|
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Theron Lambert</i>
<br />Rich &/or Bill,
With regard to the skirmisher overrun rule, the problem that I and at least quite a few others had with it was more routing units overrunning skirmishers in the woods and such, not the fact that a retreating non-routed battalion of 800 men could crush 75 skirmishers in their path. It seems that the option to just turn off the rule goes a bit too far -- it eliminates the benefit of making players be reasonable in their use of skirmishers which was a good thing about the rule. Again, my problem was that a routing unit could take out a skirmish line in the woods, or a village. My personal preference would be forcing a melee between the retreating unit and the skirmisher -- if the retreating unit (modified as it normally would be for disorder, rout, isolation, etc.) wins then the skirmisher is pushed aside with appropriate losses and the retreat or rout continues. I realize, of course, that that is a programming issue, but since the melee program is already written it shouldn't be terribly difficult. Anyway, this is what I want and (speaking as someone that only owns Eckmuhl at the moment -- although I ordered Waterloo and am wondering if it shipped by carrier pigeon by way of Siberia) would be more inclined to pay for.
Regards,
General Theron Lambert
Comte d'Angers et Duc de Montereau
3rd Brigade, 3rd Division
VI Corps
Armee du Rhin
Commandant de la Division de Cavalerie de la Moyenne Garde
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Theron - send a note to John about this via Rich's tech support. The more folks that talk to John about having certain types of terrain like a chateau hex off limits to the rule the more chance we have of seeing it come into being.
We discussed this all at length. When I put the initial message to John and Rich I feel that I was way too broad in my approach. My idea was to make it harder for skirmishers to be overrun in certain types of terrain but not impossible. I probably hit John's timescale threshold with my concept and his response at this time was to give you guys the option of using the rule or not using the rule.
For now that suffices me and again, I ask you guys - please use the Tech Support email. I get comments all the time like "Well I like to post here and this and that" but if you dont email John via Rich with ideas then the guy that makes the decisions in the end will never hear from you. I tire of trying to convince John that you guys want something when he has never heard from you on it.
So ... I will NEVER campaign for any change in this engine again without the weight of emails from gamers. Its not right to expect Rich and I to put up a suggestion that will help YOU the gamer if we dont have the firepower of say 20-30 emails to back it up.
Why should Rich or I champion a cause, send John 3-5 emails on a subject when he hasnt heard from you guys on it?
Rich is in charge of the Tech Support. Like Glenn Saunders he hears alot of ideas on the boards but many folks dont back it up with a simple email.
I remember one change I wanted in the past. John wouldnt go for it. Then ONE guy emailed John basically backing up the idea. In two days I had a new engine with the code change.
Now whoa - I am not saying that your emails will definitely mean that a change WILL happen. I am saying that it gives us firepower when we go to John for a change. OR He sends me a new engine with a note saying "Try this out - the guys have been asking for .... " - I give it whirl and we are in business.
Sometimes I get an engine with a change that doesnt seem to fix the problem. This may be one of them but for some guys at this stage of the game they wanted to at least have the option to avoid using the rule even if it meant re-adopting House Rules to enforce proper melee ediquette.
In the end - John had three other series that needed changes at this point. This is not the end of the matter I hope. Send in your view of the new fix. Let John know how you feel.
My original idea was a bit too broad. If we can narrow it down to chateau hexes that will really help. Get those terrain types to be off limits to overruns.
OR
Give it a percentage value based on the size of the unit making the overrun vs. the defenders in the hex.
Now in the end guys - we all know that if you make the attack you can almost with a certainty determine the hex that the unit will retreat to. One reason why I wont push too much on this is that the Attacker can know where the defender will retreat to based on some basic rules which we have posted before.
If you need those retreat rules posted again to help you out let me know. I have them in text form and plan on putting a full blown webpage together. They are based on the Weak ZOC rule being in effect.
Rich rightly pointed out that we see far too many losses in the battles. The Skirmisher Overrun rule was put into effect to stop the practice of folks using skirmishers to surround large battalians. Yes, small groups of men are just as hard to remove at times but frankly I prefer the good than the bad of the rule.
The Attacker makes the choice - to attack or not to attack. Thus if he attacks and a skirmisher gets overrun in a chateau hex then it wasnt the fault of the game or the Defender!
On the other hand, time permitting, we will try and get something done to protect the chateau hexes at least.
I will not press for woods as the term usually meant wood lot. These are normally not dense woods on our maps.
And yes, one suggestion I made long ago was to have the skirmishers/leaders (not wagons) displaced rather than eliminated. This saves on casualties too. This didnt fly.
If you like that concept then be heard - send John an email.
But dont expect me to champion a cause based on Tavern postings.
Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]
|
NWC
Login
FAQ
