American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 1:09 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
Going to 10 minute turns solves some problems but introduces new ones. One of which is that by email it would take 312 turns or two years, assuming you could get a 3 turns a week turned around, to finish Gettysburg. This is the major problem with any of the proposed shorter turn ideas. The 20 minute turn is a comprimise between not giving the player enough time to react to opponents movements and game taking forever.

On limbering and mounting, you probably need to keep these low enough that a unit can change and move. Mostly to compensate for the lack of retreat before being torn appart by fire of these units.

You are going to have a couple of problems with the PDT fire factors and fire combat in general. First going to 10 minute turns is going to double the number of casualties in an already bloody system. And, second you are going to run out of ammo twice as fast. The ammo you could fix by adding wagons and changing the overal artillery ammo level (at least I think you can).

Fire factors are tougher. They represent three factors combined, rate of fire, distance and time. When you use a 5x multiplier for rifles at one hex it doesn't just represent what the unit could do firing at one hundred yards. The game has simplified things. This fire is an average affect since the game doesn't know whether the unit just marched the whole distance and has been at 100 yards for only 4 minutes or it has been standing there in line for the whole 20 minutes. If it was standing there for 20 minutes taking 60 rounds of fire per man, then the 5x multiplier is way to low. If it has been on the march the whole time and only spent the last 4 minutes uncovered and at 100 yards then only a few volleys have been fired at it and the 5x multiplier is much to high.

The drift of all this is the factors in the PDT are created by trial and error during game design to make the game produce what the designer thinks are historic and workable results. The factors used are a fudge to try to average out what would happen over 20 minutes. As you go to shorter and shorter time intervals the fire factors should come closer and closer to what a single volley could do. Unfortunately, even this isn't a good rule of thumb because there are other factors too. One being in 20 minutes a well trained regiment could fire 60 times at an approaching formation. They actually can't do this because they only have a 40 round ammo pouch. Generally, they withheld fire until the enemy was well within 200 yards.

This all leave you with whatever you choose to do with the fire factors it's wrong[:D]. And, there will be plenty of people to tell you that[:(] which is probably why the HPS designers stay away from posting on here.

Col. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 11:25 am
Posts: 1022
Location: USA
Dear yankeydog:

I'm confused about the skirmisher item. You seem to be implying that if you imploy skirmishers it will slow the enemy down when he moves into the 'skirmished' area. When I read the rules originally I thought this was the case, but I believe the rule was ambiguous.

My understanding now is that if a unit deployes skirmishers THAT unit pays an additional +1/hex movement penalty, but that enemy units moving through 'skirmished' areas are not affected.


Your humble servant,
LGen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory

David W. Mallory
ACW - Lieutenant General, First ('Grey Line') Corps, AotM
CCC - Corporal, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Deaprtment, Colonial American Army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:35 am 
D.W.

If you look carefully at Barlow's Knoll scenario, noting the skirmishers deployed to the CSA Left. Try to move through the Skirmish zone and watch your MPs. The Sirmish zone does affect a MP loss.


Maj. Gen. Mark W. Zapp
Chief of Staff, CSA


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 4:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 2:58 pm
Posts: 206
Location: USA
Gamesystemwise I wonder how quickly orders/reaction of commanders were able to react to changing battlefield. I wonder if 10 minute turns in some cases might be accurate for the regimental level but not for the division on up level--but I am really unsure of how long it took for commanders to recieve their orders. A way of stopping this might be for regiments/commanders to take a check each turn realated to their command ability and that would represent a reduction in movement--say anywhere from one hex only to full--this would also have the advantage of forcing commanders to be more aware of the command radius, ect. It would also force commanders to thing about keeping supply wagons and artilery close to the divisions they came from. But on the downside it is not easily done--and many would find it frustrating and unworkable even if it was.

Commander Whitehead did an excellent job dignosing other issues--either way one has issues. One thing that I have always thought would be an interesting optional rule, is that once battle casualities approach a certain level, say 20% the forces under command either had a reduced effectiveness (say -1 on all shots, and -1 morale) or a small chance of an automatic loss (increasing and checked at an increasing rate as 10% losses grow)--perhaps modified by the commander in charge--and an automatic check on loss of the Army commander for instance). This would make us more reluctant to make the large losses we tend to inflict of cyber armies.
As for losses deviding by two would likely not accomplish all you hoped for--as you would certainly as noted have issues with supply, and would have a larger number of units firing at the minimun. No easy answers as noted before me.
How to do any of this in the practical world of programing ect--no clue myself.
BG Laabs
3/III A of M
3/III A of M


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
Pass on some thoughts[^] on some of the points brought up:

Modifying CG for solitare play allows a lot of things that you cna't attempt to do in email because of time or informal rules.

<font color="blue">"One thing that I have always thought would be an interesting optional rule, is that once battle casualities approach a certain level, say 20% the forces under command either had a reduced effectiveness"</font id="blue">

Wellington's Victory had the most interesting approach I have seen to this. Each army had a "morale" pool that the player could expend to activate brigades. Each turn the number of active brigades subtracted from this number. When the pool reached zero the army lost one level of morale from all units each hour until your whole army was made up of "F" units. Had a lot of interesting affects but it basicly put a limit on how much you could do without demoralizing your army and having the entire army route off the field. Unlike the Talonsoft version you didn't fight to the last man, they just ran away.

<font color="blue">"I guess I am looking for any suggestions or thoughts on how to bring the casualties for 10 minute turns more in line with (our perception) of real life and/or increasing the chance of disruption."</font id="blue">

Since you I doing this for solitare, there are a lot of things that could be done to alter the game since player implemented rules are possible. Fire wise I would look at keeping 1 hex range fire about what it is now but dramatically cuting the values for other ranges, at least halve them. This would help out on the ammo and casualty problems since it would discourage unnecessary firing.

"<font color="blue">I don't quite get the 3 MP cost for cavalry changing facing though."</font id="blue">

I think HPS handled cavalry like artillery in a very simplified manner. Cavalry has only one mounted formation but in reality it had at least two, column and line. The 3 MP cost is correct for line but should even apply to column.

I have seen a lot of command control rules over time but they are very difficult to implement. Mostly because the player controls the regiments and knows what he wants to do, so most take the form of limiting movement which can lead to strange things as well.

Col. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 118 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