| Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC) https://www.wargame.ch/board/cc/ |
|
| Line Disruption - Optional Rule https://www.wargame.ch/board/cc/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2667 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | PAW1776 [ Thu Oct 03, 2002 8:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Line Disruption - Optional Rule |
Hello All, This is a great optional rule, but I have one major problem. The default seems to be 10% in the .pdt file. Some of the SDC scenarios add ons like Bunker Hill have changed to 2% - 3% which is what seems to me right on the mark. Extended troops are immune, so all Light, Militia and Indians do not need to worry when extended and they have this option. But for Regular troops on both sides 10% default is overkill. Obviuosly A is very well trained, B are above average, C average, D below average, E poor, F very poor. A = -10% B = -5% C = 0 D = +10% E = +20% F = +30% So I would think that on average C troops maybe disrupt 2-3% or less on open ground. That way A and B troops really show there training by never disrupting on Open ground. But at 10% we are saying they are a bunch of stumble toes. Because this check I assume happens every hex moved. With a move factor of 12 troops in line can move 6 hexes, so 10% really is way to high. It is a great rule, but I think default implementation have ruined the great foresight in this rule. I think 5% would work if the defaults for troops was as such: A = <font color="red">-20%</font id="red"> B = <font color="red">-10%</font id="red"> C = 0 D = +10% E = +20% F = +30% What is your opinion? Cheers from Down Under! |
|
| Author: | D.S. Walter [ Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I tend to agree, but then I have played with the rule so often (actually, I never play without it if I can positively avoid it) that I have simply learned to adjust my expectations. For me, a regiment in line can move three squares, period (that's what it can do with disrupted units). In an emergency situation, when there is a need to rush somewhere, everybody goes as far as he can - but that means the line dissolves as units disrupt and can't follow and has to be readjusted by waiting for those units. This way, the game slows down very much which in my opinion makes it feel more realistic for the blackpowder era. In fact, I once got terribly surprised in a game where my opponent had inadvertently checked LMD off - those units in line moving 6 hexes in a turn looked like a bloody miracle to me, like someone had issued them bicycles. [:o] |
|
| Author: | ld5253 [ Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Keep in mind even "A" troops might have disrupted if they marched in battleline for 250 yards... 6 hexes. They normally advanced, stopped, fired some volleys, advanced, etc. Advancement under fire in battleline would have been done for short distances, much as Dierk moves his troops. Once troops fired, they had to be stopped to load. To move troops quickly over long distances, the line was usually kept in column for as long as possible. Then the front section would advance at the "half-step", while the following sections would run into place adjacent to the front section, then form their line. This can be done in seconds. Regimentation was important in the period to maintain control and to place a mass of fire into an opponent, but speed was also essential. Battle lines cannot be made to move fast and keep their order. |
|
| Author: | Mike Cox [ Fri Oct 04, 2002 9:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Damn! Where is Al when we need him?! If I remeber correctly, the 10% in the pdt is modified based on troop quality. But I could be wrong. The scenarios you refer to may well be Al's. He did a lot of experimentation and could give you some well researched facts. I do agree with Dierk, insist in it's inclusion (though it favors the better training of the British, offset by Militia running around in loose order), as it slows down the game, when people stop to dress your line. (Dressing the line is in fact rewarded in game play, in addition to being "historic".) Units blitzkrieging through the woods in line was a bit much for me. |
|
| Author: | 780 [ Fri Oct 04, 2002 12:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Morale = Training? This has been my bone of contention for some time. I had a friend of mine draft his own set of rules for miniatures. In them you had a Training grade and a Morale grade. Made sense too. Some historial examples: 1. Russians in 1812 - Training: Terrible Morale: Great in Russia Try and march them somewhere and they were nowhere near as good as the average European unit. 2. British Guards at Waterloo - Training? Sure. Morale? Not as good as some Guards in the Peninsula. 3. Average C Class US Infantry in WW2. Training: Adequate Morale: Good Rally: Great. Squad Leader by Avalon Hill had this right. Lower morale than the rest but rally was better than average. The morale of a unit is directly porpotionate to the Training in MOST cases but not all. For example: the Cossacks of the Steppes are VERY well trainined in horsemanship. Some say almost the best on a horse. But morale? Just fire a cannon in their direction and they run. Can they ride in formations? Yes. Will this mean that they will stand in formation while 12lb rounds land in their midst? No. I would prefer to see a straggler affect in the game. Less firepower and forget the 1/2 firepower aspect. That would make MUCH more sense. Have a Straggler rule for lower morale units. Then they can gain the strength back if they dont MOVE (but they can fire). The effect would be the same. 1/2 firepower is too stiff a penalty in these games. |
|
| Author: | Richard [ Fri Oct 04, 2002 1:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Perhaps units in extended line shouldn't be immune? Possibly light infantry and Indians might be, but militia? It might be better if militia <i>automatically</i> become disrupted if going into extended line - after all what exactly does "disruption" represent? I certainly don't envisage dispersed militia being particularly easy for their officers to keep under adequate control, so perhaps militia moving about in loose "formation" should also be liable to lose stragglers (who might turn up again later in the battle if they felt like it!) Lt.Rich White 28th North Glos Rgt Right Wing, British Army 1776 |
|
| Author: | D.S. Walter [ Fri Oct 04, 2002 8:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes! Yes! Let's continue the crusade against militia in x-line! [:p] Where is Al when you need him? [xx(] |
|
| Author: | Mike Cox [ Sat Oct 05, 2002 6:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i> <br />Perhaps units in extended line shouldn't be immune? Possibly light infantry and Indians might be, but militia? It might be better if militia <i>automatically</i> become disrupted if going into extended line - after all what exactly does "disruption" represent? I certainly don't envisage dispersed militia being particularly easy for their officers to keep under adequate control, so perhaps militia moving about in loose "formation" should also be liable to lose stragglers (who might turn up again later in the battle if they felt like it!) <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Remember that units must be in good order to charge their X order status. The officers must be in control in the first place. Beyond that they are moving without respect to dressed lines and proper cadence. (Now I don't see why the redcoats don't melee them. Those that don't rout are disordered and easy pickings for the next turn. You have ways to make us pay for the arrogance of leaving units in X order.) In 1776/1812 only routed units that fail another morale check lose stragglers. There is no mechanism for stragglers of any stripe to rejoin. The low quality of militia units provides ample opportunity for straggler losses. A routed unit is not necessarily running in abject terror. It is in a state of confusion and disorder, creating opportunity for the unsure to leave the field should things continue to go wrong. An F unit, out of command, fired on from the flank, will almost certainly lose stragglers. Of course, I realize I have been trolled. |
|
| Author: | Al Amos [ Sat Oct 05, 2002 6:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
"Damn! Where is Al when we need him?!" "Where is Al when you need him?" Hey you guys are quoting many of my former bosses [:)]! Paul... your suggestion would require an engine modification since the penalties/bonuses for quality troops are hard-coded. The base percentage chance is in the pdt file, can be changed and is set at 10% for each army in the canned games. In addition to the quality modifier, which is the first list you posted, the other modifer that effects line disruption is the terrain combat modifier (if I remember correctly [;)].) There is another line in the pdt file that CAN effect line disrutpion. It is near the bottom and consists of ten digits of 1 or 0. If a 1 is present then the terrain type will automatically disrupt troops in line, if the number is 0 then there is only a chance of it happening. I beleive John has it set that towns and marshes automatically disrupt. FYI, the ten digits represent in order: Blocked hexes, Clear, Water, Forest, Orchard, Marsh, Town, Field, Rough and Building. "The low quality of militia units provides ample opportunity for straggler losses. A routed unit is not necessarily running in abject terror. It is in a state of confusion and disorder," ... they may even be re-electing officers after *ahem* firing the current ones [;)]. Richard H. ... Very good idea to change the 1812 militia ratings. It will represent what the two armies were trying to at the time. I recommend some of the Canadian Fencibles, etc. to be rated L as they had the training for close and lose order fighting. Mike ... good reminder that militia must be in good order before going into x-line, and once disordered you're stuck from switching. I still think it is handed out too freely. Perhaps to all at Bunkerhill/Lexington and Concord, but after that maybe just having the 9th company, the light company, rated as M or L. The more I read it seems that the groups of 'marksmen', 'snipers', 'skirmishers' or 'piquets' refered to were either men drawn from the ranks in adhoc groups or a single company from the battalion designated to skirmish, even the combined light battalion in skirmish order. These were the troops assigned (in a few battle descriptions) to go forward and harass the enemy's approach, especially aiming at officers. So it seems to me that the Americans were throwing out a skirmish line, ala French Napoleonic style, in front of thier first main line instead of placing thier entire first line in skirmish order, which is the direction the original game design seems to point to. If this view is closer to the mark, then having battalions organized with one group of Rifled (No Bayonets) armed Light or Militia unit might be the way to go for 1776. If the designer is representing the light company then I would recommend it to be spit in half and have two counters for it with the company strength split evenly. If the designer is wishing to reflect the practice of drawing 'sharpshooters' from the ranks (since the light company has been detached) then only one counter should be used, and its strength should be only about half of the weakest company in the battalion. This latter practice, that of culling troops from the ranks forming them into adhoc PICQUETS, was very common. The French used it a great deal from before the Seven Years War to beyond the Napoleonic Wars. Of course I'll have some what-if scenarios coming out to see how it works [;)]. |
|
| Author: | D.S. Walter [ Sat Oct 05, 2002 10:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
<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> Remember that units must be in good order to charge their X order status. The officers must be in control in the first place. Beyond that they are moving without respect to dressed lines and proper cadence. (Now I don't see why the redcoats don't melee them. Those that don't rout are disordered and easy pickings for the next turn. You have ways to make us pay for the arrogance of leaving units in X order.) <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I said that already in the militia thread, but the short version is: it needs the cooperation of the Colonial player. If he chooses to present no target that's worth meleeing - i.e. sends his guys swarming all over the place without any semblence of order - , he can snipe at us all day without running any risk of being meleed. |
|
| Author: | PAW1776 [ Sat Oct 05, 2002 11:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks all for the input. I am convinced it needs to be on in my games even with the quirks. Cheers, |
|
| Author: | Regular Rich Link [ Tue Oct 15, 2002 3:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I`d like to add my 2 pence, as well as bringing this topic back to the top because I think it`s important. While I would agree it`s a good rule, as it now stands it`s virtually impossible to move C and even higher rated troops over 3 hexs without disordering them. In fact in a recent Saratoga with Al Amos I usually had 2-3 Fresh Companies out of 8 disorder in 2 hexs over level open ground....this is not a good thing. It not only makes the Finest Infantry in Europe look like a bunch of stumble bums, but makes it very difficult to maneuver formed units on the field in an historic manner, since as the Games progress they take increasing long to re-order...it certainly seems that the canned scenarios need ajustment in an offical update. While I don`t believe "polls" and "petitons" to HPS are useful, and may even be counterproductive, it would IMHO be a good thing if serious players made their positions on these, and other issues known on the Forum. Regular Rich Link HM 27th. Rgt. of Foot British Army |
|
| Author: | D.S. Walter [ Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I disagree ... see my post at the bottom. [8D] |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|