Fire phases

[AlAmos]

Do units that fire after moving do so with the same effectiveness of those that fire in the first phase (and don't get to move during the turn)?

Did not see anything in the rules or editor screens about it.

[jackx]

The same basic firing effectiveness is used for all fire. So it depends entirely on the situation how effective it is, i.e. morale/disruption/formation/terrain etc.

[AlAmos]

Okay, thanks. So there is no negative modifier for units that move before firing?

[jackx]

Considering it's 15 minute turns (by default) and thus a fairly abstract take on combat, there are no direct penalties. Of course, if you spend all your MP moving, you might end up with disruption, which will negatively affect your fire effectiveness. If you end your move in EZoC, you'll also not get the chance to recover disruption at that point, even when you have MP left over.
Also, defensive fire has a chance to cause disruption, first/second fire don't, giving the stationary unit (which fires first or defensively) a relative advantage, without imposing an arbitrary clear superiority for what was a hugely contentious issue at the time (fire first/second, as soon as/as late as possible).
So there's quite a few indirect penalties for "firing and moving" that scale with troop quality, and mostly apply when you're going up against someone who's shooting back.

With regard to all this, it's probably also worth mentioning that by not firing at all, you can effectively skip defensive fire if you're already in the enemies ZoC. This is immensely useful when stuck in front of batteries, and while it might seem "gamey" at first, there were several instances of defending batteries unable to fire because the protecting infantry got in their way, which led to them being overrun.
Of course, it also consequently led to the death of thousands of Prussians because a certain king thought his troops could actually overrun them reliably by simple determined frontal assault, without being assisted by inept/ill-disciplined defenders.

[AlAmos]

Jackx,

No, no, no. No theory answers about, "since it's 15minutes then...."

The time scale within a turn can be set to anything a scenario designer wants it to be. I'm inquiring if the game engine has a hard-coded modifier governing the fire of units that has moved. For example, in the HPS Early American War series a unit's fire is automatically halved if the units spends even one movement point.

I do like the info you gave about defensive fire can cause disruption, but 1st/2nd fire can't. That is good to know. Thanks. [:)]

[jackx]

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)

[AlAmos]

Jackx,

Did not mean to upset you, nor for you to go into some long explanation. BTW, and no offence intended, your opinions in the first two paragraphs aren't shared by everyone. I believe your assumptions are incorrect. The game engine is much stronger than you are giving it credit. I'm no rookie at this sort of thing, trust me.

My question is...

Is the engine hard-coded to penalize units that moved when they fire in the second fire.

By your answers I'm guessing you don't know, and that's okay.

I'm hoping it is not. Just wanting it clarified. The answer, I guess will come from the programmer, or design team member at some point. If you are he, or part of them, my apologies for insisting on an answer, but I'm very curious.

[jackx]

Sorry for launching into a bit of a rant.

My first two paragraphs are based on the entire series of games, not just this current incarnation, which is indeed much more flexible - which I think is a step in the right direction. Before that, the engine might have been powerful, but you couldn't harness it the way you can now.

I tried creating some company-scale scenarios for PG for instance, and that didn't go too well, because for one you couldn't set the disband level - so just about any unit that was routing at the end of a turn would disband, because it was too small. If you played to win under such conditions, you'd not have much of a period feel left.


Regarding fire, there is no inherent penalty for second fire based on unit movement that I am aware of.