enthusiastic applause for this feature (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865



Message

SurrenderMonkey -> enthusiastic applause for this feature (12/12/2006 7:19:01 PM)

As a 30-yr veteran of wargames, I just want to offer my hearty applause for the "out of command" and "misinterpreted command" features of the detailed battle game. This is such an obvious reality of command IRL, but it's amazing how many games fail to allow for it. It was especially a prtoblem during the ACW because of the limited communications technology.

When playing H2H, it keeps the experience from devolving into math or bean-counting. I have played against many players who reduce the experience of wargaming to bean-counting, which makes for a dull game. But these features temper that tendency. Well done. [8D]



Joram -> RE: enthusiastic applause for this feature (12/12/2006 10:35:41 PM)

Agreed. I'd like to see some changes in it but overall it's better than not having it at all. I once had a cav unit (quality somewhere around 3) fail to follow orders about 5 times in a row (not exaggerating either!)... and the hex I was trying to move it to was one hex away and it was blue.



ericbabe -> RE: enthusiastic applause for this feature (12/12/2006 10:45:42 PM)

Thanks.  I myself love C&C and FOW type rules in games, but they are often frustrating for players, and for these it's hard to strike a balance between fun and frustrating.

Remember you can use terrain to avoid having units misinterpret commands.  If there's a terrain feature, such as a forest or swamp or road, units that misinterpret command should only do so if they move into a hex that has similar type of terrain.  By picking a destination hex that has few neighbors of the same terrain type you can cut down on the level of misinterpreting.  Also misinterpreting is strongly related to unit quality, so regular units have a much lower chance of misinterpreting than green troops.  Oh, and hexes that have names of villages or heights are considered "landmarks" and units moving to these hexes should have no chance of misinterpreting their orders.



Terminus -> RE: enthusiastic applause for this feature (12/12/2006 10:49:25 PM)

Yup, excellent feature, but my word, annoying in beta-testing...[:D]



Joram -> RE: enthusiastic applause for this feature (12/12/2006 10:52:05 PM)

About the "landmarks". I thought that was a pretty neat idea. But do you have to move directly to the hex for the misinterpretation to be lessened or just somewhere in it's general vicinity?

Since you're looking at this thread I'll put the change I was thinking about out there for you to consider.

Have order interpretation also dependent on distance. But to counteract someone just "one-hexing" it all the way to his objective, perhaps make it cost an extra movement point or two to even initiate an order thus a commander trades off distance someone can travel versus being sure the order will be followed.

Alternatively (or in addition to), expand on the command rating and give a side a limited number of commands based on quality and number of commanders. This again gives the player a choice between micromanaging one unit versus getting his whole army to move. This could also help highlight the imbalance between northern and southern generals (at least in the early part of the war).

Just some thoughts.



Roger Neilson II -> RE: enthusiastic applause for this feature (12/13/2006 12:08:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

Agreed. I'd like to see some changes in it but overall it's better than not having it at all. I once had a cav unit (quality somewhere around 3) fail to follow orders about 5 times in a row (not exaggerating either!)... and the hex I was trying to move it to was one hex away and it was blue.

Is it completely random? I like it overall but at times I cannot see it happening.... if I have a line of troops and I want them to all move forward i feel that they should all sort of, just move forward.... this is far more likely to happen than a singleton unit being sent some orders to move 'over to that hill' getting a bit confused as to which hill is meant....

Roger



jimwinsor -> RE: enthusiastic applause for this feature (12/13/2006 12:42:18 AM)

No, it's not random, Quality has a big impact.



steveuk -> RE: enthusiastic applause for this feature (12/13/2006 2:00:41 AM)

My main problem is when you lose command control over a unit and it launches a suicide attack against the enemy A.I. This often seems to happen with green/cowardly troops which to my mind would be running the other way.  I would like to see CC have a bearing on the actual units attributes.  So for example a unit with the hero attribute would be more likely to charge the enemy when out of CC.  Green or cowardly troops should definately be running away as IRL I would think it unlikely that they would engage.
Overall though the system is great and with a few tweaks could be quite realistic to how I would imagine an engagement to pan out.



Roger Neilson II -> RE: enthusiastic applause for this feature (12/13/2006 8:07:31 AM)

That's fine by me.

Roger



ericbabe -> RE: enthusiastic applause for this feature (12/13/2006 4:03:00 PM)

I'd like to hear more opinions about low quality troops engaging vs. falling back.  From reading "The Bloody Crucible of Courage" (one of our most useful source materials), it seems that a lot of green commanders made the mistake of being too eager to engage.  I'd like to hear what more people think though, since I can see the merits in changing the rule as you describe.

I'm not sure about units advancing in one long line as a means of avoiding misinterpreting orders... some things I've read make me think that it was very difficult to advance over hundreds of yards with green troops and to keep them all in one coherent line.  But again, would like to hear more opinions.



dude -> RE: enthusiastic applause for this feature (12/13/2006 5:36:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I'd like to hear more opinions about low quality troops engaging vs. falling back.  From reading "The Bloody Crucible of Courage" (one of our most useful source materials), it seems that a lot of green commanders made the mistake of being too eager to engage.  I'd like to hear what more people think though, since I can see the merits in changing the rule as you describe.

I'm not sure about units advancing in one long line as a means of avoiding misinterpreting orders... some things I've read make me think that it was very difficult to advance over hundreds of yards with green troops and to keep them all in one coherent line.  But again, would like to hear more opinions.




The type of terrain played a great part in advances... the more broken or less open the field of battle the more likely you were to find that the unit next to you... well wasn't there and for orders to misunderstood. Even with experienced troops this could happen... Wasn't it with Lee at Gettysburg? Correct me if I'm wrong (and since I don't have my references handy I could be...) didn't Lee order artillery fire on a hill only to have them fire on the wrong hill the first day?




SurrenderMonkey -> RE: enthusiastic applause for this feature (12/13/2006 6:27:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I'd like to hear more opinions about low quality troops engaging vs. falling back.  From reading "The Bloody Crucible of Courage" (one of our most useful source materials), it seems that a lot of green commanders made the mistake of being too eager to engage. 


This kind of thing is exactly what I am referring to. I believe green troops and commanders are - generally speaking - too eager to engage. They're all full of spit and vinegar, thinking that they can whup the enemy with one hand tied behind their back. It's only after a fight that they tend to settle down and become more careful and disciplined. The same is true today.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875