An interesting proposal though I wouldn't know if the programming requirements would be either applicable, practical or as easy as you say for the ACW games. Funny, I was a playtester for several SB games and don't remember action points per se...I guess it was too long ago to remember.
What this suggestion does remind me of is how most miniature game rules are structured for our era. Move full and cannot fire except in defense at the moment of being meleed. Move half or less and fire at one half strength, do not move at all and fire full if in range. Th Bg system is simmilar but the blitz system isn't.
Unless I am wrong, if so I will be corrected, but I have always thought that in the phased play of BG and HPS games, that a stationary firer always fires at greater strength than a unit that moves and then fires. And I thought that is why you might notice that after moving full or otherwise, that the ADF fire against you (from the defenders who have not moved) always seems to take more casualties than you take in your following offensive fire phase AFTER you have moved (relatively of course...depending on number of units both of you are firing).
It sounds like the example you are using is single phase play i.e. the single phase blitz because that is the only time a unit will fire back while you are moving as in opportunity fire in modern games, when you move into their LOS on the way to your destination and melee...as you say moving, firing and meleeing. That does seem to favor attacking and an aggressive player. So I agree that is the often the case. Unless the player is smart enough to bring along numerous troops so the he can stand off and fire disrupting the target and then move in with additional troops to follow up immediately with melee, he runs the risk of having some of his mounted troops disrupted by the opportunity fire.
So it is the mechanics of the "blitz" one-phased play that the "you move, he shoots, you shoot, you melee" format of multiphase play that moves you to want "action points" or for both formats?
Interesting suggestion though I would think that it would require a whole new engine not just major tweaking but then that is what it sounds like you are proposing. It appears to me it is more than just "adding another new feature or optional rules."
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />As we all know, units can move their full movement allowance, then fire at full effect and then melee too, yet they can't remain stationary and fire two or three times instead, nor can they fire and then fall back. This really doesn't make a lot of sense!
Consequently, the current system heavily favours the attacker, who can rush forward, fire at full effectiveness and then melee, while the defender may (or may not) get in a few ADF volleys, often only at medium to long range.
The current system also heavily penalizes a defending or retreating army, since it's not possible for a static defender to trade unused movement allowance for extra firepower, nor can a unit fire before retreating, but must retreat and then - if still in range - fire at long range.
It makes sense that if a unit isn't spending time moving, it could be using that time for reloading and firing instead ... and of course that's just what a static defending force would be doing.
Similarly, if a unit has already used up its full movement allowance, why has it still got sufficient time to fire and then melee too?
So, while HPS has introduced many other useful new features to the original 1990s engine, surely it's high time to update the old BG combat system and replace it with a more flexible - and more realistic - action point system?
The PzC, modern and squad battles engines use an action point system, so why not the earlier games too? Surely a 20 minute time slot worked in exactly the same way pre-1900 as post 1900, so if a unit wasn't spending that time marching forward toward the enemy, he could be spending it reloading and then firing again, or else falling back after having fired?
Brig. Gen. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Colonel Tom Ciampa
2nd Bgde,1st Cav
XIV Corps, AoC
Games: TS/BG: AN, BR, CH, GB, SH - HPS: AT, CTH, GB, OZK, SH, VK