The main reason I raised this is that I happened to find myself in the position of having multiple Corps stretched over 3 or 4 regions with a chance of attacking Richmond and the regions to its south in what might possible have been the last fair weather turn before the winter of ’63. I thought I had enough strength to be able to take on the enemy Corps in each region especially as I thought they may be in some disarray and not fully fortified. I just wanted some clarification to understand exactly what I might face if many of my opponents Corps marched to the guns successfully.
I certainly don’t think I should have to face the same enemy Corps multiple times in different regions in this situation. The distance travelled could represent several hundred miles to move to support a region to the north, to fight in it’s own region and then move to support a region to the south all within a day or two.
Cheers, Chris
Evren wrote:I'm just trying to express my opinions about this specific feature of the game. I find it a real good and strong side of the game.
I agree, likes the characteristic to march to the sound of the guns, but I am sure that can be improved. A Corps that supports to another one in a different region must have a penalty in the combat.
Hobbes wrote:I certainly don’t think I should have to face the same enemy Corps multiple times in different regions in this situation.
Cheers, Chris
I understand what you mean, but IMHO, this problematic situation is more theoric than real.
With much effort and some luck you could engenieer a situation in which you attacked 3 adyacent areas defened by enemy coprs at the same day and, if you are very unlucky, some of the enemy corps could support each other more than one time.
But on a real game, ths possibility is very, very, very low... even triying hard for it.
An attacker tries (orshould try) to concentrate his strengh for a push, not split it evenly against several enemy corps.
Regards1
-
Jabberwock
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA
- Contact: ICQ
Say I have five corps defending a line of adjacent regions. Total strength 7500 points in 15 divisions (500 points each). If I arrange the divisions like this 3-3-3-3-3 and all corps march to the guns, effective strength is 3000-4500-4500-4500-3000 (total of 19500). But suppose I arrange the divisions like this 1-6-1-6-1. Of course I give the stronger corps to the leaders with the highest strat ratings and the bonus CP abilities. I throw in a couple of signal units and balloons. Marching to the guns is pretty much a given. Now effective strength is 3500-4000-6500-4000-3500 (total of 21500). I've effectively raised the strength of the "weaker" corps by alternating strong and weak corps. I'm not too concerned about effectively weakening the stronger corps, because no sane opponent is going to attack the apparent strong points under the best commanders.
Given Hobbes concerns about simultaneous marching, is this gamey or just good strategy?
Given Hobbes concerns about simultaneous marching, is this gamey or just good strategy?
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]
-
eleven_west
- Corporal
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:55 pm
- Location: London, UK
Why can't we assume that, on an imaginary and abstract basis :
Corps situated in adjacent regions are or have approached near enough at the time the battle commences to reasonably support each other.
After all, a battle commences once an attacking core has travelled a fair amount of days to attack an enemy defending core. The time travelled should be sufficient for well informed defenders to rally adjacent friendly corps to converge on their positions at the point of battle. Sufficient for them to limber, file in column and appear in an orderly manner. For the attacker, the same applies if we think of a coordinated corps attack, they still wouldn't form a line and walk like 100km would they? The cohesion penalty should be at a minimum, unless a. a previous battle has been fought by the rallying core b. adverse weather conditions apply en route. But I wouldn't allow for a marching cohesion bonus other that of a passive stance movement - regardless of the percentage of loyalty in the area where the battle is fought and for either side.
Any notions of great distance or travel time, shock and surprise are defunct here : Spearhead and Blitzkrieg doctrines didn't appear until 80 years later, in my opinion Civil War battles were still bloody rendezvous between orderly (in various degrees) maneuvring armies of line infantry. They would deploy cavalry/skirmisher vanguards and rearguards, but the rest of the army would move in COLUMN ie passive, to maximize cohesion. Then arrive to the point of battle, form up, approach, fire volley, fire volley, bayonet charge - that's it.
I would allow for envelopment or flanking penalties, perhaps, pertaining to the direction where a core appears to the field. I would also allow for the traits surpriser, fast mover or cavalry officer to perhaps give a variable bonus roll for battle envelopment/flanking, that would be fair.
Now about corps fighting more than one battle per round, just think of the Waterloo campaign : 50 square miles and four battle grounds among 3 armies consisting of 15 or so maneuvring corps within 5-6 days. So it is perfectly and historically possible, in an abstract way, for several adjacent corps to be engaged in more than one battles per round, if not on the same day, at least over a short period of few days.
In short, to me, the game is quite realistic the way it is now on movement to the sound of battle unit cohesion. But I would like to see flanking and envelopment bonuses attached to existing leader attributes.
Corps situated in adjacent regions are or have approached near enough at the time the battle commences to reasonably support each other.
After all, a battle commences once an attacking core has travelled a fair amount of days to attack an enemy defending core. The time travelled should be sufficient for well informed defenders to rally adjacent friendly corps to converge on their positions at the point of battle. Sufficient for them to limber, file in column and appear in an orderly manner. For the attacker, the same applies if we think of a coordinated corps attack, they still wouldn't form a line and walk like 100km would they? The cohesion penalty should be at a minimum, unless a. a previous battle has been fought by the rallying core b. adverse weather conditions apply en route. But I wouldn't allow for a marching cohesion bonus other that of a passive stance movement - regardless of the percentage of loyalty in the area where the battle is fought and for either side.
Any notions of great distance or travel time, shock and surprise are defunct here : Spearhead and Blitzkrieg doctrines didn't appear until 80 years later, in my opinion Civil War battles were still bloody rendezvous between orderly (in various degrees) maneuvring armies of line infantry. They would deploy cavalry/skirmisher vanguards and rearguards, but the rest of the army would move in COLUMN ie passive, to maximize cohesion. Then arrive to the point of battle, form up, approach, fire volley, fire volley, bayonet charge - that's it.
I would allow for envelopment or flanking penalties, perhaps, pertaining to the direction where a core appears to the field. I would also allow for the traits surpriser, fast mover or cavalry officer to perhaps give a variable bonus roll for battle envelopment/flanking, that would be fair.
Now about corps fighting more than one battle per round, just think of the Waterloo campaign : 50 square miles and four battle grounds among 3 armies consisting of 15 or so maneuvring corps within 5-6 days. So it is perfectly and historically possible, in an abstract way, for several adjacent corps to be engaged in more than one battles per round, if not on the same day, at least over a short period of few days.
In short, to me, the game is quite realistic the way it is now on movement to the sound of battle unit cohesion. But I would like to see flanking and envelopment bonuses attached to existing leader attributes.
Insurances must be taken that (1) no real abuse can be done to the system and (2) that there is a strong possibility of support, to favor defense, which is our aim, as the player can't interact during the 15 days of a turn.
Limiting a given corps to intervene at most one per day would be normal, even if the case spoken about is in my opinion rather theorical, but let's stay safe.
Also incurring an additional cohesion loss each time you march (thus lowering the chances to march a second time, as a nice side-effect) can also be added I think.
Going further and you are adding mechanisms which are certainly fit for a PBEM game, but which would hamper the poor AI I think.
Limiting a given corps to intervene at most one per day would be normal, even if the case spoken about is in my opinion rather theorical, but let's stay safe.
Also incurring an additional cohesion loss each time you march (thus lowering the chances to march a second time, as a nice side-effect) can also be added I think.
Going further and you are adding mechanisms which are certainly fit for a PBEM game, but which would hamper the poor AI I think.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:Limiting a given corps to intervene at most one per day would be normal, even if the case spoken about is in my opinion rather theorical, but let's stay safe.
Also incurring an additional cohesion loss each time you march (thus lowering the chances to march a second time, as a nice side-effect) can also be added I think.
Going further and you are adding mechanisms which are certainly fit for a PBEM game, but which would hamper the poor AI I think.
I am in agreement with those changes, mainly with the lost one of cohesion when marching to the sound of the guns.
This rule could not be applied for the IA
Pocus wrote:Insurances must be taken that (1) no real abuse can be done to the system and (2) that there is a strong possibility of support, to favor defense, which is our aim, as the player can't interact during the 15 days of a turn.
Limiting a given corps to intervene at most one per day would be normal, even if the case spoken about is in my opinion rather theorical, but let's stay safe.
Also incurring an additional cohesion loss each time you march (thus lowering the chances to march a second time, as a nice side-effect) can also be added I think.
Going further and you are adding mechanisms which are certainly fit for a PBEM game, but which would hamper the poor AI I think.
Sounds good to me Philippe!
Cheers, Chris
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
2 questions:
-what about several days battles? Are the system considering there are 2 battles (and so 2 virtual marches for corps marching to the guns) or only one processing on the next day?
- Is army HQ excluded from the new rules? I guess it would be necessary to give players incentive to form into them artillery reserves...
-what about several days battles? Are the system considering there are 2 battles (and so 2 virtual marches for corps marching to the guns) or only one processing on the next day?
- Is army HQ excluded from the new rules? I guess it would be necessary to give players incentive to form into them artillery reserves...
[LEFT]Disabled
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/
[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]
[/LEFT]
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/
[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]
[/LEFT]
1 point loss would be sufficient. After all, I don't notice in my readings uits to enter the battle in advanced dizorganization state because of a march to the guns.
[LEFT]Disabled
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/
[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]
[/LEFT]
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/
[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]
[/LEFT]
Clovis wrote:2 questions:
-what about several days battles? Are the system considering there are 2 battles (and so 2 virtual marches for corps marching to the guns) or only one processing on the next day?
- Is army HQ excluded from the new rules? I guess it would be necessary to give players incentive to form into them artillery reserves...
(1) I'll get back to you later on that, once I check the code in depth
(2) they already have some bonuses to join...
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Is there any way to drop the cohesion loss to 1pt/day, but have the divisions in the responding corps arrive one at a time? There are countless examples of reinforcements being thrown in as they reach the field, and naturally everyone would not arrive at once.
I don't know if that is possible within the code though.
I don't know if that is possible within the code though.
My name is Aaron.
Knight of New Hampshire
Knight of New Hampshire
-
Brochgale
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:22 am
- Location: Scotland
- Contact: Yahoo Messenger
[quote="Evren"]One other note also:
If you were referring to the geographical distances between regions, i can't talk in place of the developers' intention here, but it think they considered that corps were staying close to each other in the war, even in different regions. So moving from a region to another can take several days from a region to another in the turn phase, but like from a city center to another. A single region is still large in geographical terms, and even several corps may not be able to possess every single inch square in a single region. So 3 corps in 3 different regions must still be close to each other, let's say a few hours of way between each other, holding ground and protecting each other. I guess this was the idea in the developers' minds. There are no regions in the real war, the game is just a simulation and the region (aka hex) idea makes it easier for developers to code. quote]
Remember Stuart before Gettysburg going walkabout with CSA Cavalry.Against orders apparently? CSA and feds arriving piecemeal at Battle - A battle that you could say happenned wher it did by accident? Debate-able point perhaps?Plenty of examples on both sides of Generals etc not following thier orders?
If you were referring to the geographical distances between regions, i can't talk in place of the developers' intention here, but it think they considered that corps were staying close to each other in the war, even in different regions. So moving from a region to another can take several days from a region to another in the turn phase, but like from a city center to another. A single region is still large in geographical terms, and even several corps may not be able to possess every single inch square in a single region. So 3 corps in 3 different regions must still be close to each other, let's say a few hours of way between each other, holding ground and protecting each other. I guess this was the idea in the developers' minds. There are no regions in the real war, the game is just a simulation and the region (aka hex) idea makes it easier for developers to code. quote]
Remember Stuart before Gettysburg going walkabout with CSA Cavalry.Against orders apparently? CSA and feds arriving piecemeal at Battle - A battle that you could say happenned wher it did by accident? Debate-able point perhaps?Plenty of examples on both sides of Generals etc not following thier orders?
soloswolf wrote:Is there any way to drop the cohesion loss to 1pt/day, but have the divisions in the responding corps arrive one at a time? There are countless examples of reinforcements being thrown in as they reach the field, and naturally everyone would not arrive at once.
I don't know if that is possible within the code though.
No, a stack is involved or not, sorry.
Cohesion has been dropped to 1 pt per day, seems more reasonable after some thoughts.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Clovis wrote:2 questions:
-what about several days battles? Are the system considering there are 2 battles (and so 2 virtual marches for corps marching to the guns) or only one processing on the next day?
- Is army HQ excluded from the new rules? I guess it would be necessary to give players incentive to form into them artillery reserves...
Answer on point 1, in case of multi-days battles, corps already commited by the March to the Gun rule are automatically called from an adjacent region (as they are supposed to still be on the battlefield) and don't pay cohesion loss.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests