<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Hamilton</i>
<br />Tris,
The pond error has already been addressed and will be include with the patch...when that finally makes it out. Will look at the other.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks for the attention, Rich. (Although in this case it's possible for the user to pick up the error with the editor. Still, it would be good for the company to correct this error for publication down the road.)
There's other stuff, too. For instance, all sorts of instances where the map graphics do not coincide with the map terrain--this in the Nappy games, too--that I've caught over the years. It's usually the case that you run into what looks to be clear hex, because that's what the map shows, but in reality it's an orchard or forest hex, etc. Or the map will show a road through an orchard hexside, but in reality that road doesn't exist. Not big stuff, but more than a little irritating in play, and the kind of detail that might be (should be) corrected.
Another example: in one of the scenarios that uses the Rappahannock map (not sure which one--I ran into it playing the campaign, so it might just be one of the Union options that's errant, no way to tell without going in there) one of Hill's divisions arrives off the south map edge so late in the scenario that it can barely march to Stevensburg at full throttle before the scenario ends, much less get involved in the action, which is basically all up the left-hand corner of the board.
The point is I believe there's a lot to look at. What I offer are a few <i>examples</i>.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Zip up your OOB and include a detailed note on why it is better/what exactly it will add to the game and send me a copy of it at Support at hpssims.com We'll check it out, and if its agreed to by John & Doug we'll include it with the patch.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't know about the "better" part, just more detailed. It's for the player to determine how detailed he wishes to get. Which is why it's important to offer a way to break units down inside the game, not inside of the OOB--and a locked one at that--for in such a case then players could decide for themselves.
This game is regimental level. That doesn't mean you want a bunch of regiments running around the board, unless you're trying get back to the good old days of Avalon Hill. What it <i>should</i> mean is that at the <i>regimental level</i> you're looking to simulate (more or less) this period of military history. With that in mind, it should be obvious that one would wish to have the ability to <i>break down these regimental entities into their component parts</i>. That doesn't mean you have to represent individual companies, but at least have the ability to make abstract "battalions" or whatever you want to call them from the infantry regiments, and "squadrons" or whatever you wish to call them from the cavalry. Same same for artillery. Batteries should at the least be breakable into logical sections, along with leaders to lead those sections. (Each battery ought to have its own commander as well. Those are included in my OOB, and I hope you don't need to be told why that's important. If so, what's the point in submitting my OOB in the first place? Just so everyone around HPS can have a good morning laugh at my expense?) In that manner players could then begin to employ their regimental units in a somewhat more historical fashion--you know, like spread them out when needed, keep a regimental reserve on hand, and like that.
For cavalry this is even more critical.
Cavalry in the Civil War acted primarily as the scouting arm. Even when aggressive commanders like Buford did dismount sizeable units (at Gettysburg, as we know, two full brigades) to use as a kind of infantry, these troopers would normally be spread out and employed more to <i>delay</i> the enemy, assuming it was enemy infantry in strength. And it would rarely be the case that the cavalry would suffer all that many casualties. Check out the losses to Buford's force that first day. His troopers hardly lost anyone at all (comparatively speaking), and this after hours of delaying action along a picket line that stretched for some two miles. But of course none of this is possible given the present system mechanics and the rigid and ahistoric OOB structure.
Doesn't that bother you? Especially since it would be a snap to fix. At least to fix part of the equation, the OOB part of it. The battle mechanics are a separate (but equally culpable) issue.
Regardless, cavalry did sometimes maneuver as a whole regiments, just cantering (well, at that with the mounts usually at a walk) down the road, but even then there'd be people out left, front and center looking around. You know? And sure, we have a few cavalry actions <i>per se</i>, but these were the exception, hardly the norm. In fact, these rare cavalry actions are more the <i>proverbial exceptions which prove the norm</i>.
For <i>as a rule</i> a Civil War cavalry regiment would be found broken down into countless smaller packets of men, all off these off somewhere doing this, that or the other. To neglect this reality is to render the simulation hopeless from scratch in that respect.
So, the infantry and the cavalry <i>and</i> the artillery cannot even be broken down historically, and I haven't touched on leaders yet, and all that that entails, though I easily could. So what's left? Well, a game, that's what's left. To call it a simulation is an awful stretch. It <i>could</i> be a simulation, and my work on the OOB which your software refuses to load was an effort to help the system along in that (as I view it) worthwhile direction.
Anyway, for whatever it's worth I will send that OOB along, and include my rationale for doing what I did. You people can do what you want with after that. I don't see that as a do-or-die issue. The real problem is the company paranoia with regard to home brews in general. I just can't see a whole lot positive happening until you get over that mental hurdle.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And sorry for the spelling errors...you can tell I rely on spell check a bit too much. [:0]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I didn't even know this board software supported a spellchecker. I haven't found one, but then I haven't looked awful hard, either. When I think about it I run my copy through Cetus WordPad before posting, but as often as not I don't think about it, and then I'm left to edit my copy a thousand times to eliminate the thousands mistakes I usually believe behind. It happens. <g>
Anyway, thank you for your prompt response. I realize it can't be easy to come on a board where you just want to pal around in ah hobby sense and get blasted for this or that. I don't mean to blast you, exactly. I've bought more than my share of HPS product to date, for whatever that's worth, so it's not as if I'm not willing to put my money where my mouth is at least.
Tale care, Rich.
|