Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Container Movement Rates

 
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] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Public Beta Feedback >> RE: Container Movement Rates Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/2/2007 3:31:06 PM   
MadMike

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: St. Louis, MO
Status: offline
Eric, please tell me your post wasn't an april fool's joke, that would be cruel.

_____________________________

Oh look, my CV's are on fire.

(in reply to MadMike)
Post #: 31
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/2/2007 4:50:20 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline
Here's the modified data file; rename it to AcwUnits.txt and copy it over this file in the /Data directory (make a backup of that file first).

This file gives armies a move of 1, corps a move of 2, and divisions a move of 3.

If you'd like to play with the values, edit the file in a spreadsheet. The column MovesOnPhases gives the movement phases on which the unit can move in binary, so in the new file Army has an 8, so it moves on phase 3; Corps has a 12, so it moves on phases 2 and 3; Division has a 14, so it moves on phases 1,2,3.

Let us know how it works.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________



(in reply to MadMike)
Post #: 32
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/2/2007 5:05:10 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadMike
Eric, please tell me your post wasn't an april fool's joke, that would be cruel.


Patience, grasshopper.


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to MadMike)
Post #: 33
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/2/2007 6:47:49 PM   
MadMike

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: St. Louis, MO
Status: offline
Eric, wow, thanks again! I'll keep you informed.

Erik, that is one of the virtues I struggle most with. I will now go hold hot coals in my bare hands in penance.

Cheers,
Mike

_____________________________

Oh look, my CV's are on fire.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 34
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/3/2007 2:17:58 AM   
Odium

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline
I very interested to see how this works. I love the idea that divisions can move faster and more provinces and bigger armies move slower and are more "clumsy".

You could also keep the movement rates the same but make march attrition much worse the larger force you have. So people could still have the choice to move large armies but pay for it. Therefore you wouldn't have huge armies marching half way around the country unless the player REALLY needed to.

< Message edited by Odium -- 4/3/2007 2:45:05 AM >

(in reply to MadMike)
Post #: 35
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/6/2007 6:04:46 AM   
MadMike

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: St. Louis, MO
Status: offline
Whew, after a solid week of getting my butt kicked by family and work obligations, I've finally gotten a FoF container-move-mod (FoFcmm) pbem game underway with f15Eagle.

We're playing advanced settings, default generals (hidden attributes), always instant battle, and we're ignoring the replay files for now, using the "Coming Fury" scenario.

We'll both convey our impressions as it develops.

Cheers,
Mike

_____________________________

Oh look, my CV's are on fire.

(in reply to Odium)
Post #: 36
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/6/2007 6:08:55 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
Excellent news! Please keep us posted.

(in reply to MadMike)
Post #: 37
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/6/2007 6:32:57 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Greetings gents!

Longtime lurker, 1st time poster on this forum.

WCS: I'm having a great (read frustrating) time playing and trying to master this incredibly deep game, well done!

My comment/question is in regards to the CSA AI's post-beta penchant for running sprints between James River and Paducah with large army-sized (110k+) formations with little or no cost and distressing regularity. If the transportation infrastructure and logistics of the day allowed this, why didn't the AoNV head off to relieve Vicksburg in a quick 3-4 month round-trip operation?

This issue has only really come to my attention post-beta, and I wondered if it had come to anyone else's attention.

My immediate reaction is to suggest that movement rates be additionally affected by container size, if not even by actual unit size. It would seem to be realistic to expect that a large army-sized formation would find it hard to keep pace with a more nimble corps-sized unit, and the same for a corps and a division.

If I recall correctly; the ACW consisted of many, many smaller engagements than large pitched battles ala Gettysburg. In fact, wasn't the ACW noted for having the most battles of any American war ever?

Possibly a simple 1-2-3 structure would suffice to reflect this dynamic, with Army units moving 1 province, Corps units moving up to 2, and Division units capable of up to 3 provinces. (this could all be affected by command, generals, supply, quality, disposition, terrain, and weather of course)

The drama and fluidity of the game would certainly be increased with the incentive to use smaller sized units for more rapid-tempo operations, while the big armies ground against each other in their wars of attrition.

How do the grognards on board feel about this idea?

Cheers,
MadMike


The USA forces also make that same sprint from the DC area into eastern Kentucky, and that occurs at the Lt. Col. level of play and below and I imagine at levels above Lt. Col.

Interesting idea you have of having larger containers such as Armies and Corps move at a slower rate than Divisional containers and seperate Brigades. One province per turn for the Armies and Corps and two provinces per turn for Divisions and seperate Brigades. Would be nice to have a stratefic forced march for only the Amies and Corps whereby they could move two provinces using a forced march option, but then after doing so couldn't again conduct a strategic forced march for say two to four turns in the future.

Chris


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to MadMike)
Post #: 38
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/6/2007 4:08:07 PM   
MadMike

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: St. Louis, MO
Status: offline
Thanks Gil, will do.

Chris, I was hoping to hear from you on this issue.

The way it's structured now, the movement rates are Army:1, Corps:2, Divisions:3. (not sure about individual brigades)

Interestingly, that setup by default limits the amount of march attrition an Army can take to 5% due to a one province move restriction, while Corps could take up to 10%, and Divisions up to 15%, if they utilize their full movement.

Already I've seen that this mod makes it much more difficult to coordinate movement between different sized formations, arranging for different sized formations to arrive in the same province at the same time from different start points is much more complicated.

Eric, how difficult would it be to allow a high-init general to have a chance to move his Corps or Army command in an earlier phase, not necessarily be able to move it farther but just sooner?

Thanks,
Mike

_____________________________

Oh look, my CV's are on fire.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 39
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/6/2007 4:15:14 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
How is forced march working? How far can the different types of forces move when doing this in your modded version?

(in reply to MadMike)
Post #: 40
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/6/2007 6:48:11 PM   
pzpat

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: California
Status: offline
     So, let me see if I understand this in game terms.  The divisions will be able to move three provinces in a turn, so if I want to move an army 3 provinces I break it up into all those independent divisions and send them piecemeal.  But the corps and army command staffs, who are all horse-mounted, and who comprise smaller groups and are therefore more mobile and more easily organized, take three times as long to travel as tens of thousands of men marching on foot.
    And to answer the objection that the baggage and supply trains would slow the staffs down, remember that the divisions themselves are accompanied by the same type of trains.  Do I have this correctly? 

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 41
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/6/2007 7:39:04 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
I would think empty containers would be able to move as quickly as they do now.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to pzpat)
Post #: 42
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/6/2007 8:15:43 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzpat

     So, let me see if I understand this in game terms.  The divisions will be able to move three provinces in a turn, so if I want to move an army 3 provinces I break it up into all those independent divisions and send them piecemeal.  But the corps and army command staffs, who are all horse-mounted, and who comprise smaller groups and are therefore more mobile and more easily organized, take three times as long to travel as tens of thousands of men marching on foot.
    And to answer the objection that the baggage and supply trains would slow the staffs down, remember that the divisions themselves are accompanied by the same type of trains.  Do I have this correctly? 



I usually send my empty containers by Rail anyways... unless there is no rail link.

One of the interesting things I always recall from Grant's Memoirs was his discriptions of moving his armies... which basically was sending individual divisions/corps differnet routes just so they wouldn't get boged down on one trail. Then hoping they all joined up at the right place at the right time... Frequently though he'd wind up with some division marching the the wrong way and not getting to the battle that the rest of the army was fighting. This is one of the things this game does not really model that well unless you actually do use different forces to move into one battle...

In detailed combat almost all of your units show up together in one nice neat line. Didn't Lee's army at Gettysburg start off my coming in from different directions along different roads? We've gotten use to wanting things easy by grouping all of our forces togther in one nice neat army container and then they all show up together... but was that the way it really happened? (... just asking...)

Now if you really wanted to model it you'd have a chance for each container within an army (corps?) showing up at different places on your side of the map and possibly starting on different turns. (Now I know sometimes a brigade will start as a reinforcement but it's been pretty rare in my games and it's usually just one unit.)

So I do like the idea that the different size containers march at different rates... you can assume it's becuase the smaller containers are all taking different routes while the larger ones are trying to cram all their units along the same road...

just my 2 cents,

Dude

_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to pzpat)
Post #: 43
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/6/2007 9:44:57 PM   
pzpat

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: California
Status: offline
     In my HW battles my forces do show up in a nice, neat line.  And I move my first division or two based on the positions I see.  And after those troops are committed, the computer will say, "Place the third division."  Wait a minute!  I was counting on that division to present a coherent battle line/provide flank support/attack exposed enemy groups, and now I have to place them behind the others.  This surprise element probably provides a bit of the historical confusion factor.  And I can't complain too loudly.  Once or twice I have needed to screen the supply wagons from enemy forces that started too close to them, so it actually worked to my advantage.

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 44
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 2:13:45 AM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pzpat

     In my HW battles my forces do show up in a nice, neat line.  And I move my first division or two based on the positions I see.  And after those troops are committed, the computer will say, "Place the third division."  Wait a minute!  I was counting on that division to present a coherent battle line/provide flank support/attack exposed enemy groups, and now I have to place them behind the others.  This surprise element probably provides a bit of the historical confusion factor.  And I can't complain too loudly.  Once or twice I have needed to screen the supply wagons from enemy forces that started too close to them, so it actually worked to my advantage.



? I'm surprised because in all my attacks where this happens I'm able to place these units well out in advanced of the main battle line. I usually use these one or two divisions as forward probes to find and pin down the enemy. I've never had them limited to appearing behind my line. And I've never had an enemy out flank me to get to my supply unless out was outnumbered 2 to 1 or worse (In those cases I normally circle the wagons... and the troops around them... )

Are you on the attack or defense? and are you playing with closer or normal starting positions? Just curious. I've just never had a unit start behind my lines except for the odd brigade that somehow winds up as a "reinforecment" even though it was with the main army container.

Dude

_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to pzpat)
Post #: 45
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 2:50:15 AM   
MadMike

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: St. Louis, MO
Status: offline
pzpat, read the rest of the thread and you'd see that the true intent of the change is not to imply that the command staffs of the seperate groups would move at different rates, but that an organization of 5 brigades (division) could get off the dime faster and over a 2 week period be capable of longer travel distances than an organization of 15 brigades (corps) or 45 brigades (army).

The ideal solution would be movement rates based on number of brigades in a command unit, but that's not how it's being tested at this point.

_____________________________

Oh look, my CV's are on fire.

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 46
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 3:19:19 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
At Gettysburg Lee's Army wasnt supposed to go to the town ANYWAY. One group decided it needed shoes and the town might have them, and from there we have the battle.

Most of the Confederate forces came from the same area, over 3 different roads. The Union took a lot longer to arrive at the battle field because it wasnt as close to start.

(in reply to MadMike)
Post #: 47
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 10:22:51 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
The 'Confeds needing shoes theory' may be a myth, because prior to Heth's Division approaching gettysburg, other Confed units had already travelled through Gettysburg if I am not mistaken. There weren't that many shoes in Gettysburg anyway, and most were probably already filched by other ANV units passing through Gettyburg prior to Heth's arrival.

Also, I believe alreadynordered the ANV to concentrate at Gettysburg, so Heth was just following Lee's order by moving on Gettysburg.

If Heth wanted shoes he should have gone to Pay-Less Shoes because he would have paid less.

Chris




_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 48
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 10:30:10 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Chris, I was hoping to hear from you on this issue.

The way it's structured now, the movement rates are Army:1, Corps:2, Divisions:3. (not sure about individual brigades)

Interestingly, that setup by default limits the amount of march attrition an Army can take to 5% due to a one province move restriction, while Corps could take up to 10%, and Divisions up to 15%, if they utilize their full movement.

Already I've seen that this mod makes it much more difficult to coordinate movement between different sized formations, arranging for different sized formations to arrive in the same province at the same time from different start points is much more complicated.

Eric, how difficult would it be to allow a high-init general to have a chance to move his Corps or Army command in an earlier phase, not necessarily be able to move it farther but just sooner?

Thanks,
Mike


Hi, Oh, I didn't actually realize that's how they moved now, even though I have played a good number of games. Must be Alzheimer's or something similar.

I just point the containers, click, and hope. I learned that 36 years ago or so from the military.

Chris


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to MadMike)
Post #: 49
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 1:57:17 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
about Gettysburg, isn't it more reasonable to assume that Lee would like his corp to converge near a decent town with some decent communication and transportation routes  ? Anyhow, his objective was to win a decisive battle and most unlikely he was thinking about a quick dash in the woods with all of his corps scattered in the woods.

And he was unaware of Stuarts situation - so a grouped and cohesive move would be more appropriate for his army.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 50
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 2:16:01 PM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

about Gettysburg, isn't it more reasonable to assume that Lee would like his corp to converge near a decent town with some decent communication and transportation routes ? Anyhow, his objective was to win a decisive battle and most unlikely he was thinking about a quick dash in the woods with all of his corps scattered in the woods.

And he was unaware of Stuarts situation - so a grouped and cohesive move would be more appropriate for his army.


It's never reasonable nor militarily correct to assume anything. For instance, Lee assumed the AotP 's center would break on the 3rd day and he was wrong in making such an assumption.

Lee issued orders for his army to assemble at Gettysburg exactly for the reasons you state and then some, and the point is that it wasn't to obtain shoes!!!! It wasn't simply just Lee being unware of where Stuart was, but the fact that Stuart wasn't giving Lee the info. he needed as he was previously ordered to do so by Lee as SOP anyway. If Lee didn't know exactly where Stuart was at a certain time, that would not have mattered as long as Lee was recieving from Stuart info. explaining as to WHERE THE USA FORCES WERE. Sturat was supposed to be on a Recon and Screening mission, so Lee could not expect to know exactly where Stuart was at any given moment, but he neeed info. from Stuart as to the strength of and where the Union forces were.

Lee's main objective may have been to defeat the AotP on Union soil, but his other secondary objectives were to make the ANV's presence and strength of Southern arms known to as much of the Union population in the area as possible for propoganda and psychological reasons, and to garner supplies from the countryside and towns and cities, hence Lee's forces were a bit spreadout doing these things.

Maybe you're confusing what I and others have said. The ANV did not concentrate at Gettysburg to filch shoes that had very probably been already filched in the main earlier by other Southern forces passing through the locale before Heth arrived there.

Chris


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 51
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 4:30:35 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
I disagree. It has been a while since I read the history but as I recall Lee did NOT intend to gather at gettysburg and in fact had told his subordinate units to not go there.

He did not know where the Union forces were and wasnt getting good reports from his cavalry. Congregating at a town was not a good idea since he was IN a Norhtern state and those Townspeople were NOT known to be Southern symphatisers likely to simply ignore a large Enemy force organizing and passing through.

I suggest you read some of the comments Lee had about the initial fighting on the first day and his displeasure with being forced to fight a major battle without having the advantage of picking the battle field and without the scouting and screening of his cavalry forces.

Gettysburg was an accident.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 52
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 5:10:15 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
It seems we are both right after a fashion.

Heath had ordered two brigades to occupy what he thought was an undefended Gettysburg. 2 Brigades of Union Cavalry, supported by artillery were unseen and resisted.

The Union reinforced first and Lee decided to fight " where he found the Union". His lack of cavalry hampered his knowledge of the Union forces and conditions he faced.

Longstreet argued for a flanking move but Lee thought he could take the Cemetary Hill heights, as his forces had already taken 2 previous high ground lines.

The Union reinforced before the assault was launched, leaving them in possession of very good defensive positions.

Lee had not intended to muster his army at Gettysburg, rather his subordinates and then he reinforced a battle that was started and fought by accident. Each side reinforceing the accidental meeting.

(in reply to MadMike)
Post #: 53
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 5:19:02 PM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

It seems we are both right after a fashion.

Heath had ordered two brigades to occupy what he thought was an undefended Gettysburg. 2 Brigades of Union Cavalry, supported by artillery were unseen and resisted.

The Union reinforced first and Lee decided to fight " where he found the Union". His lack of cavalry hampered his knowledge of the Union forces and conditions he faced.

Longstreet argued for a flanking move but Lee thought he could take the Cemetary Hill heights, as his forces had already taken 2 previous high ground lines.

The Union reinforced before the assault was launched, leaving them in possession of very good defensive positions.

Lee had not intended to muster his army at Gettysburg, rather his subordinates and then he reinforced a battle that was started and fought by accident. Each side reinforceing the accidental meeting.


Not really, as this is all well known knowledge about Heth etc.

You're straying from the point. Before Heth got into it with the Union Cavalry at Gettysburg, Lee had issued the orders to concentrate at Gettysburg I do believe.

Longstreet's argument for a flanking movement occurred on the 2nd and 3rd Days, not the 1st Day I do believe, as his first two Divisions didn't reach the field until the morning of the 2nd Day and didn't attack until the afternoon I believe it was of the 2nd Day, so what does Longstreet have to do with the ANV and Heth moving to Gettsyburg supposedly looking for shoes??

Chris


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 54
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 5:29:10 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
NO, Longstreet argued that the battle should be a flanking manuevor on the first day. Lee thought he could take the heights then and there, to which Longstreet replied along the lines of " He wants you to attack him there, that usually is reason enough to not make the attack"

You are correct though in that Longstreets main forces and participation as battle commander started on the second day.

Ewell gets the blame for not assaulting the heights right away on the afternoon of the first day. Lee sent an order that was confusing to Ewell and he hesitated. Lee become concerned and rode forward to find out why and it was to late to attack because the Union had reinforced.

I find nothing that states Lee was planning to gather at Gettysburg until AFTER Heath began fighting. If you have any internet source, I would appreciate it, I am never quite sure how best to find what I want.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 55
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 5:32:14 PM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I disagree. It has been a while since I read the history but as I recall Lee did NOT intend to gather at gettysburg and in fact had told his subordinate units to not go there.

He did not know where the Union forces were and wasnt getting good reports from his cavalry. Congregating at a town was not a good idea since he was IN a Norhtern state and those Townspeople were NOT known to be Southern symphatisers likely to simply ignore a large Enemy force organizing and passing through.

I suggest you read some of the comments Lee had about the initial fighting on the first day and his displeasure with being forced to fight a major battle without having the advantage of picking the battle field and without the scouting and screening of his cavalry forces.

Gettysburg was an accident.


You grossly misinterpret and misunderstand. I nor anyone else said that Lee ORIGINALLY inteneded to concentrate at Gettysburg as you imply for not any reason whatsoever.

What I said is that Lee ordered the concentration at Gettysburg before Heth became engaged with the USA Cavalry because Lee did have some info. on the whereabouts of the AotP and decided it would be wiser to concentrate at the convenient road center of Gettysburg than take a chance and leave his army dispersed.

You are completely misreading and/or simply not understanding what I very clearly stated.

This is a boring and ridiculous waste of time for me.

Chris


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 56
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 5:41:49 PM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

NO, Longstreet argued that the battle should be a flanking manuevor on the first day. Lee thought he could take the heights then and there, to which Longstreet replied along the lines of " He wants you to attack him there, that usually is reason enough to not make the attack"

You are correct though in that Longstreets main forces and participation as battle commander started on the second day.

Ewell gets the blame for not assaulting the heights right away on the afternoon of the first day. Lee sent an order that was confusing to Ewell and he hesitated. Lee become concerned and rode forward to find out why and it was to late to attack because the Union had reinforced.

I find nothing that states Lee was planning to gather at Gettysburg until AFTER Heath began fighting. If you have any internet source, I would appreciate it, I am never quite sure how best to find what I want.


Longstreet didn't know the lay of the land on the 1st Day at Gettysburg and had to see to bringing up his divisions. His divisions didn't arrive until very late in the evening of July 1st of very early in the morning of July 2nd, so I doubt Longstreet was arguing about anything with Lee on the 1st Day, and never have read of any great discussions between the two leaders on the 1st Day.

I find not anything to agree with what you are trying to say.

Lee ordered the ANV to concentrate at Gettysburg before Heth engaged the USA cavalry, and that is why Heth was moving on Gettysburg, he was following Lee's orders and not trying to find shoes. There is a lot of info. available concerning this.

What made Gettysburg a chance encounter for more so Lee than the AotP was that Lee didn't know too much about the deployment and movement of the AotP as you know due to Stuart's cavorting about. Plus the USA cavalry did arrive suddenly and unexpectedly to Heth's misfortune.

BTW, there is a difference between Gen. Heth and Heath's Candy Bar.

Chris


_____________________________

'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 57
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 6:00:41 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadMike
Eric, how difficult would it be to allow a high-init general to have a chance to move his Corps or Army command in an earlier phase, not necessarily be able to move it farther but just sooner?


There's nothing in the data structure that would be able to remember that a unit got an early move, so it wouldn't be a small change. As far as not-small changes go, however, it's on the not-big end of the spectrum. There's gray area in between not-small and not-big, and this is in that gray area.

_____________________________



(in reply to MadMike)
Post #: 58
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 6:05:32 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude
moving his armies... which basically was sending individual divisions/corps differnet routes just so they wouldn't get boged down on one trail. Then hoping they all joined up at the right place at the right time... Frequently though he'd wind up with some division marching the the wrong way and not getting to the battle that the rest of the army was fighting. This is one of the things this game does not really model that well unless you actually do use different forces to move into one battle...

In detailed combat almost all of your units show up together in one nice neat line. Didn't Lee's army at Gettysburg start off my coming in from different directions along different roads? We've gotten use to wanting things easy by grouping all of our forces togther in one nice neat army container and then they all show up together... but was that the way it really happened? (... just asking...)


In our game Crown of Glory, generals make a check at the start of detailed combat. If they make their check well, their units start in a tight vicinity near the center of their setup area. If their checks are made poorly, their units are more dispersed across their side of the map. Almost all the feedback on this system (with the exception of one person who really liked this...) was negative: people wanted their units to start in nice neat lines, or to be able to place their units wherever they wanted in their setup area. In FOF, this is what they got...though the check element is still there inasmuch as making a check is a requirement for being able to set up a military group.

_____________________________



(in reply to dude)
Post #: 59
RE: Container Movement Rates - 4/7/2007 6:44:29 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe


quote:

ORIGINAL: dude
moving his armies... which basically was sending individual divisions/corps differnet routes just so they wouldn't get boged down on one trail. Then hoping they all joined up at the right place at the right time... Frequently though he'd wind up with some division marching the the wrong way and not getting to the battle that the rest of the army was fighting. This is one of the things this game does not really model that well unless you actually do use different forces to move into one battle...

In detailed combat almost all of your units show up together in one nice neat line. Didn't Lee's army at Gettysburg start off my coming in from different directions along different roads? We've gotten use to wanting things easy by grouping all of our forces togther in one nice neat army container and then they all show up together... but was that the way it really happened? (... just asking...)


In our game Crown of Glory, generals make a check at the start of detailed combat. If they make their check well, their units start in a tight vicinity near the center of their setup area. If their checks are made poorly, their units are more dispersed across their side of the map. Almost all the feedback on this system (with the exception of one person who really liked this...) was negative: people wanted their units to start in nice neat lines, or to be able to place their units wherever they wanted in their setup area. In FOF, this is what they got...though the check element is still there inasmuch as making a check is a requirement for being able to set up a military group.


... funny thing is I play both games and like both... though I must be one of the ones that lean more towards the scattered start. I always enjoyed the challenge in CoG of refroming my units just before the enemy would hit me... normally I'll back up a bit, giving up terrain, use a unit or two for holding action,... to find a better spot to form my lines at (usually behind a river or ridge line.) I understand both views... sometimes I just want a nice predictible set up other times I want a challange... I'm just in the middle somewhere. I wasn't necessarily suggesting you start the forces on top of one anohter though (unless one was surprised.)

The problem really is that there were tons of differnt types of engagements... meeting... dugin defenders... flanking... surprise... all present differnt kinds of starting positions. (Some of my favorite detailed battles so far have been when surprised and had to quckly withdraw, regroup, and reform the lines... then kick butt...) I just like a little bit of randomness at the start. Have an occasional unit start on their side of the map but possible in different corner or further behind the main body? You have the choice to delay the main body's advance to wait or move on and hope they catch up... Or maybe you could add a Game Option that would allow for more random starts. Those that want nicly formed lines could have em by not chosing this option.. those that want the uncertainty of war could... just a thought. I love options...

Dude

< Message edited by dude -- 4/7/2007 6:46:15 PM >


_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Public Beta Feedback >> RE: Container Movement Rates Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
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

0.984