Altered staking limits - I was only referring to this in terms of reducing stacking limits -and if the scenario had any stacks that are now overstacked. . . hrm - maybe I was thinking about adjusting manpower in the OOB already used in a scenario, or dividing up the manpower in a different way - say having 1000 men or reducing 1000 to 500 and adding in a second unit. It has been a little while.
The melee phase one, I don't know: - I would take Bill's response in the context of someone who would have been in the position to have proposed a number of engine changes over the years. It doesn't sound like it actually interferes with the cavalry charge movement from a technical standpoint.
The cavalry thing, without getting in to things too far, my guess is that I don't know that it wasn't ever proposed at some point. *If* that is the case, then it would be fair to assume that it did not get through.
__
One thing that I forgot to post, about the stacking is that the opposite point to this is, that too many breakdowns can lead to an artificially spread out battle too; so there is a balancing point. Keep in mind though that I am not talking about NB specifically, but rather scenario design and OOB structures -meaning that I am sure it is possible to argue Napoleonic situations, but my point is more about the engine itself. Or more what I am getting at is if you take a 500 man cavalry unit, leave the default breakdown amount into 5 units (it might be 4 for all I know - but you can set this in the pdt's), you are also in effect saying that it was possible, and a tactic at the time to be able to spread that unit over the space of 500 meters -or really more than that as command control does not limit movement -is that really how they were used across the entire range of an OOB?
My personal opinion is that they couldn't have been, not all of them - cavalry had different functions as was pointed out. I don't know that the ability to function is not something that can't be addressed in the OOB and PDT files jointly.
|