ACWGC Forums

Aw, hell, let's beat it some more.[:D]

There were just two things wrong with the turn-based system; the in-turn melee, where units from the rear could open holes for units in front to exploit. The other is anemic defensive fire.

The melee problem has been solved, to a degree, though not in the manner we had hoped. I had envisioned a fix where you pre-plotted your melees during the turn, and when you ended the turn, all melee-related activity would automatically take place. Nevertheless, for better or worse, we have a fix.

There have been suggestions for fixing the anemic defensive fire, but to date the only fix I know of is for defensive fire before melee to be full-strength rather than half-strength. That isn't enough. General Collins illustrated below the problems with fire in turn based play. HE IS RIGHT!!!!! And until the fire problem is corrected, a lot of players are going to prefer phased play. Which is a shame, because I believe except for that, the turn-based system is superior.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Mike,

I never said Turn play was perfect. And Like you, I had the same vision for the Melee phase.

As for def fire, I think it could be tweaked, BUT, I have had many bad experiences with good def op fire. Just a minute ago, many of my units took good loses and a couple units disrupted due to opp fire.

Phase play reminds me of a scene from Braveheart. The Scots were taunting the English with lifting their quilts and showing their private parts. In phase play, I can dance in front of my enemy and take NO fire. Too funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, I cannot change formation whenever I want.

And it takes longer to play!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



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

Getlemen,

A simple solution is to add opportunity fire to multi-phase play, those units that fire 1/2 in opportunuty fire, fire the other 1/2 during the defensive fire phase while the other guys fire at full strength. Then perhaps I can change fromation in multi-phase play.

Lt Gen Joseph C. Mishurda



Lt General Joseph C. Mishurda,
"Killer Angels"
VI Corps, AoS, USA

Joe,

If you did that, you would make the game unplayable in phase play. I'm glad our games provide for both modes of play. Each player has the right to play as he/she feels is right for them.

I just object to the arguments against "Turn" play. But I admit I'm biased, so forgive my non-objectivity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jmishurda</i>
<br />Getlemen,

A simple solution is to add opportunity fire to multi-phase play, those units that fire 1/2 in opportunuty fire, fire the other 1/2 during the defensive fire phase while the other guys fire at full strength. Then perhaps I can change fromation in multi-phase play.

Lt Gen Joseph C. Mishurda



Lt General Joseph C. Mishurda,
"Killer Angels"
VI Corps, AoS, USA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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

May as well wade in for round two. Any defence of phased play I am for.

A simple fix that would make phased play a lot better would be to allow infantry to change formation anytime during the turn. I never did understand the logic of forcing a formation change at the beginning of the turn only for infantry, and yet artillery can do this anytime.

The ONE SINGLE DEFENCE I can say for single turn play is the lessening of the burden for e-mail play. I think this is one of the reasons why single turn play is so popular NOT because it is good at recreating Civil War Tactics. It isn't, and until the fire portion of the play is fixed it never will be.

Joseph you mention the 1/2 fire and being able to fire again at 1/2 value. But that is my big issue with the single turn play. There is no way it should be 1/2. When a unit fires, it fires! And, I don't care how many times it fires at 1/2 value. As I showed in a hypothetical example below hitting multiple times a unit and getting results of "1" man, "2 men", "1 man" does me no good when the attacker then comes in and fires and kills "22 men".

Rich, you sighted an example where the defensive fire DID cause many casuaties and one unit disrupted. IF SINGLE TURN PLAY worked that way all the time I would be for it! That IS what happened in Civil War Tactics. The defender would fire and some Attackers may never make it to point blank range. We should be seeing more disruption results for the attacker, not more casualties.

My defence of phased play is not only to cause more casualties but to cause the attacker to be disrupted before he attacks. If single turn play could do this a ranges before the attacker even closes, I would be all for it. But presently with this 1/2 value stuff all I ever see are these puny casualties at range 4 or 5. Why can't there be a setting to force the AI to fire at range 1 or 2 in single turn play? It exists in phased play?

The one argument that single turn advocates make is that enemy units 'dance' in front of their units. Boy, with 12 mps to close on an enemy and with forest being 5 mps, orchards 3 mps plus other terrain I don't have much time for 'dancing'. True, it is possible to get outflanked a little easier in phase play, that's something we have to sacrifice but to me is well worth the cost in order to get everything else right. And, of course that should encourage players to protect their flanks.

This discussion has wandered from "Antietam Woes" but Single turn play is exactly one of the causes of those woes.

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

My biggest problem with defensive fire is not so much that they fire at half strength but that they may not fire at all! I don't know how many times I've seen Rebel units march up to my C or D quality units without a shot being fired at them, or maybe one volley while they are at 4 or 5 hex range and then not again. Maybe they'll fire if fired upon or if targeted for a melee but maybe not.

Private Jones: "Hey, look at them Johnny Rebs out there 400 yards, let's shoot 'em"
Private Smith: "Sure!"
BANG
Private Jones: "Hey, they're still coming, lets shoot 'em again!"
Private Smith: "Nope, that hurt my shoulder the last time, besides they have such a pretty formation marching across that field."
Private Jones: "You know they are going to shoot us to doll rags if they get up here don't you."
Private Smith: "Well, so what! I'm not going to shoot again until they are done."

This is what I hear in my head while replaying turns sometimes, when they can drown out the other voices that is. Of course the wife almost knows what is going on if she hears me shout Shoot dammit, Shoot!

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

Hi,

Well, if you could change formation anytime, a player could advance along a road, and go into line in front of the enemy without ever a shot being fired. Does that sound historical??

As for adding more def fire and giving it 100% FP, well, I for one feel there are too many loses right now. Offensives would ground to a halt.

The problem with your theories are that they are untested, and the system "as is" has been test for over a decade. We need a few tweaks, not radical changes. Especially when these changes are risky.

As for the "Antietam Woes" subject, Jon and I are playing a game as we speak and I am playing the South. I will let him comment on how it's going.

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

Mark,

We were writting our comments at about the same time, so I was responding to Gilbert.

As for your comment, I think it could be tweaked a little to increase the likeliness of firing, I'll look into that. But we did make FP 100% before melee.

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

<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 />Hi,

Well, if you could change formation anytime, a player could advance along a road, and go into line in front of the enemy without ever a shot being fired. Does that sound historical??

As for adding more def fire and giving it 100% FP, well, I for one feel there are too many loses right now. Offensives would ground to a halt.

The problem with your theories are that they are untested, and the system "as is" has been test for over a decade. We need a few tweaks, not radical changes. Especially when these changes are risky.

As for the "Antietam Woes" subject, Jon and I are playing a game as we speak and I am playing the South. I will let him comment on how it's going.

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">
Regarding the first observation - that is the way "Turn" play is now. However, its better to stay in column and just melee your way through the enemy. It causes more casualties than shooting.

Regarding how "Turn" play handles Defensive Fire. I understand the logic of halving the fire. The assumption is on the average the unit will shoot twice equaling Phased Defensive Fire. In practice it doesn't work out. A player familiar with what triggers the fire can usually limit the number of times units are triggered. If you aren't attacking in a sector don't move then you have effectively elliminated Defensive Fire. Some will get triggered when you Offensively fire but if you are careful you will get to fire at full strength and maybe half the defenders will get to fire at half strength.

I understand the idea of the system. Basically it introduced Opportunity Fire which was ment to limit the amount of parading around of regiments in front of an enemy line. I think its implementation is flawed. When Opportunity Fire was introduced into the board games it was a "free" shot at a lower value than regular Defensive Fire. The Defend would get these "Free" shots at the attacker as they moved and fired. It was "Free". No ammo used no quota of fire used up. The Defender at the end of movement still got the full Defensive Fire. Opportunity fire was just meant to discourage the Attacker from moving units in the open parrallel to lines of defenders like they were Dump, Deaf and Blind.

My suggestion is guarter the value for Opportunity Fire but make it a completely free shot. At the end of move/formation change/fire by attacker have everyone with LOS rip into them at full strength. Then have your melee.

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

Kennon,

Your incorrect, In turn mode, a unit that changes formation, will very likely be fired upon. That is my point.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br /><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 />Hi,

Well, if you could change formation anytime, a player could advance along a road, and go into line in front of the enemy without ever a shot being fired. Does that sound historical??

As for adding more def fire and giving it 100% FP, well, I for one feel there are too many loses right now. Offensives would ground to a halt.

The problem with your theories are that they are untested, and the system "as is" has been test for over a decade. We need a few tweaks, not radical changes. Especially when these changes are risky.

As for the "Antietam Woes" subject, Jon and I are playing a game as we speak and I am playing the South. I will let him comment on how it's going.

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">
Regarding the first observation - that is the way "Turn" play is now. However, its better to stay in column and just melee your way through the enemy. It causes more casualties than shooting.

Regarding how "Turn" play handles Defensive Fire. I understand the logic of halving the fire. The assumption is on the average the unit will shoot twice equaling Phased Defensive Fire. In practice it doesn't work out. A player familiar with what triggers the fire can usually limit the number of times units are triggered. If you aren't attacking in a sector don't move then you have effectively elliminated Defensive Fire. Some will get triggered when you Offensively fire but if you are careful you will get to fire at full strength and maybe half the defenders will get to fire at half strength.

I understand the idea of the system. Basically it introduced Opportunity Fire which was ment to limit the amount of parading around of regiments in front of an enemy line. I think its implementation is flawed. When Opportunity Fire was introduced into the board games it was a "free" shot at a lower value than regular Defensive Fire. The Defend would get these "Free" shots at the attacker as they moved and fired. It was "Free". No ammo used no quota of fire used up. The Defender at the end of movement still got the full Defensive Fire. Opportunity fire was just meant to discourage the Attacker from moving units in the open parrallel to lines of defenders like they were Dump, Deaf and Blind.

My suggestion is guarter the value for Opportunity Fire but make it a completely free shot. At the end of move/formation change/fire by attacker have everyone with LOS rip into them at full strength. Then have your melee.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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

<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 />Mark,

We were writting our comments at about the same time, so I was responding to Gilbert.

As for your comment, I think it could be tweaked a little to increase the likeliness of firing, I'll look into that. But we did make FP 100% before melee.

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">

Is FP "Firing Percentage or Fire Power?

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nelmsm</i>
<br /><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 />Mark,

As for your comment, I think it could be tweaked a little to increase the likeliness of firing, I'll look into that. But we did make FP 100% before melee.

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">

Is FP "Firing Percentage or Fire Power?

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

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

I can tell you from experience it is Fire Power, had a stack with 2 batteries and an infantry regiment meleed by the rebs, only the infantry shot, neither battery fired and naturally I lost the melee.

Gen. Ken Miller
1/2/VI
AoS

I like Kennon's solution to correcting the single turn play 'opportunity fire'. I could live with it halved or quartered as long as the defender does get full defensive fire during the turn.

Rich, you seem to indicate that this would halt offensives and make it harder to attack. Of course. It should. It <i>was<i></i> harder for the attacker in the Civil War. The defender does have the advantage.

You mentioned

[i] Your incorrect, In turn mode, a unit that changes formation, will very likely be fired upon. That is my point.[i]</i>


But, opportuniy fire is so lousy right now that so what. The defender does fire at the unit changing formation and gets a few casualties. What "3 or 4" men? Then the attacker changes into line and blasts back at full offensive fire and inflicts way more on the defender. That isn't Civil War combat either.



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

I don't see the tiny losses caused by defensive fire as much as most of you speak of. I've lost planty of men to defensive fire in the course of playing. Do most of you use the density fire modifier?

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

It will vary greatly. Sometimes the fire will be heavy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nelmsm</i>
<br />I don't see the tiny losses caused by defensive fire as much as most of you speak of. I've lost planty of men to defensive fire in the course of playing. Do most of you use the density fire modifier?

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

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

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