Jim Pfleck wrote:
You are correct, defensive fire does not happen enough and the game heavily favors the attacker and the side taking the initiative. The attacker forces the other side to check for routs, which in turn spread disorder.
That the favor is with the attacker is OK but it simply shouldn't be so lopsided, what it unfortunately is under turn gameplay.
Jim Pfleck wrote:
I agree that some sort of full melee defensive fire is needed for units in line, skirmishers, and artillery. Again, this goes back to changes we are unlikely to see. To me, much of the problem is solved by lower stacking density (like 1200 or 1000-Tom Moore and I are playing a Ligny Quatre Bras game with low staking and phased based).
Strange, when ever the stacking limit comes up it's about Waterloo, it's strange because it has the best example of the most dense formation used in the Napoleonic Wars. If the Waterloo Companion is correct the way it depict Marcognet's 3rd division than that formation took an area of 125x75 meters and it was about 4000 men strong. In my opinion that is the reason why the stacking limit in the Waterloo game is even higher than the 1800 that are usually used in the games by Bill Peters, but even this higher limit is not enough to reenact that dense formation.
AFAIk those complaining about stacking limit have a problem that such huge stacks can conduct melee, but for that you do not need to lower the stacking limit.
1. Optional Rule "Column Pass Through Fire" makes him pay stacking multiple units together.
2. Optional Rule "Target Density Modifier" makes him pay stacking over 2/3 of stacking limit.
3. Finally one can consider a house rule that allows only a certain number of units or men to melee. It seems indeed strange how 1800 men or even more can melee a line of just 100 meters and all men of the attacker have an impact in the melee result, I doubt that those further behind had even the chance to see the enemy so what impact could they have had in the melee? Just a minor one I guess.
I had already formed a house rule but it's currently untested:
- Limit melee attacker strength:
1. The Attacker can only melee with a single unit above the extended line value from a single hex.
2. Attacker can attack with multiple units from a single hex if the amount of attacking men does not exceed the extended line value.
3. If attacking from different hexes not more than 1 unit per hex can attack.
Jim Pfleck wrote:
But I agree with Paco, these games were designed to be played in turn based play and all the games are tested that way (as far as I know). The phased base is left over from the battleground games and some battles and scenarios, such as Borodino, Ligny, and Waterloo have tons of dead ground that makes it easier to sneak up and take little to no defensive fire.
Well if the games were really designed to be played in turns the design goal was not reached, the player has neither the influence he needs nor the tools to somehow make sense of what the AI does. That the turn mode is basically still a failure can be best seen in the CW series. There I also use phased gameplay and not only because of all the benefits but also because it's rather unfair for the Confederate if you force them to play turns because the AI defensive will often waste the always low artillery ammunition of the Confederates. Somewhere along the many discussions I had about the best set of Optional Rules someone mentioned the desperate measures that the Confederates have to take in turn gameplay to make sure ammo is not wasted, they simply turn the guns around making sure that the AI fire can't be triggered, that alone proves the failure of the turn design if players have to resort to such measures.
It sounds ungrateful but it's simply a fact that much more programming is needed to make the turn gameplay work.
Steel Panthers is a good example how turn gameplay can work, the latest edition by Shrapnel Games allows setting filters so that your units can react to what the opponent does. Setting the filters(range, target type, etc.) correctly will lead to Tiger tanks reacting to Russian T-34 and not to infantry, unarmored vehicles or other stuff that is simply not worth a Tigers attention. The other way it goes well too, set it correctly for infantry an it will let other infantry and unarmored vehicles pass but it will react to tanks and use its AT assets like Panzerfaust, Bazooka, etc. to knock it out. If we would have such a thing I can see AI defensive fire work because it would onyl do what the player wants.
Regarding dead ground & cover, one must consider that the AI defensive fire can come at any range usually it will be at a higher range than manual defensive fire because that would come after enemy has finished his movement and so is usually closer to you, that makes your defensive fire more effective, if you can doge it from time to time by dead ground & cover I don't mind as long as my fire is effective when I have him in my sight.