I am against any engine that encourages units to move easily through woods. I think the Americans should have an advantage here, except for British Light infantry.
[url="http://royal42nd.homestead.com/index.html"]
[/url]
| Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC) https://www.wargame.ch/board/cc/ |
|
| Extended line thought https://www.wargame.ch/board/cc/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2513 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Gary McClellan [ Fri Aug 09, 2002 10:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Extended line thought |
Okay, I know extended line is pretty controversial, and I had another thought, or atleast something we could kick around. Especially with militia units in X, shouldn't they have a morale penalty on top of their ordinary morale? The thought being, that the "solidity" of being in a tight formation gives extra "comfort" to troops (especialy bad ones). So, maybe penalize militia, but not "light" troops, who are presumably better trained. Capt Gary McClellan 12th Virgina Light Dragoons CO Northern Department |
|
| Author: | 19 [ Fri Aug 09, 2002 11:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I thought the avalon hill game Monmouth handled this well. Regular British units were automatically disrupted when entering woods. Brtitish Light infantry regiments could break down into smaller units and enter woods hexes with no penalties. American militia could enter the woods with no penalties. I think the problem is at the other extreme, players send their line units into the woods with impunity. <img src="http://www.royal42nd.homestead.com/files/BBshield.gif" border=0> Mekko "High Head" Reed Creek Nation |
|
| Author: | Richard [ Fri Aug 09, 2002 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Unfortunately, as Gary points out, extended line is just too powerful a formation, especially since there are no stacking limitations. Realistically, how can the same number of men in extended line cram themselves into the same space as those in regular line? (Perhaps forming extended line should automatically halve the stacking maximum?) The only real disadvantage of the formation is in melee ... and just how frequently are bayonet-less militia likely to want to close with regulars? Personally, I prefer the detached skirmisher units of Eckmuhl<i></i>that are particularly vulnerable to cavalry, although perhaps these are inappropriate for 1776 /1812? Maybe the best "fix" to play balance the advantages that militia receive in extended line would be for there to be a very high probability of them routing if melee attacked? (Perhaps 65% for C class militia, 75% for D class & 85% for E class?) This should only apply to militia - whether rebel, Tory or Canadian - but not regular light infantry, who should retain their current probability of routing. Lt.Rich White 28th North Glos Rgt Right Wing British Army 1776 |
|
| Author: | David O Connor [ Fri Aug 09, 2002 2:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Interesting thought Gary and although the 'shoulder-to-shoulder' concept works with regulars (solidarity et al), in my mind it does not fit with the milita who seemed to be most comfortable fighting in extended/skirmish formation. (more?) Penalties for H-T-H perhaps or if fired on from the flanks/rear - but rememember, most milita units have fairly low morale/status to begin with! David CCC Rank = Major(bvt Gen) CinC Colonial/US Army |
|
| Author: | Gary McClellan [ Fri Aug 09, 2002 7:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
David, well, it would take a recoding, but one thing would be for militia to rout and run BEFORE melee... i.e. formed infantry declare melee on militia (in line, or X really) and before the enemy even closes, they have to pass a morale check, else they break and run... there is precedent historically.. the "Blandsburg Races" were a combination of that, and the Congreve Rockets. Capt Gary McClellan 12th Virgina Light Dragoons CO Northern Department Edited by - Gary McClellan on 08/10/2002 01:30:49 |
|
| Author: | D.S. Walter [ Fri Aug 09, 2002 9:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the solution is fairly easy. This game needs a density modifier for ranged fire, like there is in the squad battle games. If the effectiveness of fire is directly dependent on the density of the target, open order or extended line is simply represented by how many guys you put in a hex. If you stack to the limit, that's fine, you can pour a lot of lead at the enemy and can withstand melee better, but you also take more punishment. If you spread out, you get hit less often, but you also are more suspectible to melee. No need for an artificial seperate formation like extended line then. A lot more realistical, and shouldn't be too difficult to do. <font color=gold>Colonel D.S. Walter O.S.M. Commanding The King's Own (4th) Regiment of Foot Aide-de-camp, Royal North American Corps</font id=gold> |
|
| Author: | Richard [ Fri Aug 09, 2002 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Considering the notorious (in)accuracy of the smoothbore musket, the bigger the target the more likely someone would actually get hit! So perhaps scrap the X line formation and incorporate a density modifier? There is, however, a slight problem with Dierk's suggestion - how will light infantry still be able to move through woods, etc without getting disrupted? So I'd recommend keeping X line - retaining the melee disadvantage, but removing (or at least reducing) all benefits from the formation except relating to movement & disruption. This would preserve some of the advantages of light infantry over close order regulars, although units in X line should have lower stacking potential. Perhaps the movement allowance for light infantry should also be increased slightly? Lt.Rich White 28th North Glos Rgt Right Wing, British Army 1776 |
|
| Author: | D.S. Walter [ Fri Aug 09, 2002 11:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's easy. It would work like road movement in woods in the BG engine. The first company can move unobstructed (that's x-line). The second one (entering an already occupied hex) disrupts. <font color=gold>Colonel D.S. Walter O.S.M. Commanding The King's Own (4th) Regiment of Foot Aide-de-camp, Royal North American Corps</font id=gold> |
|
| Author: | Richard [ Sat Aug 10, 2002 1:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm not sure how that would retain the distinction between light infantry & regulars? I feel that the main characteristics of light infantry should be increased mobility and the ability to move through difficult terrain without being likely to get disrupted. Retaining a modified X formation for light infantry could reflect this distinction. Lt.Rich White 28th North Glos Rgt Right Wing, British Army 1776 |
|
| Author: | D.S. Walter [ Sat Aug 10, 2002 1:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
OK, why not? But it should carry no negative modifiers for ranged fire. <font color=gold>Colonel D.S. Walter O.S.M. Commanding The King's Own (4th) Regiment of Foot Aide-de-camp, Royal North American Corps</font id=gold> |
|
| Author: | Richard [ Sat Aug 10, 2002 4:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My (very draft) suggestion for light infantry deployed in X line would have the following charactistics: Movement 12 (regulars reduced to 10?), with very low % of disruption in difficult terrain. (eg. perhaps 1% or 2% for C grade troops in woods) Melee effectiveness - reduced (as current situation?), but perhaps with increased casualties inflicted on X formation troops attacked by (mounted) cavalry in the open. Fire combat - either treat exactly as if in ordinary line, or just -5% (at the most) when units in X line are shot at. A new fire density modifier should be far more important than X formation in determining losses. If used, the -5% factor should only apply when a single X unit occupies a hex. (With the current system, units in X line are far too immune from enemy fire - I've found this to be the case in every single battle I've played) Anyway, let's hear what other people think would work best and then maybe we can persuade HPS to include it in a patch. Lt.Rich White 28th North Glos Rgt Right Wing, British Army 1776 |
|
| Author: | D.S. Walter [ Sat Aug 10, 2002 5:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, I think the beauty of the density modifier would be that there is no need to interfer with the fire and melee rules. I see your point about movement in woods &c. though, but that would be the only thing that distinguishes lights from regulars and would simply represent their superior training. <font color=gold>Colonel D.S. Walter O.S.M. Commanding The King's Own (4th) Regiment of Foot Aide-de-camp, Royal North American Corps</font id=gold> |
|
| Author: | Al Amos [ Sat Aug 10, 2002 6:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Had to jump in before I'm gone. Re: Movement. The engine is designed for only 5 classes of troops: Inf line, Inf column, cav, art, & wagon. So requesting a patch for a certain type of Inf would require major work on the engine (IMO.) Re: British Historical movement. Howe had trained ALL the army to move in close, open and extended orders. The infantry was in 2 ranks at all times but the intervals were different ... 22" = close, 48" = open, 10' = extended. Easiest way to reflect this is to a) always play with line disruption on, b) modify the pdt file so the British percentage chance of disruption is 2%, c) Rate British Light Infantry as quality B. This will decrease the disruption for British infantry in line to almost nothing in the open, and reduce it greatly in woods. For British Light infantry the quality bonus will almost negate the woods disruption modifier so it will be as is they are moving in the open (for disruption purposes.) With the above the Brits will be able to move almost anywhere on the battlefield in LINE. Which will allow them to be able to fire or ADF nearly always. American units should not be given L or M type ratings enmasse. Only trained light units should have the L rating, to allow them to fight in "Indian style", i.e. skirmish as we think of it today. Militia units should be rated as Infantry to prevent them from operating in mass skirmish mode. (Militia units tried to fight as line troops, they just weren't very good at it. Washington continually tried to fight open, stand up battles with his army. Not real bright, but he did. Greene in the South resorted to more of hit and run, denying the Brits of the country and its supplies. He was more successful.) However, if Americans do have Militia rated as M, and they insist on fighting "Indian Style", then the British players should NOT be timid in launching, bayonet charges in line time and again. Americans rated as M type should be given K weapons, muskets without bayonets, for play balance. The above will, should, result in battles where American militia will deploy in X formation to shoot the Brits apart, only to be run over by a bayonet charge. Unless .... You're fighting me, and then you will see me trying Washington's approach to war, probably racking up a similar win/loss record as he did. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>. re: Recommended stacking limits. This needs to be a player self-discipline thing since a hex can hold, using closed intervals for files and ranks, 3,400 men (68 files wide by 50 ranks deep.) The following would be the max to stack to allow proper numbers to fire. (if you want to deploy a "closed column" then have the top company in line and the rest in column, and move the stack together. Although not strictly a proper column with successive companies in line, as they did, it works in the game engine well since it shows the limited firepower of an infantry column but the density for melee ... and yes to use this I would love a density modifier .... then we could show several types of battalion formations. For example in War of 1812 the top two companies could be in line to show a column of division.) 3-rank closed order = 144 men. Rounded to 150. French and some Prussian units. 2-rank closed order = 96 men. Rounded to 100. 2-rank open order = 48 men. Rounded to 50. 2-rank extended order = 24 men. Rounded to 25. The above three are LINE formations Brits would use all three, the Americans could use all three but usually only the closed & open versions. X-formation = 24 men, perhaps 48 if you allow that two skrimish lines are working in the same hex one behind the other and the second fires through/over the first (not terribly unrealistic.) Of course the basic units in the canned scenarios are too big for the above. I have made a Bunker Hill varient and a spin-off varient of Dierk's 'Long Way Home', available at Rich's SDC site, in which I have split each company into two platoons/sections. These basic units are small enough to use the above guidlines. The results usually work out to be ... closed order two or more companies per hex, open order one company, extended order(s) one platoon per hex. This gives one the option to spread a thin line to fire from and extert control over larger areas, but exposing one's troops to melees and potential command control loss. The other option is to stay concentrated but leaving vast amounts of open uncontrolled territory for your enemy to roam about in. Whew! after a week of packing and job hunting it was nice to lecture again. hehehe.... well that will have to hold you all for awhile. See you all, I hope, after the move. Al (self appointed tactician professor) Amos. Lt. Col. Al Amos 1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R |
|
| Author: | Rich Hamilton [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 3:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
bump |
|
| Author: | 19 [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 4:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am against any engine that encourages units to move easily through woods. I think the Americans should have an advantage here, except for British Light infantry. [url="http://royal42nd.homestead.com/index.html"] [/url]
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|