<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by LG. Kennon Whitehead</i>
The formula method is better than the Table fire results but does have a problem on the low end. A hundred 10 man groups will not do as well as 1000 men firing together.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Sure (yes). just as "eight" 2-gun sections and "eight" 1-gun pieces will not do as well as "four" 6-gun batteries. Odds favor the battery to score gun "eliminated" kills sooner than all section/piece counter-battery fire. Once CSA sections have been reduced to 1-gun pieces, the battle for tactical supremacy will be over.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />Because this thread is getting long, I'll repeat that I played Jon shortly after his original post and crushed his Union army. So the game is very winnable as the South.
<b>Tips:</b>
One useful tactic is to move and fire complete stacks. This will reduce the advantage of larger units.
Play using the new melee resolution rule.
Play single turn
Also, remember that the VPs needed for a Union major victory are much greater. The Union will need almost 2,500 more points to win.
In short, the Union will have a tough time IMHO.
Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Good job, Rich. Appreciate your shared tactical insights. (I know from following the threads of late that play balance remains a key priority of yours. Kudos!)
I would be sure and clear, however, not to mistake or confuse <i>play balance</i> with designing a game around <i>a level playing field</i>. (Risk and Monopoly achieve both, although some might claim that whoever goes first - Monopoly? - or goes last - Risk? - may well enjoy slightly improved odds of winning? but whoever goes first is also decided by a random-generated die roll at game's start. So, Fair is fair.)
<b>Play Balance</b> suggests the essential fine-tuning of a scenario <i>after</i> one's historically-researched maps and sometimes even more painstaking OOB's have been drawn up. Kudos to both you and Doug in this portion of Campaign Antietam! Objective VP's as well as the sometimes tweaking (sometimes 'cheating') of morale ratings, command ranges, etc., may more or less represent the final steps in this fine-tuning balancing process.
<b>A level playing field</b>, on the other hand, <i>begins</i> long before any scenario designer appears on the scene with his sabre and pipe in hand. It begins with a programmer's keyboard.
Because Tiller's code limits (indeed, foils) our scenario design options, establishing <i>a perfectly level playing field</i> remains impossible!
Thus the goal of the scenario designer (you, in this instance, Rich), hopefully, recognizes such hardwired limitations and so devises an OOB that at the very least meets this goal of a level playing field "half-way".
I say "half-way," Rich, because, while we've been talking about whether or not to breakdown batteries, we have never sought to have <i>all</i> our regiments similarly brokendown into their respective companies - if only to 'level the other half' - because, a hellishly impossible piece-pushing mass of doo-doo would be the unplayable result! [xx(]
So, we accepted a necessary imbalance- if only because Tiller's assymetrical regimental fire formula gave us no choice! - and, instead focused on those long unsporting, assymetrical CSA / USA <i>Talonsoft</i> BG batteries.
As Drew's team demonstrated with Campaign Corinth - breaking down all batteries on both sides <i>finally</i> leveled the playing field for all CSA/USA Ordnance! Hurrah!
It wasn't perfect. Because Perfect would mean we'd have our CSA / USA batteries ALONG with a new formula! But it <i>was</i> a perfect compromise, Rich. (Thank Drew!)
So, please, unless and/or until Tiller reconsiders some "new or improved" FIRE Integer Calculation routine (i.e., one that permits small / large / <i>all</i> units to combine #guns / SP's into selective, single integer attacks, would you possibly be open to build your <u>campaign</u> scenarios in the future around an OOB that breaks down all ordnance into their historical sections and pieces?
Does this seem a reasonable, acceptable <i>compromise?</i>
Fld. Lt. D. Shoeless, CSA
Secretary of the Cabinet (Ret)
1st Tenn Provisional Army
<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>
|