ACWGC Forums

American Civil War Game Club

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records       * CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union     ACWGC Memorial

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotT    AotC    AotP    AotS     Union Army Forums

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 2:38 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1696
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jon Thayer</i>
<br />After watching the progress of this thread I think much of it goes back to the original issue that was giving me problems: That being units in a stack firing combined. What prompted my first post was that in two Antietam games both my opponents would fire all the units in a stack together and thus limited my defensive fire. I just don't think is simulates in any realistic manner actual fire combat. Yes, we play games but I find issue with the tactics based on the premise of, "Hey, if I fire all my units together, the defender whon't be able to hit me back" to be extremely "gamey" Many of the points made in this thread as well as most others show a slant to the side of the player, either Union or Confederate, that generally gives and advantage to their side. Yankees don't like quality modifiers, Rebs want batteries for their guns instead of sections. These are two examples. My original post came from my experience playing both sides at Antietam. It just does not make since that 950 men can fire at a target containing 500 men and 100 fire back. The whole issue of creating massive stacks of cannon just to ensure a hit each shot is basically exploiting the engine to advantage. This then leads to the division of camps much like we have seen in the NWC. Once group of players want as realistic a representation of the battles as possible, and the other wants a game.

Lt General Jon Thayer
III Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My advice has always been don't play "Turn" mode. What you mention is one of many problems with this type play. It has improved with the new Melee change but it is still badly flawed and only useful when playing multiplayer where it actually save you some time. The gain of having opportunity fire and a more flexible movement phase for fire and formation change is more than offset by how defensive fire is handled in it.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 2:39 am
Posts: 291
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jon Thayer</i>
<br />After watching the progress of this thread I think much of it goes back to the original issue that was giving me problems: That being units in a stack firing combined. What prompted my first post was that in two Antietam games both my opponents would fire all the units in a stack together and thus limited my defensive fire. I just don't think is simulates in any realistic manner actual fire combat. Yes, we play games but I find issue with the tactics based on the premise of, "Hey, if I fire all my units together, the defender whon't be able to hit me back" to be extremely "gamey" Many of the points made in this thread as well as most others show a slant to the side of the player, either Union or Confederate, that generally gives and advantage to their side. Yankees don't like quality modifiers, Rebs want batteries for their guns instead of sections. These are two examples. My original post came from my experience playing both sides at Antietam. It just does not make since that 950 men can fire at a target containing 500 men and 100 fire back. The whole issue of creating massive stacks of cannon just to ensure a hit each shot is basically exploiting the engine to advantage. This then leads to the division of camps much like we have seen in the NWC. Once group of players want as realistic a representation of the battles as possible, and the other wants a game.

Lt General Jon Thayer
III Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As Jon points out both sides have advantages produced by the game engine. Remember this is a strategy game. As in war you must know your stengths (this includes those that are a function of the game engine) as well as your weaknesses. Maximize the one and minimize the other. It does require some gaming strategy as well as knowledge of historical tactics. IMO it is remarkable how does track historically in the results although not necessarily in the mechanisms (as I have stated earlier). I would like perfection as much a anyone else but short of donning a uniform and heading to the field it won't happen. We have to accept there will always be some element of gameship and utilizing the games engine to one's advantage. I think when there are blatant problems, such as the old zoc kill rule in TS games they have been addressed by Rich and others. I don't any of the examples cited in this thread apporach the level of imbablance the previous ZOC rules caused (just my opinion). Even twaeking that rule has opened up new cans of worms in the Naploeonic games which is why is is best to always proceed with changes slowly and give each to be evaluated. I understand Jon's reason for the original post but I have yet to be convinced a major change is warranted. I have been in the club a long time and have played all the games except the very newest many times from both sides. In general I believe it is harder to win as the Confederates (particuarly in the west) but is should be harder. If more balance is requested I suggest more attention be focused on adjusting the victory conditions than rule or OOB chnages.[^]

Lt. Gen. Ed Blackburn
I/I/VI/AoS
Image
"Forward Bucktails"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 865
Location: USA
As Ed points out and I have earlier in the long thread, the VP conditions are a major factor. It's not a surprise that the Union has an advantage. That's why a Union victory requires more victory points. The Union will need 2500 for a Major Victory. The Confederates will only need 1000. When I create the asked for variant of putting all Union artillery into sections I will also need to lessen the Union VP burden.

So yes, the Union has and artillery advantage (as it should), but not without consequences.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1696
Location: USA
While I agree Antietam should be a tough one for the Rebel, I do disagree with game engine results which are far off norm. While I realize HPS's engine isn't a simulation it should at least on average reproduce general results. In my ongoing game of Antietam I have lost now 80 guns to counter battery fire. These are not guns unduely exposed. Most were in woods, on hills and behind fences and entrenchments. All were hit at ranges over five hexes, many at twenty hexes. The game is hurt when the player has to result to extreme "gamey" tactics like hidding batteries in the rear, making fire stacks that were never attempted in the Civil War just to give them an even chance and not being able to use their artillery to support their infantry for fear of kills.

Regarding your test, here is mine. I used Phased play. I targeted the larges unit in the stack when using offensive fire to reduce these as quickly as possible. Defensive fire was normal AI driven but I placed guns so all fire would be against the two stacks formed. I was using the Antietam historical scenario, just moved everything out of the way to create the two stacks.

For the Union I created the typical firing stack I like to use although to keep all the guns 3" Rifled I couldn't create my usual 20 guns stack but had to settle for 18 guns.

For the Rebs after much hunting I foung enough two gun 3" Rifles to make an eight gun stack but did have to substitute one two gun 10lb Parrot (which is slightly better). This gave me a 16 gun stack for the Rebs.

The two stacks were six hexes apart, Rebels given the advantage of firing first. The Rebel stack fire power was approximately 14-70 compared to the Union 16-79 (this is the LCV and HCV numbers). The Rebs fired first and of course got a hit which even things up for stack fire.

The defining difference is on Defensive fire. Here the two gun Rebel batteries fire with a 2-9 factor compared to the Union guns which fire at 5-26 range. While I don't know the alogrithm used to determine a hit from the LCV/HCV numbers, it doesn't look like firing three 2 gun batteries equals one 6 gun batteries.

The results of my test pretty much show this. As would be expected the Offensive fire using stack fire produced exactly the same results. There were 7 guns taken out by Offensive fire by both sides over the nineteen turns of fire (it took so long because both sides became medium fatigued). It was on Defensive fire where the Union shined. The Rebels taking out only 3 guns by Defensive fire compared to 9 guns for the Union Defensive fire.


As to the observation that the Rebels do have 3 and 4 gun batteries. Yes they do, 25 three gun and two four gun. The gotcha is that most of these are 6 Lb Smoothbores and 12 lb Howitzers which are useless in counterbattery fire. The Rebels don't have enough Napoleon are better sections to match the four 20 gun stacks I usually put together for the Union early in the game. The fire results bare this out with 80 guns lost by the Rebels compared to only 20 guns lost by the Union.


Now for those who want to fix this, assuming you don't think the Yankee player needs the Rebel handicapped [:D]. Change the "25" in line 6 of the pdt file to "50". This will dramatically improve the defense against both counterbattery and crew fire for guns and I think it will also prevent 20 gun stacks due to stacking limits but I have not checked this. If it doesn't I am going to look into modifying the scenario to use two guns sections for the Union.


Side note: In scenario 31 (Antietam Historical no weather) there is an error on Hampton's entry. The leader Hampton comes in "Fixed". Didn't even know you could do that to a reinforcement.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 865
Location: USA
Thanks Kennon,

I fixed the Hampton error a while ago, but there won't be any new patches until perhaps November. Again, this is easliy fixed by using the editor.

As for your test. It differs from mine. I used turn based played and I used the units I mentioned.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2001 1:45 pm
Posts: 166
Location: USA
My original post was born from frustration in getting crushed defending at Antietam. I have now been paying much more attention to the results of fire combat. Also, perhaps it has just been luck but only recently have I begun encountering opponents who "stack fire" their units. The progression of my thinking has lead to my post of earlier today regarding "stack firing" I just played a turn at 2nd Manassas and there were only 3 offensive shots taken due to seperation of our forces. This is the breakdown of the shooting:

Union 7?? fired at 711 Reb hitting 50, return fire by one unit hit 3
Union 7?? fired at 713 Reb hitting 46, return fire by one unit hit 4
Union 8?? fired at 722 Reb hitting 17, return fire by two units hit 6

This seems to me to be how fire combat works out consistantly. I am on defense so in order to return any significant fire I am stuck in the hex in order to fire all my stacks in my offensive phase. In my current situation I am trying to pull back so I am in fact doomed to the same results next turn. This is essentialy what I experienced at Antietam that started the thread.

There seems to be two solutions: Agree before the game to fire units singularly, or a change that will cause all the defenders in a target hex to fire together. I really don't want to played phased as I really like overall how the turn based plays. It just doesn't make since to me to have some of the results that occur when equal forces engage in fire combat.

Lt General Jon Thayer
III Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:59 am
Posts: 25
Location: USA
As I wade thru this I notice that some of the issues folks are having seem to be OOB related. A couple recent examples only to avoid searching thru the thread:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For the Rebs after much hunting I foung enough two gun 3" Rifles to make an eight gun stack but did have to substitute one two gun 10lb Parrot (which is slightly better).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

and...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The gotcha is that most of these are 6 Lb Smoothbores and 12 lb Howitzers which are useless in counterbattery fire. The Rebels don't have enough Napoleon are better sections to match the four 20 gun stacks I usually put together for the Union early in the game. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I just don't see how the historical OOB issues are a game problem, when your playing a historical scenario. Unless I'm missing something then we should also adjust the troop numbers and morale to be equal for both sides too. I guess I don't understand how these things relate to gameplay issues unless you don't want to use a historical OOB.

All the other stuff is interesting about the game calcs and 6 gun sections vs 2 gun sections. But in the end doesn't the union usually have more guns and the end results would still be similar? It just seems to me no mater whether you have 2, 4, 6, or 8 gun sections for both sides, one side will still have more and better shooting at the other.

I admit I'm still fairly new to these games so probably don't completely understand the issue. But to me the historical OOB drives the type & number of guns, and one side will always have better & more.


Lt. Joe McCleery
4/3/VI
AoS


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1696
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by J.McCleery</i>
<br />
I just don't see how the historical OOB issues are a game problem, when your playing a historical scenario. Unless I'm missing something then we should also adjust the troop numbers and morale to be equal for both sides too. I guess I don't understand how these things relate to gameplay issues unless you don't want to use a historical OOB.

All the other stuff is interesting about the game calcs and 6 gun sections vs 2 gun sections. But in the end doesn't the union usually have more guns and the end results would still be similar? It just seems to me no mater whether you have 2, 4, 6, or 8 gun sections for both sides, one side will still have more and better shooting at the other.

I admit I'm still fairly new to these games so probably don't completely understand the issue. But to me the historical OOB drives the type & number of guns, and one side will always have better & more.


Lt. Joe McCleery
4/3/VI
AoS
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The problem isn't with the OOB since it is correct. The problem is with how the game mechanics handle small gun batteries versus large gun. In an ideal situation have six 1 gun units in a line exchanging fire with an enemy 6 gun unit should result in the same casualties. One shouldn't have advantage over another. If they do, as the is the case, then both sides need to be equalized within reason by using the same gun size units.

I mentioned the CSA 3 and 4 gun batteies because Rich brought up that we some and that might in someway equalize the situation. But because the particular problem only comes up in counter battery fire, I pointed out most were not long range guns since they don't affect the particular problem being discussed. These guns are hell on infantry but just targets for Union rifled guns.

None of this would be a problem if it reproduced historic results after all these game are attempting to be historic simulations. But as my game is showing with over 80 gun kills by counter battery fire, it is not historic either. 80 guns were probably not lost by the ANV by counterbattery fire during the entire war much less the battle of Antietam. Union artillery is superior to Rebel but it didn't have range finders or scope sights and was pretty much useless for long range counter battery fire.

The cannonade on July 3 at Gettysburg is a glaring example of why the artillery commanders by this time in the war recommended that guns never engage in counter battery fire. The cannonade lasted two hours. Alexander put 140 guns in for the CSA side. Hunt reported that he had 80 guns that could respond (in LOS) and a total of 227 guns in three concentric circles on or behind the ridge. That's plenty of targets and in depth targets. While a lot of horses were killed almost no guns were seriously damaged. I could find only one report of two guns damaged.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:15 am
Posts: 180
Location: Canada
Kennon:

Thank you for citing that "Gettysburg" example and the great bombardment on July 3rd. That example more than any other should demonstrate quite conclusively that we are getting far too many "counter battery hits" in HPS Civil War than we should.

It's far worse for the confederate player admittedly, but the effects of counter battery are just too powerful at present.

Your solution of cutting down the stacking size for batteries might be the best 'short term' solution. The pdt file is easily altered (thank you John Tiller) and it would help fix a monstrous wrong.

I can't help but think about walking the battleground at Gettysburg and seeing the various plaques as to the location of both Union and Confederate batteries and they were certainly not as concentrated as we tend to make them in HPS Civil War.

80 guns knocked out in a single day battle like "Antietam" is absurd.



Bg. General Gilbert Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 865
Location: USA
I'm not home at the moment to tinker, but I don't believe you can limit "JUST" artillery stacking. Only stacking in general to a certain number of units.


Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1696
Location: USA
<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 />I'm not home at the moment to tinker, but I don't believe you can limit "JUST" artillery stacking. Only stacking in general to a certain number of units.


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">

Unfortunately it does look like you cannot change the artillery stacking which is apparently equal to 50 men. Line 6 in pdt file sets stacking and includes number for artillery but it isn't used for stacking.

Line 6 contains: 1000 8 25

When you display these in the Help Parameter selection it reports:

Max Stacking: 1000 Max Counters: 8 Strength Point: 25

The "25" is the equivalent number of men the game uses for determining "hits" to a battery and defense in melee. If you increase this number to "50" it becomes much more difficult to get crew and gun hits. The guns become a bit more difficult to melee too.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:15 am
Posts: 180
Location: Canada
Kennon:

I'm wondering then if that isn't the figure to 'tinker' with. Presently capturing batteries is the easiest thing in the world. Half the time you don't even have to look at strength points - just number of counters. If the attacker has more counters than the defender, then it is likely the battery will be captured.

The defender has to get a "D" result on every single attacker in order to stop a successful melee. ex: You have a battery alone in a hex and two "50" man regiments attacking. You will get the battery.

Maybe by making melee tougher this will solve 'easy captures' of batteries but still doesn't fix our 'long range counter battery' problem.



Bg. General Gilbert Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1696
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gcollins</i>
<br />Kennon:

I'm wondering then if that isn't the figure to 'tinker' with. Presently capturing batteries is the easiest thing in the world. Half the time you don't even have to look at strength points - just number of counters. If the attacker has more counters than the defender, then it is likely the battery will be captured.

The defender has to get a "D" result on every single attacker in order to stop a successful melee. ex: You have a battery alone in a hex and two "50" man regiments attacking. You will get the battery.

Maybe by making melee tougher this will solve 'easy captures' of batteries but still doesn't fix our 'long range counter battery' problem.



Bg. General Gilbert Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It does improve the melee defense of the guns but the big improvement is the attacker not being able to knock out batteries by crew kills from units 3 or 4 hexes away. When using the "50" factor you can stack guns with infantry and they can hold a hex.

Ross and I have been playing my modified Gettysburg using this factor in a mirror match. In both games our gun loses for two and half days of fighting are below 35 guns.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1696
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />The obvious fix for the artillery is to get them to fire as per the Panzer series ie. each gun fires on its own and the cumulative results are added up per section. This puts all gun sections on an even footing.

Thus a 4 gun section would fire each gun separately. Add up the results (4 x 1 gun firing) to get a much more honest and historical result. Result: less losses in guns period.

Col. Bill Peters, The Boise Rifles, II Corps Artillery, AoA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You are correct firing four 1 gun units should always produce the same result as firing one 4 gun unit. But there is an additional problem. In the HPS system it is to easy to get a gun or crew kill. The casualty rates for guns is much to high for the Civil War period.

In the Civil War a gun being taken out by a direct hit was extremely rare. And, barring the barrel not getting dented, easily repaired in the field. Guns were force to withdraw and in game turns might be considered "kills" due to death of horses and exploding cassions but these to did not amount to much. Most gun loses were due to being overrun by infantry.

The crew kills are another imbalance. They are both to easy to cause and don't reflect number of guns. It is just as easy to kill the crew of a one gun unit as a six gun unit. This imbalance usually favors the Rebs since they usually have the one gun units.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:20 am 
Lt. General Thayer's experience - from the Rebel perspective - reveals the following <i>irregularities</i> (with the current version of the Antietam grand battle scenarios).

<ol type="1"><li>USA 6-gun batteries generate more lethal FIRE integers on The FIRE Combat Results Table than CSA 4-gun batteries / 2-gun sections / 1-gun pieces. Only breaking down <i>all</i> batteries - or a code "fix" - can <i>level the boys' playing field.</i></li>

<li>Large USA units in line typically generate three to six times higher casualty results on Tiller's FIRE Combat Results Table - just like their 6-gun battery complements - than the smaller mix of Rebel units - a FIRE Combat Results Table, curiously, which does not appear anywhere in the Users-Manual or Parameter data?

To be sure, blistering / withering Union fire can be somewhat counter-balanced by modifying CSA morale ratings or increasing CSA Brigade and Division officer Command Ranges, etc.., but since CSA and USA command ranges are now the generic equivalents, this too merely shifts play in the direction of favoring large Union regiments over smallish Confedertate ones during the fire combat phases. Please, scroll down to review "solutions".</li>

<li>A patient Union Commander will a-historically thwart McClellan's otherwise historically faithful, time-dependent release of a Corps-en-echelon offensive battle plan - simply by waiting ... waiting ... waiting until multiple corps have been released - at which point, a perhaps, perfectly micro-managed assault - in perfectly a-historical cooperation and coordination - may be directed upon any chosen joint point-of-attack along the Rebel's perimeter. This, however, would not prove the "Historical" contest I had in mind - whether playing North or South.

(There appears to be nothing in the rules that prevents / penalizes such a waiting tactic, yes? no?</li></ol id="1">

<u>Solutions</u> -- aka, what we can do <i>today!</i>

First, setting aside concerns, regarding Tiller's crew "eliminated" subset routine - because, we must, assuming we want to play these games <i>today</i> - i.e., not tomorrow,

<ol type="1"><li>Enforce the breakdown of <i>all</i> Union / Confederate gun <i>batteries</i> into respective sections / pieces to <i>level the playing field</i> - until a code "fix" is well in view.</li>

<li>Limit Large Line combat unit Fire via some kind of
[url="http://www.affpiano1002.qwestoffice.net/acwhr_mainframe2.html#IA2"]Fire-Through-Hexside (FTH) Qualifiers[/url]

(Actually, given there's no ideal / perfect "house rule" override at our disposal witin the context of a "fixed" code, we really don't care whether you borrow directly from our current solution or come up with other(s). Please, feel free to publicly share any with the greater community, if you please. Thank you.)

In any case, without enforcing more physically qualified - realistic - Fire-Through-Hexside SP threshold limits when targeting <i>through</i> a single hexside measuring approximately 41.7 yds across, rebel and union fire combat exchanges will never meet on a more level playing field - acknowledging that Union small-arms fire will, still, prove to have the upper hand, given their sheer manpower superiority - but, just <u>not</u> in the same devil-may-care manner as forever witnessed on Tiller's default battlefield from 1995 to the present.</li>

<li>Given the code and scnario design we're dealt and to address the Union-waiting-game tactic, <i>any</i> and <i>all</i> ideas must be considered, assuming there are those still among us who are wont to explore the <i>historical</i> battle possibilities near Sharpsburg in 1862.</li>

<ol type="a"><li> Increase "battlefield doubt" via [url="http://www.affpiano1002.qwestoffice.net/acwhr_mainframe2.html#II"]Command & Control: 'Friendly' FOG[/url] constraints. That is, <i>enforce</i> Friendly FOG restraints upon all "out-of-command" - i.e., as opposed to officially "detached" - troop / brigade officer / division leader initiatives relating to movement and offensive combat.</li>

(Only if one has been living in a cave should recognition of an historically-based "Friendly FOG" model come as a surprise to any one.)

<li>Open to suggestions.

-- i.e., whatever could be employed to historically <i>limit</i> or compel just how Union Corps might be 'obliged' to attack-en-enchelon - i.e., "piecemeal".</li></ol id="a"></ol id="1">

<u>Notes</u>:

To Compare and Contrast

<ul><li>Richard Berg's <i>Great Battles of the American Civil War</i> series of games employs a clearly printed out "Fire Combat Results Table" - something Tiller no longer provides? - that intuitively generates combat results based on the <u>total</u> number of combined guns directed at an enemy target / hex.

--Berg's Fire Combat Results Table <i>levels the playing field</i> - Tiller's does not.</li>

<li>Under Berg's model, multiple 4-gun rebel batteries may freely combine #guns to form a single attack, just as any number of 6-gun yankee batteries may.

--Unlike Tiller's model, "three" 4-gun CSA batteries shall always equate perfectly to any "two" union 6-gun batteries - under Berg's FIRE Combat Results Table - acknowledging quality, range, "rapid fire," or other factors must still be applied.</li>

<li>As for gun crews being "pinned," "routed," and/or "eliminated" in combat - Berg's model treats all gun "crews" as identifiably separate from their ordnance.</li></ul>

In every case, however, a review of Tiller's FIRE Combat Results Table will confirm what hobbyists, crack scenario designers, and determined editors alike already know,<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We go to war with the screwy FIRE Combat Results Table we have - not necessarily the ONE we must have, assuming, we still want grand <i>batteries-en-masse</i>.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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>


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group