Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Colonial Campaigns Club

*   CCC Join   New Game Entry   End Game Entry

*   CCC Staff   CCC Rules   FAQ   About the CCC   Awards Center   Training Center

*   The British Armies in America

* Continental American Army

* l'Armée de Terre Royale (French Army)

* Indian Alliance

 

Club Forums:     NWC    ACWGC     Home Pages:     NWC    ACWGC    CCC
It is currently Fri Jun 20, 2025 7:07 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:13 pm 
I have been "testing" and thinking about the "Line Movement Disruption" for quite some time. And now I'd like to bounce this idea off the list.

The conclusion I'm coming to (though I am still subject to subtle influence from my colleagues) is that there is a good reason for "Line Movement Disruption" to be OPTIONAL - - because it
kind of stinks.

Let's review what the DISRUPTED state does:
1) it makes a unit more vulnerable to melee (excellent);
2) it reduces movement by half (hey what?); and
3) a disrupted unit can NEVER initiate a melee (what the heck?!).

While I understand the logic that a disrupted unit needs
additional time getting itself organized, and so cannot
be expected to travel as far in a given turn - - without
a nearby officer, it may NEVER un-disrupt, and it is permanently
traveling at half-pace. If units could un-disrupt WITHOUT
officers, it would make sense to temporarily penalize a unit
in terms of movement. But in many cases, there are just not
enough officers to go around. And when a ROUTED unit (which is
MAXIMALLY disrupted) can travel faster than a disrupted unit,
then I think it's not a very reasonable "option".

And while I agree that disruption *should* make a unit more
vulnerable to melee..... if a unit is large and with good morale,
it should still be able to initiate melee (at a significant
cost to its effectiveness, naturally).

A number of British units were QUITE disrupted/disorganized at
Cowpens.... but they went for the charge anyway! And, of course,
they got clobbered. But at least it's a choice and risk that
someone should be able to make - - degrees of disruption (like
morale) rather than an ON/OFF condition.

Am I saying that the game system is bad? Nope. I **LOVE** the
game engine! The thought of me trying to write the code to do
what the system does automatically induces a coma.

What I am saying, and I want to say it with as much respect and
compassion as I can muster, is that the OPTION of the line disruption
unit puts unreasonable restrictions on the movement and action of units.

Since there is no way to adjust the penalties created by DISRUPTION,
then the only response I can consider is to choose an option (or not choose one) that will make it as rare as possible.

Okay.... I'll get down off my barrel now (that would be a cannon
barrel).

And I will certainly shake the hand of any man (or woman) who LOVES the disruption option.

Regards,

George Brooks
Tampa, FL


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
POWERED_BY
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr