| American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC) http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/ |
|
| Infantry Melee Calvary http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7956 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | Al Amos [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
"reduce max stacking by 3/4" - Rich W Rich this can be done without changing ground scale. There's plenty of 'space' in each hex with 1,000 men. <hr noshade size="1"> As to ground scale I thought it was 125 yards per hex in the ACW engine. If correct, that would allow 204 files across a hex, or 408 men in a regiment. Now touching on the 'COLUMN MELEE' issue. At full interval (ie the distance of the width of the regt being between the two regts) then 2-400 man regts could stack in a hex. At half-interval (closed column) 3-400 man rgts could stack in a hex. As you see then with 2, or 3 units in line in one hex you can protray a BDE COLUMN and conduct a 'wave' assault so common in this war. As for all being able to fire, that would be appropriate as passage of lines would be easy enough to do. So stacking could (should) be 1,200, and having several units in a stack represents a BDE COLUMN with RGTs in LINE, a very common formation on the Civil War battlefield. Now prior to committing to an assualt more space would be used between units, so the column would be multiple hexes deep. Incidentally, when using units of less than 400 men then the BDE COLUMN formation would be modified with multiple rgts per line instead of just one. Engine tweaks to make it all work.... Bring in from the Napoleonic engine the following: <ul><li>Pass Through Fire for multiple lines in one hex.</li><li>Target Density</li><li>Extended Line Formation (modified, as it should be in the Nap engine anyway.) The modification should be where units going into line AUTOMATICALLY go into multiple hexes if over a certain limit, imo 400 men.</li></ul> Adding these three features would greatly improve the game play, in terms of allowing historical tactics, imo. Then having all units check in a hex for disruption if any disrupt from movement or fire would serve to hold down the MASS MELEE syndrome. MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos 3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC The Union Forever! Huzzah! |
|
| Author: | KWhitehead [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The best numbers I have been able to come up with is that a regiment deployed in two rank line takes about one foot of frontage per man. This is a composite number from a number of sources but for example a British regiment of 550 men had a 688 foot frontage when deployed in two ranks. While stacking if considered one regiment behind another could pack a huge number of men into a 125 yard hex, it is questionable how many would be affective for anything other than stopping lead.[:)] What would probably better reflect the simulation would be limiting the fire out of a hex to the two rank frontage it can actually support which would be 400-500 men. Rather than a stacking limit there should be a fire density penalty and it probably should be expotential to reflect how affective rifle and cannon fire become as the troop density increases. The casualties should be at least partially destributed throughout the stack. Melee is a more difficult thing to quantify. Assualts with regiments in column were common to increase the number of men for the final melee but there is probably a point of decreasing value (the men just get in each others way). Also to allow more men to melee than the current limit would require using a different melee resolution since now having more guanrantees a win. Probably melee should be a moral based resolution with a manpower modifier rather than a manpower based calculation with a morale modifier. BG. Kennon Whitehead Chatham Grays III Corps, AoM (CSA) |
|
| Author: | Col. B [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
In the battle of Selma, there was a mounted cav charge against fortifications...and it worked! The fortifications were woefully undermanned, but it still worked. As for "fixing" mounted melees against infantry, while it can be disconcerting and ahistorical, the damage inflicted on the cav units as they try to extricate themselves should more than make up for any pain they inflicted (unless you left your arty unsupported[B)]). Besides, with the higher VP values in CG and the new optional melee firing rule in shiloh, I say mount'em up and bring'em on. If my opponent doesn't pay dearly the first time, he will deeply regret the second mounted charge[xx(]. Maj. Gen. Beno Pickett's Division, I Corps, ANV |
|
| Author: | pierred [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Whoever heard of a dead cavalryman! Cavalry were more flexible as to how they could get out of trouble. I think that this is reflected in the inability to melee cavalry by infantry. Best Regards, General Pierre D. CSA Reserve Corps President, ACWGC |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|