"Oh, no ZOC's are a must. No ZOC="Blitzkrieg" moves. Any "hole" left in the line automatically becomes a road to your rear. No defense other than an every-hex defense would have any viability." -Gary
The first line of battle would need to be a solid as possible, but the second and third lines would have to have gaps to funnel troops to and from the battle.
----
Has anyone seen the movie Gettysburg? (hehehe[:p]) Did you notice the Rebs formed up with regiments in line formation to cross the mile or so gap in Pickett's charge? Now how do most of us cover the same ground in that situation? Let me guess, in column until about 6 hexes then line?
I still tell you all, the majority of the abuses mentioned with these games lies as the feet of the player who refuses to learn and practice the procedures of the era they game. Instead, evey game is a colorful version of 'easy play WWII'.
Are they wrong? Only if they then complain the engine does not model the time era properly. If they are just wanting to 'play' a game without holding themselves to the 'rules' of the game, then they should not expect a realistic outcome.
The 'Rules' of the game I refer to is how armies actually fought in that era, not the engine capabilities. IF historical commanders were trained to maintain two battle lines with a certain distance between, then we should. IF units were taught to form and manuevre in line, then we should.
There are drill books and regulations available on line for players to study. Did historical commanders follow the book exactly, everytime? NO, but they used it for a reference point. The method of forming up for battle was the norm, and the base for exceptions to be made from.
Leaders rose up through the ranks learning thier trade as they went. They learned how to deploy a regiment, and use a regiment in battle, the the brigade, then the division, the the corps and then the army.
We jump right in at the army level, not using the regiments, brigades, divisions and corps properly, and being greatly dissappointed with the end results. We say the engine is bad, and needs this or that adjustment.
Well, I disagreee. When a scenario is about to be played there are three groups bringing things to the table to make that scenario: the programmer, the designer and the players. If any of these groups have not done their research properly they short-change the experience.
I have been in games where all three groups brought an appropriate level of understanding of the era, and guess what? The game played out as the historical battles read. The outcomes were different from history, because different strategies were used, but these different strategies where conducted within the proper framework of historical army doctrine, training and practice.
I think if people would stop trying to be army commanders and take the time to play several games where they are only a brigade, and then division commander they would find once they went back to army level the games would be more 'realistic'. They would have learned their trade at the lower levels as their real life counterparts did.
This is my opinion. Learn the time period. Study and practice the art of war in the era of your choice from the lowest levels. Then try being the head chief. If you don't wish to take this time, that's okay, just hold back critizing the game engine then, because the flaws you percieve in the games you play could be a result of your own errors, not the game engine's.
MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!
|