Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

My suggestions...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> John Tiller's Battleground Series >> My suggestions... Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
My suggestions... - 1/5/2007 2:32:09 AM   
semper fi

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline
I’ve always been a big fan of the TalonSoft Battleground series of games. Here are some ideas I would like to see incorporated into the games:

· The ability to converge the fire of units from the same infantry brigade or artillery battalion into one fire attack. Small units have an almost impossible chance of hitting most times. As a restriction, the units should be in the same or adjacent hex.

· A revamped supply rule. There is an inconsistency for small infantry battalions/regiments drawing supply than large units. A 50-man unit will not draw as much supply as an 800-man unit. A possible solution is to assign a value, such as 5,000, to a supply wagon. Each time an unit draws supply it will reduce the supply strength of the wagon remaining number of men in the unit i.e. a 250-man regiment will draw 250-points of supply.

· The ability to converge infantry units of the same brigade if the has suffered losses. This way units could be brought back up to full strength. Obviously, some restrictions will apply (1) units will not be able to exceed their original strength (2) the weapons types of each unit must be the same (3) units will assume the lower moral of the two units and (4) the fatigue would be averaged out between the units.

· The ability to converge artillery units. Same restrictions as for infantry, but artillery units from different commands may merge.

· Any unit adjacent to an enemy unit and within it’s ZOC, should be considered “Engaged.” This means that if a unit attempts to move in any manner, then it will prompt a free “Opportunity fire” by any adjacent unit. This should only count during the movement phase. Too often, I’ve seen units in this situation disengage by moving away from their opponent. To disengage from an enemy in contact is one of the hardest things to do and he will not let you did it freely.

· Unless stacked with a leader, units must fire at the closest enemy.

· Isolated units have a chance of surrendering (removed from play). At the end of a players turn any friendly isolated unit must make a moral check or surrender. Non-routed isolated unit must make this check if the surrounding enemy units strength equal or outnumber the friendly unit. Isolated routed units automatically surrender regardless of the surrounding enemy units strength.

· Revamp the movement rates to in the Civil War games:
o Reduce the cavalry speed Games to 18. They are a little fast and too maneuverable.
o Increase the movement rate for Infantry in line to 3 per clear hex.
o Reduce the movement penalties for column moving in forest, orchards, marshes and rough by one.

· Artillery should also be able to pivot in the same hex and still be able to fire.

· Infantry and dismounted cavalry should get a free pivot (no movement penalty to firing). Possible only limited it to a 1-hex side free pivot.

· Mounted cavalry should be able to fire although at some type of penalty.

· Shorten the Napoleonic Battleground Games turn sequence to reflect the Civil War games…if possible. The Napoleonic games had too many phases in the turn sequence and took to long…especially in play by Email games.
Post #: 1
RE: My suggestions... - 1/6/2007 2:32:00 AM   
rhondabrwn


Posts: 2570
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline
Some good ideas there! I especially agree about the supply wagons.

You raise an interesting point though, with your suggestion about being able to combine decimated units. I have to ask: did that ever actually happen in Civil War combat? Yea, stragglers and routed troops could be rallied to make a stand (which would be "stacking" in game terms), but actual combination of units on the battlefield? I can't recall ever seeing or hearing anything about that.

I agree though that I hate having these little 7 man remnants running around the battlefield looking like an actual effective unit!

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics :(

(in reply to semper fi)
Post #: 2
RE: My suggestions... - 1/6/2007 5:32:38 AM   
General

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
Looks like some good suggestions.
I would add giving fatigue to artillery units moving more than twice during the night.


(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 3
RE: My suggestions... - 1/6/2007 1:09:10 PM   
Luciano B

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Italy
Status: offline
Very interesting suggestions

I agree with you in particular for the shorter turn sequence for napoleonic games.

(in reply to General)
Post #: 4
RE: My suggestions... - 1/7/2007 3:15:01 AM   
semper fi

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline
To all:
 Thanks for your replies and good points. One clarification I should make about combining units. It is not the actual transferring of men from one regiment to another, but the battalions/regiments operating in close concert that they would be indistinguishable from each other.

(in reply to Luciano B)
Post #: 5
RE: My suggestions... - 6/8/2007 1:53:49 PM   
BK6583

 

Posts: 411
Joined: 10/8/2002
Status: offline
I played all of these extensively too. However, what finally just plain discouraged me from playing the Napoleonic versions and what I would dearly loved fixed involves the sequence of play between artillery and cavalry charges. If you've ever played "Horse and Musket" and tried a cavalry charge against artillery the chances were you suffered considerable losses and probably routed. That's because the artillery was afforded the ability to fire defensively when the cavalry moved adjacent to them. In the Battleground Napoleonic series, cavalry gets to charge AFTER the defensive fire sequence. Yes, IIRC you were afforded an opportunity to defensively fire on moving cavalry but a good opponent knew how to maximize terrain masking and by and large avoid it or least be at a range where the arty wasn't as effective. At any rate, cavalry could basically charge with complete impunity against tons of artillery units because none of the artillery could fire when the cavalry charge was one hex or adjacent to the artillery, where they were at their most effective. In my view, this needs to be reexamined, because as it now stands, it's just too unrealistic.

(in reply to semper fi)
Post #: 6
RE: My suggestions... - 6/9/2007 12:47:29 AM   
YohanTM2

 

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline
Well, yes and no.

I am not aware of many instances when unsupported artillery could stand up to a cavalry charge. The gunners would not stand a chance. Artillery is not a tank. Heck, even disciplined infantry in line usually broke.


quote:

ORIGINAL: BK6583

I played all of these extensively too. However, what finally just plain discouraged me from playing the Napoleonic versions and what I would dearly loved fixed involves the sequence of play between artillery and cavalry charges. If you've ever played "Horse and Musket" and tried a cavalry charge against artillery the chances were you suffered considerable losses and probably routed. That's because the artillery was afforded the ability to fire defensively when the cavalry moved adjacent to them. In the Battleground Napoleonic series, cavalry gets to charge AFTER the defensive fire sequence. Yes, IIRC you were afforded an opportunity to defensively fire on moving cavalry but a good opponent knew how to maximize terrain masking and by and large avoid it or least be at a range where the arty wasn't as effective. At any rate, cavalry could basically charge with complete impunity against tons of artillery units because none of the artillery could fire when the cavalry charge was one hex or adjacent to the artillery, where they were at their most effective. In my view, this needs to be reexamined, because as it now stands, it's just too unrealistic.


(in reply to BK6583)
Post #: 7
RE: My suggestions... - 6/9/2007 3:15:42 AM   
acwbuff63

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 6/2/2007
Status: offline
A few comments,

We sometimes forget that arty batteries are not little square markers. Imagine a stack of three 6 gun batteries (18 tubes) all trying to pivot and fire. Not likely.

Same for infantry, a large regiment formed in line of battle shouldn't be able to simply pivot and fire without MP costs.

I would eliminate units under 25 men, they would simply evaporate.

I would allow cav to fire mounted only when armed with pistols.

Absolutely right about movement. The current system allows for units to move far too quickly.

Yes, supply needs work.

(in reply to semper fi)
Post #: 8
RE: My suggestions... - 6/9/2007 8:20:31 PM   
captskillet


Posts: 2493
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: Louisiana & the 2007 Nat Champ LSU Fightin' Tigers
Status: offline
quote:

That's because the artillery was afforded the ability to fire defensively when the cavalry moved adjacent to them. In the Battleground Napoleonic series, cavalry gets to charge AFTER the defensive fire sequence.


In the HPS series if you use Automatic Def. fire (no phased turn system) and you charge an Arty battery (esp one of those 12 gun Russian monsters) your cav units will be decimated............of course if they happen to be rated A+++ like some of the Imp Guards they doont rout easy !

_____________________________

"Git thar fust with the most men" - Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest


(in reply to BK6583)
Post #: 9
RE: My suggestions... - 6/23/2007 12:51:59 PM   
Rhetor

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 1/31/2005
From: Gdansk, Poland
Status: offline
As far as supply wagons are concerned, I consider the way these are to be used in the original battlegrounds as a great flaw. In the games the supply wagons do not resupply artillery units at all, but only infantry, why is it so is beyond me, and secondly, in the real battles usually it were the units and batteries which went back to the supply units to refill their ammo, not the supply units going near the front line.

And, last, but not least, the artillery batteries should get fatigue while firing, and should lose ammo after a few turns of constant firing. In real battle it was absolutely impossible for a battery crew to sustain the maximum rate of fire for longer than an hour, maximum. The gunners would get completely exhausted. That is why the artillery commanders would repeatedly remind their gunners not to fire too quickly, save when repelling an infantry attack.
1 point of fatigue for each salvo in an offensive/defensive fire phase would resolve this problem. And we would be rid of batteries unlimbered in the morning and firing away till nightfall in every fire phase. A drastic limitation of artillery ammunition levels should also help getting rid of that problem.


< Message edited by Rhetor -- 6/23/2007 1:06:09 PM >

(in reply to captskillet)
Post #: 10
RE: My suggestions... - 6/28/2007 11:55:21 PM   
rhondabrwn


Posts: 2570
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

As far as supply wagons are concerned, I consider the way these are to be used in the original battlegrounds as a great flaw. In the games the supply wagons do not resupply artillery units at all, but only infantry, why is it so is beyond me, and secondly, in the real battles usually it were the units and batteries which went back to the supply units to refill their ammo, not the supply units going near the front line.

And, last, but not least, the artillery batteries should get fatigue while firing, and should lose ammo after a few turns of constant firing. In real battle it was absolutely impossible for a battery crew to sustain the maximum rate of fire for longer than an hour, maximum. The gunners would get completely exhausted. That is why the artillery commanders would repeatedly remind their gunners not to fire too quickly, save when repelling an infantry attack.
1 point of fatigue for each salvo in an offensive/defensive fire phase would resolve this problem. And we would be rid of batteries unlimbered in the morning and firing away till nightfall in every fire phase. A drastic limitation of artillery ammunition levels should also help getting rid of that problem.



I would agree completely. The idea that the units should withdraw to the supply wagons rather than supply wagons running around the battlefield delivering ammo. Of course, to be practical, each unit should start with a specified ammo load and then be able to fire for that designated number of times. The random nature of ammunition depletion is highly unrealistic as "fresh" units can run out of ammunition one turn into an attack. The justification that this reflects units entering a major battle with near empty cartridge boxes is, frankly, ridiculous. It introduces a level of chance into the battle that is disruptive of the best laid plans.

As for artillery firing every turn for three full days at Gettysburg is absurd, but that is what happens. Lines of artillery can blast away picking off a handful of casualties with each volley. This is not only unrealistic, but rather tedious to sit through a "playback" in a big battle that takes half an hour to view because of the grossly excessive artillery fire. "BOOM... 3 men... BOOM... no effect... BOOM... 2 men.... BOOM..." ad nauseum! Players can use "house rules" to minimize offensive artillery fire to a realistic level, but the automated defensive fire just runs amuck unless you resolve manually (which is also tedious to do).

Ah well... it just shows that there is room (and probably demand) for a major reworking of the Battleground (and HPS) system. The regimental level is just so perfect for depicting Civil War (and Napoleonic) battles that it is a shame to have such unrealistic supply and artillery rules. If there was ever a justification (i.e. computers can't handle keeping track of ammunition expenditure for individual units) that excuse died a long, long time ago. Neither computer speed nor disk storage would hinder this kind of detailed tracking of ammunition expenditure. It would also be feasible to reduce supply wagon levels by the number of men in the unit actually being re-supplied rather than treating all size units equally.


_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics :(

(in reply to Rhetor)
Post #: 11
RE: My suggestions... - 6/29/2007 8:41:37 AM   
Ashantai

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 10/16/2006
Status: offline
To be fair, they did the best they could for the battleground games. Since fatigue only went up to nine, an artillery unit could only fire 4 times before getting a penalty, and with the fatigue recover rate it means that players would caracole their batteries around in an even more unhistorical way.

Giving units the chance to go 'low' on ammo is done I believe for one main reason. First it is done to stop a massive amount of micromanagement. And how would it work with auto defensive fire? Would you count the number of total rifle bullets a unit has...or just the ones per man? And what happens when a unit takes losses, do the wounded men's cartridges go to their comrades? And also, one fire phase is not one volley, phases/turns are 20 minutes, it could be a half dozen shots per man, or one, or only partial. How will you determine that?

That is going into absurdity. The low ammo is not out of ammo, to run out of ammo you must fail 2 4% chances without being resupplied, which isn't easy to do!

HPS is introducing an artillery rewrite soon where ammo is done by cannon rather than by battery.

Frankly, I don't want to play a game where I have to monitor 100,000 men and 400 cannon's (at peninsula) ammo levels. I'll go for the simpler, generic supply wagons. It is meant to be a game, and let me tell you, it's hard enough moving 100,000 men, or even 30,000, without the added headache of seeing if they have 10 or 15 shots left!

< Message edited by Ashantai -- 6/29/2007 8:42:15 AM >

(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 12
RE: My suggestions... - 6/29/2007 9:21:39 AM   
Rhetor

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 1/31/2005
From: Gdansk, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashantai

To be fair, they did the best they could for the battleground games. Since fatigue only went up to nine, an artillery unit could only fire 4 times before getting a penalty, and with the fatigue recover rate it means that players would caracole their batteries around in an even more unhistorical way.



Only 4 times before getting a penalty? In 15 minute turns with two firing phases that means 30 minutes of fast firing and reloading. After such a period the crews would be tired and their effectiveness reduced. Operating a muzzle-loading gun was a tiresome procedure. After an hour of firing at such a rate crews would be exhausted, and their effectiveness would drop even more (8 fatigue points). In my opinion one fatigue point per salvo is very realistic.

I assume that by "caracoling" you mean replacing the tired batteries with fresh ones from the reserve? That is precisely what happened on a real battlefield, both in Napoleonic era and in the Civil War.

(in reply to Ashantai)
Post #: 13
RE: My suggestions... - 7/2/2007 5:37:03 AM   
Ashantai

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 10/16/2006
Status: offline
15 minute turns simulate a lot, whether it be one cannon shot or five.

And how would you handle opportunity fire in an HPS situation? Would that cause fatigue too? If so, it would be monstrously unfair as people could draw the sting of the cannon fire until they were fatigued, then close in for the kill!

Even if we are sticking with the classic TS games, if you PBEM, automatic defensive fire is so very, very useful, but not so if you can't choose what to fire at! You'd necessarily have to play every single defensive fire phase, which doubles the number of e-mail exchanges!

All I'm saying is that HPS and TS did what they did for a reason, and I see no other fair alternative than the system in HPS + adding in artillery ammo per cannon, rather than per battery.

(in reply to Rhetor)
Post #: 14
RE: My suggestions... - 7/2/2007 9:47:10 AM   
Rhetor

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 1/31/2005
From: Gdansk, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashantai

15 minute turns simulate a lot, whether it be one cannon shot or five.


Actually player is allowed to fire twice, once per fire phase, and that is the maximum rate of fire. i.e. the crews are loading and firing as fast as they can. Such rate of fire was very tiring for the crews, and was discouraged by the artillery commanders, save when repelling an infantry charge.
Currently lack of fatigue + lack of realistic artillery ammo means that a single battery can unlimber and fire away practically forever, which is very, very unhistorical. Imagine a Chancellorsville scenario, in which Federal batteries on Fairview would not have to limber up and retreat to refill their limbers.

quote:

And how would you handle opportunity fire in an HPS situation? Would that cause fatigue too? If so, it would be monstrously unfair as people could draw the sting of the cannon fire until they were fatigued, then close in for the kill!


I have no idea, since I haven't got any of the HPS games. From what I have read in other forums, the during enemy phase there is no salvo limit in opportunity fire, so it seems to be very unhistorical. I haven't seen any of the games myself, so I won't give any definite judgement in this case.

quote:

Even if we are sticking with the classic TS games, if you PBEM, automatic defensive fire is so very, very useful, but not so if you can't choose what to fire at! You'd necessarily have to play every single defensive fire phase, which doubles the number of e-mail exchanges!


I always played hotseat, and there was no problem with numerous turns :-D

quote:

All I'm saying is that HPS and TS did what they did for a reason, and I see no other fair alternative than the system in HPS + adding in artillery ammo per cannon, rather than per battery.


The system where infantry regiments can get out of ammo, and artillery batteries have unlimited ammo, is not the right system.
The whole idea of having an artillery reserve in 19th century armies was to replace the tired batteries with low ammo with fresh batteries with full limbers. Currently players can put all available batteries in the line and have them fire for all day in all turns without any consequences whatsoever. That is very, very unhistorical, because in reality such manner of firing would mean that the crews would get tired very quickly, and the limbers in batteries would get empty. The order not to return fire during Confederate artillery preparation before the Pickett Charge at Gettysburg was given precisely for that reason - to keep the limbers full to have something to shoot with, when the infantry charge came.

(in reply to Ashantai)
Post #: 15
RE: My suggestions... - 7/3/2007 7:34:04 AM   
Ashantai

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 10/16/2006
Status: offline
That's all fine and well, but see my previous comments relating to infantry. They apply here. If we're going to start counting cannonballs, broadly, would you say we need to break it down into types of ammunition too? Shell, solid, cannister? Otherwise, as you suggest, it would be unhistorical to fire lots of close fire and still have ammo for it.
Also see my comments regarding supply for the artillery. Would each battery have it's own 'supply wagon'? How would that work? Would every type (the H, L K, T, V guns) need different ammunition, as historically they would. That would create a massive amount of player work. Take Gettysburg, where there were well over 500 cannons in the battle, imagine 100 extra supply wagons, some of which could be used with others, and all filling the roads, filling the terrain, getting stuck, being shot. No, it'd break the system.

The alternative would be to have artillery carry their own ammunition, but then how could it be resupplied?

Historical accuracy is good, but at the price of more micromanagement than you have already for an army of 80,000 men it is not worth it!!

< Message edited by Ashantai -- 7/3/2007 7:36:07 AM >

(in reply to Rhetor)
Post #: 16
RE: My suggestions... - 7/3/2007 10:22:54 AM   
Rhetor

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 1/31/2005
From: Gdansk, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashantai

That's all fine and well, but see my previous comments relating to infantry. They apply here. If we're going to start counting cannonballs, broadly, would you say we need to break it down into types of ammunition too? Shell, solid, cannister? Otherwise, as you suggest, it would be unhistorical to fire lots of close fire and still have ammo for it.
Also see my comments regarding supply for the artillery. Would each battery have it's own 'supply wagon'? How would that work? Would every type (the H, L K, T, V guns) need different ammunition, as historically they would. That would create a massive amount of player work. Take Gettysburg, where there were well over 500 cannons in the battle, imagine 100 extra supply wagons, some of which could be used with others, and all filling the roads, filling the terrain, getting stuck, being shot. No, it'd break the system.

The alternative would be to have artillery carry their own ammunition, but then how could it be resupplied?

Historical accuracy is good, but at the price of more micromanagement than you have already for an army of 80,000 men it is not worth it!!


You are overcomplicating the issue. Nobody proposed to create such a complicated ammunition system. Personally I can live with infantry losing ammo the way it works now. But the artillery which never spents its ammo, artillery which can fire away like an automaton, without any penalty, artillery which is so much unhistorical is a great flaw of this game.

(in reply to Ashantai)
Post #: 17
RE: My suggestions... - 7/3/2007 10:32:33 AM   
Ashantai

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 10/16/2006
Status: offline
I perhaps am. But not to seem aggressive, and I hope I don't, but what alternative do you have? Making fatigue go up is certainly a good idea, but what else is there that can be done simply? Supply wagons that work for cannons too? I'm interested in your views.

(in reply to Rhetor)
Post #: 18
RE: My suggestions... - 7/3/2007 3:03:38 PM   
General

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
Good points from both sides.  No dought some things need to be tweaked to make it more historically correct, the problem I have seen with other games when they make a game more complicated, a lot of people stop playing. 
There is a problem with the unlimited firing of cannons, but I enjoy setting up a line of them and pulverizing any unit that attempts to get into their range.
Being able to choose what shot to use in the cannon would be interesting.

(in reply to Ashantai)
Post #: 19
RE: My suggestions... - 7/3/2007 7:52:20 PM   
Rhetor

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 1/31/2005
From: Gdansk, Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashantai

I perhaps am. But not to seem aggressive, and I hope I don't, but what alternative do you have? Making fatigue go up is certainly a good idea, but what else is there that can be done simply? Supply wagons that work for cannons too? I'm interested in your views.


Exactly. Make it possible for artillery to lose ammo. Make it become tired after a few salvos. Create either special supply wagons for artillery, or add artillery ammo for existing wagons.
As far as armmo limit is concerned, I guess each battery and regiment should have a set number of ammo (ie. 1 ammo point = one volley) Let them start the game with, let's say, ammo=9. That should suffice for a little over an hour of intense fighting - I think everyone will aggree that it was roughly the time in which a regiment/battery could expend their available ammunition.

In order to keep the game playable, one ammo point should suffice for one volley / artillery salvo regardless of the regiment's/battery's strength. This is a simplification I could live with; something on par with the current situation, that a unit which strength dropped below 100 blocks the line of sight as well as a 800-men strong unit. Also there should be no differentiation in artillery ammo types.

< Message edited by Rhetor -- 7/4/2007 12:06:46 PM >

(in reply to Ashantai)
Post #: 20
RE: My suggestions... - 7/31/2007 4:41:10 PM   
Gudadantza


Posts: 47
Joined: 6/20/2007
From: Basque Country
Status: offline
The most important improvements must be:

-Casualties, man to man not on groups of 25.
-Game on turns, fases as an option. As we can see on HPS titles or Campaign series.


(in reply to Rhetor)
Post #: 21
RE: My suggestions... - 7/31/2007 5:55:11 PM   
Richard III


Posts: 710
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
All I want them to do is release the original Games with the the last patch that ** Tiller did **  and  his 32 bit upgrade so it runs under XP.  That`s All.

No Matrix programed  "improvements" or " enhancements"  or " changes " , that take years and will screw up the current well functioning Game system. 

Just the original games.  That`s all.    Please

Lets release it as is  Dave.    

Thanks

(in reply to Gudadantza)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> John Tiller's Battleground Series >> My suggestions... Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.047