to distant map edges is a little goofy too, but I try to prepare for it anyway if possible, so your thoughts on picquets are well taken.

Your example of sending a formation of rangers or light rifles through woods to take an enemy formation or position by surprise is 110% sensible and fair, and I have no problem with coordinated cavalry "raids" either. That's just plain old good maneuvering. Sorry if I was unclear on that. I'm really a lot more forgiving of what my opponent does than I am for myself. [8)]

Phil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Who the hell managed to trigger a heated house rule debate in the very club that, according to universal opinion, doesn't have need of this?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That would be Mr. Bill Peters......he got us again! [:p][;)][:D]

Heated?? No one even made fun of Phil's wig or the d----d dog![:p]

Nor the d----d dog wig....for a bloody change. It's quite a jolly difficult balancing act I say!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Phil Natta</i>
<br />Nor the d----d dog wig....for a bloody change. It's quite a jolly difficult balancing act I say!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I always knew that Bart loved you - or at least your wig. Down Bart! Baaaad dog!

Col Cox
CiC Americain

I think we can safely say that there are SOME universal "HOUSE" rules, throughout the games.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
No column melees (still debatable. )
No blocking LOS, ZOCs, or entry hexes with leaders and supplies.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And I would add, no using supply wagons as cannon fodder.

2 maybe 3 sort of standards or GOUND RULES vs a SET of House Rules.

Bill can certainly get conversations going.[:D]

No debate from me. Its obvious that its not universally accepted that we play the game as is. Take it as you want. Use the rules or dont use them.

Its too bad that we dont take the same tack that the ACWGC did on this post and also on the post that Tony Best put up on BGG on that board.

If you dont like the topic just dont respond to it to save us all debate. If you want to know more on the topic post a question.

But dont say that we all are not interested in house rules. That indicates some form of mind control here. I beg to differ but this is no longer 1984. Its 2003 and obviously we all have our own opinions on how the battles were fought. Thus I will leave off on this discussion hoping that Dierk and Phil will note how the ACW club operates - they dont push a 'universal' theory of operations.

You're getting a bit too defensive about this Bill. No one is pushing anything at all. Heck most times I'm not even the one that chooses the scenario or optional rules, let alone any ad hoc house rules in my games. And I'm even flexible enough to offer the option of column melee or not to my opponents. I stated my views as others have and that's all there is to it. Of course everyone has a right to make their own choices, what was said that makes you think otherwise? If the words "pretty much universal" are what's bugging you, <u><b>all</b></u> I originally meant was that the few infinitely simple house rules that I usually adhere to seem to be commonly used as the norm in this club, most guys use the same ones or very slight variations....with or without my "permission". So there is no secret dark conspiracy theory to control minds, or rules, or opinions or anything else. I wish you had stayed with the conversation and not gotten a beetle in your breeches because you generally have a lot of good things to add to <u>discussions</u> like this. Have a nice hot cup of tea old boy, you already payed taxes on it. [:p]

Phil

Yes, Phil. I hope you are done now. Or is another sermon forthcoming?

Nope, I'm done....sheesh.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Phil Natta</i>
<br />You're getting a bit too defensive about this Bill. No one is pushing anything at all. Heck most times I'm not even the one that chooses the scenario or optional rules, let alone any ad hoc house rules in my games. And I'm even flexible enough to offer the option of column melee or not to my opponents. I stated my views as others have and that's all there is to it. Of course everyone has a right to make their own choices, what was said that makes you think otherwise? If the words "pretty much universal" are what's bugging you, <u><b>all</b></u> I originally meant was that the few infinitely simple house rules that I usually adhere to seem to be commonly used as the norm in this club, most guys use the same ones or very slight variations....with or without my "permission". So there is no secret dark conspiracy theory to control minds, or rules, or opinions or anything else. I wish you had stayed with the conversation and not gotten a beetle in your breeches because you generally have a lot of good things to add to <u>discussions</u> like this. Have a nice hot cup of tea old boy, you already payed taxes on it. [:p]

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

Concur.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mike Cox</i>
I disagree wholeheartedly with the column melee item (discussed ad nauseum in older threads).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

See my separate thread, Mike. [:)]

I think when too many house rules stick into the game, then everything becomes predictable. I never like to play a game and think "I saw that one coming...And that one too. Yeah I saw all of that coming." I want my advesary to do something that'll drop my jaw and make me go "Aww...crap" because that struggle that follows a move like that is what really makes the ARW series.

On the other hand, if this kind of optional ruling is something that really gets your command juices going, then I really do honestly hope that you find a clique willing to play with these rules.

However, I do think you should lay off Natty Phil a bit. I'm sure he means well.

mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control mind control [:o)]

We need a snorkel smiley for wading thorugh bs.