American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Turn -vs- Phase Play (Which do you prefer?)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8110		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  D.S. Walter [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 10:39 am ]
Post subject: 
<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>
Havent played a human with that format yet as folks dont always know that the Nappy engine has the AI fire for them unlike the old days of the Battleground Napoleonic engine where you had to fire manually.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Has it? I can't find it--there is no ADF in the optional rules. I always thought that the HPS Nappy games have to be played with the usual six file exchanges per turn when played in phases.

That's about the only reason I don't use phased play in the Nappy games. I play four-phases almost exclusively in the ACW games.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
AoS
Author:  Joe Mishurda [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Gentlemen,

I play exclusively the multi-phase play in one on one battles as the offense and defense are more balanced. However, in multi-player games, I play the turn based play; that way there is only one file exchange between players per turn and each player gets to move fire and melee with their troops. The problem comes in panzer tactics of successive melees and running over the defender with the isolation rule. I believe a action point system and a stepped up penently for isolation as opposed to one big upfront penelty would solve these problems. My two cents worth.

BG Joseph C. Mishurda I

Joe Mishurda, The Cast Iron Division
2nd Div. XXV Corp, AoJ
Author:  Richard [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Both have good points and bad points, although neither is perfect. As Bill points out, perhaps multiphase mode with ADF added in as well would be best. Better still, add in the action point system from the Panzer series. Best of all, exchange turn based for a "We-Plot, We-Go" simultaneous movement system with pre-set tags for when to fire and whether to melee.


Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV
Author:  Rich Walker [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
I only play single phase. I haven't played the multi, since I stopped playing BG games.

Rich
Author:  mihalik [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
What I like about the single phase is the opportunity fire and the ability to change formation anytime during the turn. The reason we never play it anymore is that the opportunity fire is unpredictable and weak. The recent change that gives you the option to select mandatory fire before melee is a welcome step in the right direction, but probably not enough, particularly in the woods. What happens is the attacker moves adjacent to the defender and unloads with the whole stack at once, which minimizes defensive opportunity fire. Kelly Ross and I tried moving, firing and moving into melee with one unit at a time, which helped by increasing opportunity fire. But the replays took forever, so we gave up on it. I was surprised at Tillercon that so many played with single phase, because most of the veteran PBEMers I know have reverted to multiphase to restore proper balance.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA
Author:  Richard [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
I agree. Initially the single phase system seemed a real improvement ... until everyone realized just how ineffective and unreliable the defensive fire was. This is a real pity, since it makes it hard to play a decent game in single phase mode.

This is the main reason why I tried creating a few company level scenarios - for Blackburn Ford and Big Bethel - that have increased ranges and more effective fire factors at close range. With the extra units at company scale and longer ranges it's more practical to play in single phase than for a standard regimental scale game - provided of course there isn't much woodland.
Author:  PAW1860 [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I still like both, but the one phase does help when your opponent is limited for time.

If hot seat, I really prefer Manual Defensive Fire as I hate a computer doing anything, especially choosing who to fire at.

Each still has it's Pros and Cons, and I still like both and I am very glad to have flexibility to do so.



<font color="gold"><b>Lt. Col. </b></font id="gold">Paul Wakeman, <font color="limegreen">Sharpshooter</font id="limegreen">
<font color="beige">3rd</font id="beige"> '<font color="red">Jayhawk</font id="red">' <font color="beige">Brigade
1st Light Inf. Div.</font id="beige">
<b>XIX Corps, AoS,<font color="gold"> USA</font id="gold"></b>

Image

Cartographer
Image
Author:  CSAML872 [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 3:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Prefer the full 1/2 turn all at once. While the computer sometimes makes odd choices, it is not as if an army commander could direct all his brigades to fire exactly as he wished. Thus, I am ok with it when a unit fires differently than I would. It also makes the flow of the game move faster, and one gets less caught up in trying to remember the strategy one was to pursue.
MG Michael Laabs
3/III A of M
Author:  Harold Lajoie [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 6:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
I prefer the multi-phases turn.

First, I'm used to it, having experience with the battleground serie.
In three games with the single phase system, I notice that the offense can mount chirurgical operations with multiple melees and can reach the artillery that stand too close behind the first defensive line. The first wave creates a hole in the line and the second wave plunges into the gap and creates havoc in the rear. My opponent did it with infantry, I don't want to think what he could have done with a cavalry brigade... Ouch !!! Anyway, this tactic is closer to the WWII blizkrieg than to the ACW era.
It was very difficult to co-ordinate and execute an assault involving many formations in the ACW. For this reason, I think the multi-phases system is more representative, although not perfect. The defender, who is already penalized with the Automatic Defensive Fire, have a better chance to make a stand.


Maj. Harold Lajoie 3/2/I/AoM, CSA.
Image
Author:  D.S. Walter [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
<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>
I stand corrected. Its probably because I play the A/I once in awhile that I thought that you could select both Manual Defense Phase and ADF. ADF is NOT a selection. I remember now asking John to add it but he wanted it to be inherent for the Single Phase system. Not for the Multiphase system.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I wonder if this is just a carry-over from the BG system, where the Nappy games also had no ADF because you had to change formation in the Defensive Phase. However, with the HPS games you change formation in the Movement Phase, so the lack of ADF no longer makes sense.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
AoS
Author:  KWhitehead [ Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:24 am ]
Post subject: 
HPS calls it Turn Based (Manual Defeense Fire opition off, ADF on) but its really single phase (no separate phases for movement, fire and melee) as opposed to multiphase which is similar to our only choice in Battleground games.

While Turn Based is fun to play you will find it is more appropriate to World War II tactics than Civil War. From the point of view of simulating action in the Civil War is flawed in so many ways that no one fix will ever redeem it. These problems include defensive fire problems and blitzkrig tactics it allows. It does have one virtue, it allows multiplayer games to be played without a lot of emailing which is the only situation I play Turn Based in now.

For some reason people still say it speeds up a regular PBEM game but it doesn't unless you don't check the ADF option. It takes the same number of emails to play a Turn Based versus a Phased (with ADF) game for two people.

For HPS's Napoleonic games the Turn Based does speed up PBEM games since they don't have the ADF option. But to fix the tactical problems of the system requires you to add about a dozen player rules which basicly puts back phases in the turn so the players can't use breakthrough move-attack-move tactics.

The bottom line is forget the game has the Turn Based option accept for a multiplayer battle unless you really don't care whether you are playing Civil War era tactics.

BG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)
Author:  D.S. Walter [ Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Couldn't agree more.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
AoS
Author:  Al Amos [ Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:01 am ]
Post subject: 
IF you could change formation any time during the movement phase of the multi-phase style, then it would be okay, but that artificial restriction is as annoying to me, as not being able to move after fire is to Rich W.

Otherwise, find an opponent who will leave the tanks at home, and play single phase style.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!
Author:  Richard [ Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Al,

It's far more than just the inability to move after firing. It's the fact that an <i>action point </i>system linking movement, firing & melee would be far more flexible - and logical - than a "Blitzkrieger" system which permits full movement plus offensive firing plus melee.

Unfortunately, it doesn't make a great deal of difference whether players select single phase or multiphase mode, since the "Blitzkrieger" principle is still basically the same - multiphase does at least prevent melee breakthroughs plus further movement and additional melees, but it's far from perfect. However, an action point system would be more beneficial to a static defender - providing more defensive firepower, which certainly makes sense. Also, while the attacker could march up, his units probably wouldn't have enough action points left to fire and/or melee until the following turn.

This game engine is seriously flawed and desperately needs a fix to shift the balance away from the attacker and over-reliance on ahistorical ZOC melee eliminations - an action point system would probably be enough to achieve this without needing any other engine changes. At least it would give the defender a decent chance of retreating before getting blitzed!

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV
Author:  HomerS [ Thu Jul 28, 2005 4:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
I have to say I ABHORE this system with it's Blitzkrieg. It is COMPLETELY ahistorical. I will do anything I can to avoid it again.

Major General Don Golen
2nd Brig/3rd Div/ I Corps/
Army of the Potomac, USA!
"The Bucktails"
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/