Skirmishers&Formations&Melees (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> John Tiller's Battleground Series



Message

Rhetor -> Skirmishers&Formations&Melees (1/18/2006 8:58:05 AM)

Yet another of my ideas:

Would it not be a good idea to incorporate the skirmisher system from Civil War BGs to Napoleonic BGs? It would really limit the number of units on the map, if most of skirmisher screens were simulated in the same way as it is done in Civil War BGs. Such screen could even be somehow shown in 3d-view.
I am not advising removal of detachable light companies, yet it might be better if such possibility was restricted to light/guard units only.

Another option would be very welcome - the possibility to deploy whole light battalion into a skirmish formation, and then reunite it into a formed battalion.

As far as the infantry formations are concerned, I think it would be realistic to introduce another type of column - assault column. If that is not possible or practicable, maybe the graphical representation of a column should be changed into what an assault column really looked like.

Melees & morale are another issue. In current BGs it is almost useless trying to melee a stronger formation, even if the attacking unit is not disorganized, fresh and elite. The most notorious ecxample happened to me during one of the battles at Ligny, during which I charged a routed 800-strong Landwehr battalion with two detached squadrons of hussars (300 sabres), and got slaugtered (125 hussars lost vs. 25 killed Landwehr). I really don't have to convince anybody that melees in the napoleonic era (and not only then) were all about morale.

I have to say I know almost nothing about program codes. I don't know if it is possible to introduce the suggestions I have given. Yet, remembering the fun I have had with those games, I am eager to see it improved.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Skirmishers&Formations&Melees (1/19/2006 6:55:00 AM)

quote:

during one of the battles at Ligny, during which I charged a routed 800-strong Landwehr battalion with two detached squadrons of hussars (300 sabres), and got slaugtered (125 hussars lost vs. 25 killed Landwehr)


Gee I'm glad someone else did that;^) In most miniature games the landswere would have been flattened. In life I'm guessing they would be running and screaming the horsemans problems would mostly be tripping over dead and wounded and catching up with the others!!!



Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: Skirmishers&Formations&Melees (1/21/2006 1:33:07 PM)

This holds for all tactical games.
Never close assault a unit that is NOT disrupted.[;)]

There are SOME exceptions to this.
Such as overwhelming odds in the attack.[;)]



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Skirmishers&Formations&Melees (1/22/2006 3:39:34 AM)

These guys were ROUTING thats supposed to be worse than disrupted!!!!!!!!!! ;^)



Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: Skirmishers&Formations&Melees (1/22/2006 4:18:01 AM)

That really is strange.[:D]

Usually routed units fold up.
I haven't played these BG games in awhile.
Been playing Tillers second generation of Napoleonics for the last 5 years.[;)]



rhondabrwn -> RE: Skirmishers&Formations&Melees (1/22/2006 5:11:44 AM)

Did you have a "save"? That would be worth running over to see if the same unrealistic result occurred or if it was just a really rare and unlucky result.

I mostly play the BG Civil War titles and there is no doubt in those games that a routed unit is going to crack and suffer significant losses if meleed.



rhondabrwn -> RE: Skirmishers&Formations&Melees (1/22/2006 5:17:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

Yet another of my ideas:

Would it not be a good idea to incorporate the skirmisher system from Civil War BGs to Napoleonic BGs? It would really limit the number of units on the map, if most of skirmisher screens were simulated in the same way as it is done in Civil War BGs. Such screen could even be somehow shown in 3d-view.
I am not advising removal of detachable light companies, yet it might be better if such possibility was restricted to light/guard units only.

Another option would be very welcome - the possibility to deploy whole light battalion into a skirmish formation, and then reunite it into a formed battalion.

As far as the infantry formations are concerned, I think it would be realistic to introduce another type of column - assault column. If that is not possible or practicable, maybe the graphical representation of a column should be changed into what an assault column really looked like.

Melees & morale are another issue. In current BGs it is almost useless trying to melee a stronger formation, even if the attacking unit is not disorganized, fresh and elite. The most notorious ecxample happened to me during one of the battles at Ligny, during which I charged a routed 800-strong Landwehr battalion with two detached squadrons of hussars (300 sabres), and got slaugtered (125 hussars lost vs. 25 killed Landwehr). I really don't have to convince anybody that melees in the napoleonic era (and not only then) were all about morale.

I have to say I know almost nothing about program codes. I don't know if it is possible to introduce the suggestions I have given. Yet, remembering the fun I have had with those games, I am eager to see it improved.


The BG Civil War skirmisher system is really only designed to allow you to have some recon of an extended distance of wooded terrain. Very useful in Shiloh, for example, but not a principal way of fighting battles. In the Napoleonic titles, detached skirmishers ARE often the battle. I find it a bit tedious, personally, but there is no denying the importance of skirmishers in Napoleonic warfare. The American Civil War just isn't the same situation IMHO.



Rhetor -> RE: Skirmishers&Formations&Melees (1/22/2006 11:39:09 AM)

quote:

The BG Civil War skirmisher system is really only designed to allow you to have some recon of an extended distance of wooded terrain. Very useful in Shiloh, for example, but not a principal way of fighting battles. In the Napoleonic titles, detached skirmishers ARE often the battle. I find it a bit tedious, personally, but there is no denying the importance of skirmishers in Napoleonic warfare. The American Civil War just isn't the same situation IMHO.


Of course. I have not proposed that independent skirmishers should be totally removed. I am proposing that skirmisher screen in front of a column (in case of French battalions, its voltigeur company) should be permanently linked with the battalion, in order to limit the number of units the player has to control manually. All the bonuses of skirmisher screen should be retained.

Maybe it would be better if the players were given a choice whether their company is used to screen the formed infantry (in that case its movement would be linked with the movement of the battalion), or is detached from the battalion to perform some other task (in that case it would work as usual, with an independent skirmisher unit appearing on the map.)

I find it really annoying having to direct every single company, even though most of them are used only to screen the formed infantry. When those companies become routed, it becomes very difficult finding them and bringing them back to their battalions. The larger the battle, the more cliking one has to do in order to control his troops.



sol_invictus -> RE: Skirmishers&Formations&Melees (1/22/2006 5:27:25 PM)

I agree, in a Napoleonic setting, skirmishers should form an integral part of the entire unit; like in AOR. Instead of skirmishers holding their ground and accepting melee, they should withdraw back into their parent formation after getting off some ragged potshots.



rhondabrwn -> RE: Skirmishers&Formations&Melees (1/23/2006 7:08:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

quote:

The BG Civil War skirmisher system is really only designed to allow you to have some recon of an extended distance of wooded terrain. Very useful in Shiloh, for example, but not a principal way of fighting battles. In the Napoleonic titles, detached skirmishers ARE often the battle. I find it a bit tedious, personally, but there is no denying the importance of skirmishers in Napoleonic warfare. The American Civil War just isn't the same situation IMHO.


Of course. I have not proposed that independent skirmishers should be totally removed. I am proposing that skirmisher screen in front of a column (in case of French battalions, its voltigeur company) should be permanently linked with the battalion, in order to limit the number of units the player has to control manually. All the bonuses of skirmisher screen should be retained.

Maybe it would be better if the players were given a choice whether their company is used to screen the formed infantry (in that case its movement would be linked with the movement of the battalion), or is detached from the battalion to perform some other task (in that case it would work as usual, with an independent skirmisher unit appearing on the map.)

I find it really annoying having to direct every single company, even though most of them are used only to screen the formed infantry. When those companies become routed, it becomes very difficult finding them and bringing them back to their battalions. The larger the battle, the more cliking one has to do in order to control his troops.



Yep, I see your point. Trying to keep track of all those individual companies was a pain! Having them linked in some way would certainly improve playability.



redcoat -> RE: Skirmishers&Formations&Melees (2/24/2006 12:03:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

As far as the infantry formations are concerned, I think it would be realistic to introduce another type of column - assault column. If that is not possible or practicable, maybe the graphical representation of a column should be changed into what an assault column really looked like.


Yeah, there were two types of column used in the Napoleonic period. The columns used in combat and 'columns of march' - which were used to rapidly move infantry to and from combat.

The graphical representation of a column in the BG games looks more like a 'column of march' than an 'assault column'.

A column of march would not be able to effectively fire - or launch a melee attack. But it would be able to utilise road movement and pass over rough ground without becoming disordered. A regular column would be able to fire (at reduced effectiveness) and launch melee attacks. However, I think that it would become disordered by passing over some rough ground (such as forest hexes).

Both forms of column would be vulnerable to fire - especially artillery.

An assault column could be given some kind of bonus when it launches a melee attack - but only if it is in good order. A disordered column would loose momentum and impetus.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875