Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)
https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/

Melee "Phase"-Tiller Con
https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9014		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Gary McClellan [ Tue May 29, 2007 4:41 am ]
Post subject:  Melee "Phase"-Tiller Con
Gents,

In the discussions with John at Tiller-Con, an idea was floated that gained alot of support, and I thought I'd describe it here, and see what people think of it. It would truly be a game changing idea.

This would only apply to Games played in Turns, not phases.

It came out of the ACW group, but John himself is the one who brought it up for the Naps, so I think he'd be looking at crossing it between engines.

In short, it would be to have the computer resolve all melees at the end of the turn. There would be two ways to set this up (still in discussion between the two)
1) That as soon as you plan one melee, you can do NOTHING else for the rest of the turn, other than plan other melees.
2) That when you plan a melee, the computer stores that information, and then when you hit the advance phase, it resolves all of them.

If I had to guess, I'd say Method #2 was a bit more likely.

There were two complications that we discussed, so we already realize these things

1) Cav Melee continuation. John has already said that he'd have to include a way for the player to control cav in a continuing melee, or to charge through an intervening empty hex after the initial melee, so this wouldn't be a problem.

2) This might overpower skirmishers, by allowing Skirmishers to create an impenetrable screen that keeps attackers from getting to the main formation (especially if you are able to replenish them from turn to turn.


As you can imagine, the main purpose of this rule is to cut down on Panzer tactics, and it would certainly do that.

Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Bn
Allied Coalition C-in-C
Author:  Antony Barlow [ Tue May 29, 2007 5:23 am ]
Post subject: 
Method #2 sounds good to me so long as the cavalry continuation can be worked out somehow. The skirmisher issue though would undo any good such a change would bring by taking us back to the bad old days of Battleground, unless melee against skirmishers could be conducted at any time, and wasn't included in this hardcoded melee 'phase'. If that could all be sorted out then this sounds really promising and the embedded melee phase rule (for those of us who use it) would be a thing of the past. I'm really encouraged to hear that these issues are being addressed by Mr Tiller.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/Napoleonic/nap.htm"]Lieutenant Colonel Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/anglo_allied_army_stats/Anglo_Allied_Army_Cavalry_Corps.htm"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps[/url] ~
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/dragoons.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
Image</center>
Author:  Bill Peters [ Tue May 29, 2007 5:42 am ]
Post subject: 
One thing I would like to see changed is if you commit to a melee but a rule (no multiple infantry melees for instance) is turned OFF (meaning you really cant attack the hex) then the defender will NOT fire at you. Always bothers me that the defender gets in a free shot.

I am against this idea. Its similar to the Embedded Melee system and I dont think we need to change the melee procedure in this regard.

I DO think that the melee resolution should be different with there being a pre-melee morale test for the attacker after the defender has fired at him. If he fails it then it is disordered for the melee and the units coming up behind are disordered as well. They would then stop and just fire at the defender with no hope of taking the hex.

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, 5ème Division, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Image
Author:  Richard [ Tue May 29, 2007 10:59 am ]
Post subject: 
It's clear this potential feature could be usefully modified by allowing:

Cavalry melees and melees against skirmishers to be resolved normally (ie. as currently). Thus <b>only</b> infantry v formed infantry melees would be subject to this new rule.

..............................

Other issues that could be addressed at some point would include:

1./ Cavalry counter-charges (like in the old BG engine)

2./ Square forming as a defensive measure (ditto)

In multiphase mode, these could certainly be handled in the same way as in the BG engine. It's bizarre that this wasn't just carried over into the HPS engine. Replacing these features would be a real benefit for those players who prefer gaming in multiphase mode.

In single phase mode, cavalry counter-charges could be handled in advance (ie. the previous player turn) by highlighting the unit and selecting the target. Then if the target charges in the following turn, the pre-selected counter-charge would occur. Otherwise it wouldn't.

Square forming (in single phase mode) would be an automatic response to charging cavalry instead of defensive fire. Perhaps players would be able to chose - ie. in advance - whether to form square or just fire if enemy cavalry charge?
Author:  Al Amos [ Tue May 29, 2007 12:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
I like number 2.

As for cavalry charges, why let the players control anything after they yell, "CHARGE!"? Just have the cavalry take off and charge its fullest extent. Maybe set up that any follow up melee would only take place if it were in the cavalry's favor. If the melee would not be in the charging cavalry's favor then the charging cavalry would take a moral test. If it passes then the unit is 'UNDER CONTROL' and they do not go into the melee, IF the unit fails this morale test then the cavalry plunges into the melee. This would be a nice way to model UNCONTROLLED CAVALRY.

As for skirmishers, change the engine so unformed units in the open automatically retreats one hex whenever a formed unit attempts to enter the hex. The skirms take a shot at the formed unit attempting to enter thier hex, and then retreat. The formed unit enters the evacuated hex, and pays an additional 2 movement points for doing so. This should allow us to model how skirmishers can slow an advance, but not turn them back into the stonewall they used to be.

Colonel Al Amos
1erè Brigade Commandant
2ème Division de Dragons
Author:  Bill Peters [ Tue May 29, 2007 2:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />I like number 2.

As for cavalry charges, why let the players control anything after they yell, "CHARGE!"? Just have the cavalry take off and charge its fullest extent. Maybe set up that any follow up melee would only take place if it were in the cavalry's favor. If the melee would not be in the charging cavalry's favor then the charging cavalry would take a moral test. If it passes then the unit is 'UNDER CONTROL' and they do not go into the melee, IF the unit fails this morale test then the cavalry plunges into the melee. This would be a nice way to model UNCONTROLLED CAVALRY.

As for skirmishers, change the engine so unformed units in the open automatically retreats one hex whenever a formed unit attempts to enter the hex. The skirms take a shot at the formed unit attempting to enter thier hex, and then retreat. The formed unit enters the evacuated hex, and pays an additional 2 movement points for doing so. This should allow us to model how skirmishers can slow an advance, but not turn them back into the stonewall they used to be.

Colonel Al Amos
1erè Brigade Commandant
2ème Division de Dragons


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

Your skirmisher concept, Al, is good. We went over this with John and at that time he wouldnt go for it (this was way back during the Wagram development). However, oftentimes if someone sends him an email at the right moment, coffee is tasting good, bonus check just arrived in mail, etc. then he has turned around and added it into the engine.

Someone might try exploring this route with him again. For me if he went for it then some form of melee post phase would work for me.

You cav concept is something I have wanted from the git go. Remember those days of minis when you watched the British cav head off towards the boardedge? [:D]

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, 5ème Division, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Image
Author:  D.S. Walter [ Wed May 30, 2007 3:33 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 Gary McClellan</i>
As you can imagine, the main purpose of this rule is to cut down on Panzer tactics, and it would certainly do that.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What I believe I don't quite see is ... what would be the advantage over just going back to phases? - Phases with ADF, of course. I never could understand anyway why ADF is missing from the Nappy games (only), now that formation changes (and counter-charges) no longer take place in the Defensive Phase, which I believe was the sole reason for not having ADF in the BG Nappy games.

<center>
D.S. "Green Horse" Walter

[url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_walter/NWC/16thLD.htm"]Image[/url]

16th (Queen's) Light Dragoons
4th Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps</center>
Author:  Richard [ Wed May 30, 2007 4:03 am ]
Post subject: 
If Multiphase mode could include ADF and had the counter-charge and square-forming <b>restored</b> from the old BG engine, then this would be a great alternative way of playing the games. In fact, it might well become my <i>usual</i> way of playing the games and might be popular with other gamers too.

<b>I very much like Al's ideas for charging cavalry and skirmishers. These features would be really useful improvements.</b> Maybe some cavalry (esp. British) would be more likely to launch themselves into an uncontrolled charge than others.

Lt.Col. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
Author:  Michael Ellwood [ Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Hi Guys,

I think both Al's ideas are more in line with what will improve the battle flow by giving better and realistic options and action/reaction.

A problem with pre selecting counter charging cav and their tgt is the intervening ZOC of other en units in the vicinity. Could these be nullified for the charging cav if there was a clear (empty or skm elments only) path to the desired/selected tgt?

I agree with Bill's idea of attacker having to do a moral check after the defender's def fire and then if disordered not being allowed to melee (and stopping the 'rear' units melee in the same phase as well).

I like the idea of skm coys falling back but delaying the advancing units and also the AI cavalry continuation. I have no issue with the AI taking over the continuation as long as it is semi-logical as indicated. There is too much player controlled minutiae in regards to units 'in the thick of it' and I would like to see some AI control be in place for situations such as Cavalry charges and counter charges (we have it for artillery def fire now which I like). That is what happened so why not get it in!

In fact what about reducing the movement allowance of formed inf units (not skm or cav) within 2 hexes of other en inf units to simulate the difficulty in realaying orders and 'fog of battle' delays and confusion.

I would ideally like to see the cost of formation and direction changes (not general movement)be graduated in relation to unit quality! Have lower grade units take longer to change formation and facing than better quality units (experience and training) that would really make a realistic difference in blitzgrieg tactics!

Great to see the developers not sitting on their well earned luarels. Keep it up, we support and encourage (will comment freely and often [:D]) you all.

Lt Col Mike Ellwood
VII Saxon Corps, ADR
Author:  D.S. Walter [ Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:26 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 Mike Ellwood</i>
I would ideally like to see the cost of formation and direction changes (not general movement)be graduated in relation to unit quality! Have lower grade units take longer to change formation and facing than better quality units (experience and training) that would really make a realistic difference in blitzgrieg tactics!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

At least low quality units have a much better change to disrupt during formation changes. That's something.

<center>
[url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_walter/NWC/16thLD.htm"]Image[/url]
Brig. Gen. D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
~ 16th (The Queen's) Light Dragoons ~
4th Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps
----------
~ 3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards ~
[url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/"]Image[/url]
</center>
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/