| American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC) http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/ |
|
| New Option: Disrupted units cannot advance..? http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13336 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Ross McDaniel [ Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | New Option: Disrupted units cannot advance..? |
Suggestion for a new option. I suggest that it be a before game start checkoff: <font color="yellow">Disrupted units may not advance into known enemy ZOCs. Already adjacent disrupted units may stay in place, but their disrupted moves must be away and stay clear from any known enemy ZOC(s). </font id="yellow"> We have touched on this subject before, but I cannot get our wonderful site search engine to find the threads on the topic. ie Try entering "disrupted units" for a view of the threadbare results. Disruption is supposed to portray the disorganization and loss of efficiency of units that are adjacent to routing units or have taken their own losses from enemy fire. Currently, fire power efficiency and movement factors are reduced. We often have discussions about how we can push units and get them to endure casualties and fatigue far beyond what was possible historically. Therefore our battles' results show far higher losses and battle contact than actually happened. If disrupted units could not advance into enemy ZOCs: 1. there would be much less advancing into point blank range with higher casualties. 2. there would be much less combat and ability to cut off enemy units' retreat routes. 3. A successful melee that could not be supported at its flanks might have to be given up or could not continue advancing until units in good order could be brought forward. 4. Players would have to practice better command control and unit placement to keep their forces at peak efficiency or suffer the consequences from a competent opponent. 5. Players would have to plan their offensives with reserve followup forces more meticulously. 6. I predict that there would be more draws and marginal victories. Is there any support for this option? If objections, please make your argument points. BG Ross McDaniel 2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG, CSA “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.†|
|
| Author: | Ross McDaniel [ Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
A corollary to this suggested option would be: <font color="yellow">Disrupted units may not advance past a skirmisher ZOC of an unknown enemy unit or into a 2nd skirmisher ZOC.</font id="yellow"> Skirmishers are the early warning system for larger units. I doubt that a disorganized unit would be likely to attack and drive them back on their main unit. This would also cut down on close combat contacts. BG Ross McDaniel 2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG, CSA "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale & undermine the military are saboteurs & should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." - A. Lincoln |
|
| Author: | mihalik [ Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi, Ross, I am against limiting disrupted units any more than they are. In fact, if it were up to me, I would allow disrupted units to melee at half strength like in the Napoleonics. Wouldn't have as much of a problem limiting high fatigue units though. I still think even that would lead to gamey tactics such as concentrating fire on one unit to run up its fatigue. One problem is with weak zones of control, a disrupted unit couldn't retreat the one hex if surrounded by ZOC, even if it had an escape route. I don't think that is realistic. Another problem is disruption caused by terrain would make attacks across swamps, abatis and other disrupting terrain almost impossible. I think also you have to look at what a hex represents. Theoretically, units in adjacent hexes could be anywhere from 1 YD to 250 YDS apart, but practically speaking the distance ought to represent center of hex to center of hex, or 125 yds. That is quite a distance. I think the excessive casualties in the games stem more from unrealistic stacking, communications and intelligence , as well as the inherent limitations of IGO-UGO, than the overuse of disrupted units. High fatigue units are another matter, but even they ought to be able to retreat through a weak ZOC. I certainly have no objection to an options button for those who think otherwise, but it's not for me. MG Mike Mihalik 1/III/AoMiss/CSA |
|
| Author: | Ross McDaniel [ Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thank you, Mike, for describing your objections. <font color="yellow">My responses</font id="yellow"> <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am against limiting disrupted units any more than they are. In fact, if it were up to me, I would allow disrupted units to melee at half strength like in the Napoleonics. <font color="yellow">I respectfully disagree. There are also too many melee attacks. Often, you might think that typical CW battles were units marching up, firing a volley and then launching a bayonet attack. (meleeing.) </font id="yellow"> Wouldn't have as much of a problem limiting high fatigue units though. <font color="yellow">I agree that high fatigue units should not melee.</font id="yellow"> I still think even that would lead to gamey tactics such as concentrating fire on one unit to run up its fatigue. <font color="yellow">I believe that that is a legitimate tactic. It pays to cripple dangerous and weak units. "Here comes the Old Guard! Shift all cannon fire to it before it can close!" </font id="yellow"> One problem is with weak zones of control, a disrupted unit couldn't retreat the one hex if surrounded by ZOC, even if it had an escape route. I don't think that is realistic. <font color="yellow">I agree that total immobilization is a problem, although it can be argued that a disrupted unit might be too disorganized to move against fire. However, I would be content with a rule that a surrounded and disrupted unit would be able to move to any adjacent open hex. </font id="yellow"> Another problem is disruption caused by terrain would make attacks across swamps, abatis and other disrupting terrain almost impossible. <font color="yellow">I would agree to the degree that even the present program is unsatisfactory. What if units in line formation could move one hex (and only one hex) into a swamp or town hex without disruption? That would work for me. </font id="yellow"> I think also you have to look at what a hex represents. Theoretically, units in adjacent hexes could be anywhere from 1 YD to 250 YDS apart, but practically speaking the distance ought to represent center of hex to center of hex, or 125 yds. That is quite a distance. <font color="yellow">I think that that is your best argument, although 125 yards in the open is guarenteed to be within effective rifle range bringing lots of casualties. Not so much in forests or towns. </font id="yellow"> I think the excessive casualties in the games stem more from unrealistic stacking, communications and intelligence , as well as the inherent limitations of IGO-UGO, than the overuse of disrupted units. High fatigue units are another matter, but even they ought to be able to retreat through a weak ZOC. -MG Mike Mihalik <font color="yellow">IGO-UGO, unlimited intel on acquired enemy informations and its communication from one end of the army to the other, and limitations through pbem cannot be helped much. Stacking could easily be done such as reducing unit factors in forested hexes, but it does not require game engine modification. Stacking could be modified by mutual agreement. For that matter, a lot of what I suggest could be played by opponents' mutual agreement. [;)] But it would be so much easier for players if the game engine would handle the restrictions so that mistakes would not be made. [8D] ie An inadvertent overstacking now would require wiping out progress and replaying the turn with acquired previous knowledge, possibly taking back dozens of moves... [B)] Such destroys the integrity and the enjoyment of the game.</font id="yellow"> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I believe that if we keep changes simple as possible that players will adapt quickly and easily while game designers will be more inclined to implement them.[8D] BG Ross McDaniel 2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG, CSA Stoop and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be shot at.-Carlos Urbizo Possibly crawling on all fours might be safer than standing upright, but we like the view better up there. –Isabel Paterson |
|
| Author: | KWhitehead [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thought I would put my two cents worth in.[:D] Stacking would address a lot of the problems with high casualties and excessive melees. I say Stacking and not Stacking limits because I prefer heavier target penalities for overstacking rather than limits. I do think there should be a limit on the number of men that can fire out of a hex. A hex is about 125 yards which is about the frontage of 300-400 men in two rank line. That should be the maximum that can fire out of a hex. If more men than that are in a hex then they are formed into a second line and only add to the target density. This should be expotential not linear affect on casualties. And, it should be much higher for artillery fire than rifle. The objective is to make using thousand man stacks to move adjacent and melee a weaker line a thing of the past. There is also a second part to this. Casualties of such a stack should be distributed throughout the stack with maybe the front unit taking a heavy part of the lost. The reason is people take advantage of the fact that one defender unit can fire only at one attacker so only one unit is at risk of being disrupted. The other approach is to put a stacking limit of 700 on hexes. I have played games with this and it will cut down on melees considerably. You just can't get enough men into the hex to get the 3:1 odds that insure victory. Both methods require that big regiments be split into demi-regiments in the OOB. You don't want to force people to overstack. Better FOW would stop the targeting of units to run up their fatigue. If you couldn't keep track of units and their fatigue levels you couldn't use this tactic. LG. Kennon Whitehead Chatham Grays 1/1/III AoM (CSA) |
|
| Author: | ALynn [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
All of Kennon's ideas would be best, though I would also be fine with a no forward movement into enemy ZOC for distrupted units. <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 />Thought I would put my two cents worth in.[:D] Stacking would address a lot of the problems with high casualties and excessive melees. I say Stacking and not Stacking limits because I prefer heavier target penalities for overstacking rather than limits. I do think there should be a limit on the number of men that can fire out of a hex. A hex is about 125 yards which is about the frontage of 300-400 men in two rank line. That should be the maximum that can fire out of a hex. If more men than that are in a hex then they are formed into a second line and only add to the target density. This should be expotential not linear affect on casualties. And, it should be much higher for artillery fire than rifle. The objective is to make using thousand man stacks to move adjacent and melee a weaker line a thing of the past. There is also a second part to this. Casualties of such a stack should be distributed throughout the stack with maybe the front unit taking a heavy part of the lost. The reason is people take advantage of the fact that one defender unit can fire only at one attacker so only one unit is at risk of being disrupted. The other approach is to put a stacking limit of 700 on hexes. I have played games with this and it will cut down on melees considerably. You just can't get enough men into the hex to get the 3:1 odds that insure victory. Both methods require that big regiments be split into demi-regiments in the OOB. You don't want to force people to overstack. Better FOW would stop the targeting of units to run up their fatigue. If you couldn't keep track of units and their fatigue levels you couldn't use this tactic. LG. Kennon Whitehead Chatham Grays 1/1/III AoM (CSA) <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Regards, Lt. Gen. Alan Lynn CSA Chief of Staff 3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA God Bless <>< |
|
| Author: | A de Mere [ Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Gentlemen: We must study the optional rules with many attention. The captured of artillery is a bad option. The attacker can shoot immediately with the captured cannons, but the defender cannot if it captures again them. My opinion is that it is not a good option, in many battles the units were fighting, were advancing, and even they were fulfilling a melee disruped: Chancellorsville, Pickett's charge, Chickamauga ... maybe the "blue paunches" could not but it is evident that we yes.[:D] Regards: Lt. General A. de Meré 1st Corps A.N.V. C.S.A. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|