I agree that defensive fire is too random and ineffective - this results in the attacker having greater firepower and allows him to move into contact & melee with only a small risk of getting disrupted or suffering significant losses. So, basically the advantage lies squarely with the attacker, which doesn't make a lot of sense.
Perhaps the defender needs to fire more frequently? Or fire at 100% effectiveness? Or each defending unit should get at least three shots at the enemy, determined by range settings?
Another possible solution to the weak defender / strong attacker issue might be to move over to an <i><b>action point </b></i>system, like the WW2 engine. At the moment, with the current system, an attacking unit can use up its <i>full</i> movement allowance, then fire and then melee too! But with an action point system, if a unit used up more than 2/3 of its allowance it wouldn't be able to fire. Also, in order to melee, a unit (or at least infantry) normally requires most of its action point allocation - so an attacking unit would need to start out adjacent or maybe one hex away from the defender in order to melee. Of course, if an attacker started out adjacent to the defender the unit could instead fire three times (if it didn't move or melee), but the defender would probably fire back three times too, and if the defender had breastworks or trenches and artillery support, the attacker would tend to come off worst in a firefight. This would result in the attacker needing significant numerical superiority to take a position by direct assault, preferably after softening up the target with an artillery bombardment in advance.
So, in my opinion, an action point system might well be the best solution - for the EAW and Nappy games as well as ACW - and it wouldn't need any new code, since it could be carried straight over from the WW2 series.
Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV
|