jackx
Posts: 353
Joined: 7/8/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
|
I'm aware that the scales can be changed, hence the "by default"... however, the default scale of 150y/15min is clearly what the game mechanics are primarily designed for, and our new-found expanded editing possibilities notwithstanding, that's where they'll work best.
The game is ultimately more of a command/control simulation then a recreation of tactical minutiae, and trying to adapt its abstract mechanics to small-scale representations of the latter doesn't work too well.
If you go for a smaller scale, you need definite models/answers, and since these can only be conjecture, you'll end up shoving a certain interpretation down everyone's throat. It's a necessity of sorts, particularly when you want a competitive MP environment at such scales, but it's not a route I'd like to see HnM take, since currently the focus seems to be on flexibility instead. And should competitive MP become an issue, I doubt it'll be too hard to agree to a certain set of scenarios/rules to base that on... restrictions would currently rather be needed for things like cold steel movement...
That said, there are some changes I'd like to see regarding fire in HnM
1) Limited target selection. A unit should only be able to fire at the closest target/closest attacker by default. Firing at anything else requires a unit quality check and if that check is failed, not only is the target not available, but there's also a chance of increased disruption.
This would simulate the lack of fire control generally reported from the period, and particularly with smaller scales (and thus multi-hex-range weaponry), prevent an unrealistic stacking of fire. In larger battles/at a larger scale, this'd also help to simulate the lack of visibility.
2) Allow for a firing effectiveness modifier per MP spent by the unit in that turn, ideally set per army, just like the charge disruption.
3) Allow for an assault effectiveness modifier based on MP remaining that turn. This would make protracted (i.e. both units dont move much/at all during the turn) close proximity fighting (and the odd actual melee) more destructive, units shouldn't be able to stand more than one turn (10-15 minutes) of that, unlike a longer-range firefight (simulated by the firing phases), which is less decisive, and less destructive.
Edit: I hope I don't come across as too confrontative, but unfortunately I've been in more than one too many debates (in a different context) about fire combat in this period, many of them the more tedious kind of online arguments, so I'm afraid I have a tendency to overreact.
Regarding the disadvantages of movement, which again supports the argument that the 150 yard scale is what the game is primarily balanced/designed for is the impact of disruption of assault. With 1-hex range infantry weapons, fire range is assault range (both are actually mostly fire combat from a historical POV) too, and the disruption penalties for assaults are severe, particularly for the moving/attacking unit.
Combine this with the ability to skip fire, and you can really hurt the unit that initially moved to contact/into range if it has incurred significant disruption - you don't fire at it, which means your unit won't take defensive fire in turn, and will thus remain at 0 disruption, then you rally it, and thrash the disrupted enemy unit in the assault phase.
(All this is of course assuming the disrupted unit doesn't launch a prior assault in its own assault phase, which however should still see it repulsed/losing badly if units of comparable quality are involved. And even when it wins by means of unit quality/superior morale, the amount of punishment that 0-disruption regulars can inflict on 50+ disruption elites is severe)
< Message edited by jackx -- 1/26/2010 12:45:32 PM >
|
Printable Version
Fire phases - 
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