anvil....
I composed a reply to your post but... then just deleted it.
To make a long story short.... I am NOT IMPRESSED with your posts... and would prefer if you did not reply to my posts in the future.
In any case... I am not wasting any more time on any disagreements with you.
DiT
Formations
Moderators: Tim Coakley, Sertorius
-
DeadInThrench
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: NE Pennsylvania, USA
RE: Formations
Lol,,
Incredible,,but expected,, so no problem.. however, i will continue to post here as i see fit..
May your journey thru this Great Era be as rewarding to you as it is to me,,
anvil
Incredible,,but expected,, so no problem.. however, i will continue to post here as i see fit..
May your journey thru this Great Era be as rewarding to you as it is to me,,
anvil
Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari
RE: Formations
I think the purpose of a special formation for units defending a fort or town is the ability of such units to cover their flanks and rear. A unit posted in line in a fort can defend to its front, but any unit attacking from the flank or the rear can carry the fort with no casualities. That is not very realistic. A unit occupying a fort should be able to cover any approach. Yes, a battalion defending against attacks from multiple directions would do so with reduced fire/melee strength, but the benefit of fortifications should counter that at least in part. It seems that siege warfare could be better represented by improved graphics that provided for ditches, pallisades, bastions, curtain walls, glacis, etc. All of these features should have strength points that could be reduced by bombardment. The ability to actually construct field works while playing the game could enhance this as well. More varied artillery would also be a plus.
Sumter
Sumter
-
sol_invictus
- Posts: 1960
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Kentucky
RE: Formations
I believe a while back that it was stated that units would be able to assume a Defensive Order or Loose Order; I forget the exact wording; when defending in a Town or Fortification, in order to provide all around defense capability.
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
RE: Formations
Yea,, i think they called is either a defensive order or an special formation in towns\fortifications.. It will interesting to see how they handle this.
As much as i would like to see more detail in a siege type game,, i think the scale here is not right,, time and distance both. A separate siege mode like in RTW would be really cool,,but i suspect beyond the scope of their changes.
if you have only one or two stacked units in a hex,, and only one building,, the building represents more than one house or whatever,, So it is assumed, i suppose,, if they have the time,, then they would fortify the buildings and put up some sort of barriers between houses to get behind if possible.. then the new defensive formation would be good, with protected flanks,,etc, but if they just moved into a town, and were assaulted,,then there would be no time for any defensive improvements made,, in this case, i would call them highly disorganized line with no benefits. Just imagins 600 or so men moving into a town,, in streets,alleys,buildings,, command\control would be nonexistant,,and this is very important to our figs. So i think that a unit must have to spend a certain period of time in a town hex to gain the benefits of protected flanks etc.
anvil
As much as i would like to see more detail in a siege type game,, i think the scale here is not right,, time and distance both. A separate siege mode like in RTW would be really cool,,but i suspect beyond the scope of their changes.
if you have only one or two stacked units in a hex,, and only one building,, the building represents more than one house or whatever,, So it is assumed, i suppose,, if they have the time,, then they would fortify the buildings and put up some sort of barriers between houses to get behind if possible.. then the new defensive formation would be good, with protected flanks,,etc, but if they just moved into a town, and were assaulted,,then there would be no time for any defensive improvements made,, in this case, i would call them highly disorganized line with no benefits. Just imagins 600 or so men moving into a town,, in streets,alleys,buildings,, command\control would be nonexistant,,and this is very important to our figs. So i think that a unit must have to spend a certain period of time in a town hex to gain the benefits of protected flanks etc.
anvil
Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari
-
sol_invictus
- Posts: 1960
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Kentucky
RE: Formations
I agree, it would be nice if there was an automatic timer that starts when a unit moves into a potentially strong defensive structure and if the unit stays there until the timer runs out, they then assume the defensive formation and occupy the newly created works.
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
RE: Formations
Your thoughts about units in town or building hexes sound reasonable. I was always more concerned about the realism of units in forts being attacked from the flank without any defensive capability. I do think it was fairly common to incorporate villages into defensive lines as strongpoints (check the French deployment at Bleinheim for instance), but, as you observed, it took time to barricade and fortify.
Sadly, you are also probably right about sieges. Still, with the proper graphics, it would be possible to re-create assaults once the walls had been breeched. That would be something.
Sumter
Sadly, you are also probably right about sieges. Still, with the proper graphics, it would be possible to re-create assaults once the walls had been breeched. That would be something.
Sumter
RE: Formations
I see that I was less than clear on one point. I think that units moving into forts should be able to assume the special defensive formation immediately.
Sumter
Sumter
RE: Formations
I agree on forts,,as they did not need anything but troops to man the ramparts,, no time needed here.
Hey Mag,, how about this for an idea for sieges? All we really need is to have a graphic or graphics of a breach,, then we could create scenarios using this to do an assault on the breach? If it could be done as "rough terrain" for adverse modifiers or "slopes" of one sort or another,, or all the above avalable for different types of "rubble" then we could create star forts,,or any of their parts,,and design scenarios for "assaulting a breach"..
Possible if we had this,, and the added "Pioneer" functions Tim mentioned above, we could even do a siege and build saps,parallels,gun emplacements,have sorties etc,,, lol a first btw as best i know,, with few changes to the rules...
So seems to do this what we would need would be "formal" fortification sections that would fill a hex,,and be joinable.. walls,ravelins,gates,gun emplacements,earthworks,etc and destroyed tiles as for all of these.
If Tims "Working (for pioneers)" figs and addition to the game had some sort of time frame to create earthworks and gun emplacements,,then we could do this in a game... Trenches would be cool,,but mayby not possible,, but raised earthworks to simulate this would work as well for saps, parallels and earthen gun emplacements...
Lol,, i gots many pics of these items if ya need and this is possible
anvil
Hey Mag,, how about this for an idea for sieges? All we really need is to have a graphic or graphics of a breach,, then we could create scenarios using this to do an assault on the breach? If it could be done as "rough terrain" for adverse modifiers or "slopes" of one sort or another,, or all the above avalable for different types of "rubble" then we could create star forts,,or any of their parts,,and design scenarios for "assaulting a breach"..
Possible if we had this,, and the added "Pioneer" functions Tim mentioned above, we could even do a siege and build saps,parallels,gun emplacements,have sorties etc,,, lol a first btw as best i know,, with few changes to the rules...
So seems to do this what we would need would be "formal" fortification sections that would fill a hex,,and be joinable.. walls,ravelins,gates,gun emplacements,earthworks,etc and destroyed tiles as for all of these.
If Tims "Working (for pioneers)" figs and addition to the game had some sort of time frame to create earthworks and gun emplacements,,then we could do this in a game... Trenches would be cool,,but mayby not possible,, but raised earthworks to simulate this would work as well for saps, parallels and earthen gun emplacements...
Lol,, i gots many pics of these items if ya need and this is possible
anvil
Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari
-
DeadInThrench
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: NE Pennsylvania, USA
RE: Formations
Sumter...
I am not sure if you are getting at exactly this but.... a problem in the game.. units in forts that are at a 'point'.... well, have three hexes that they can be attacked from and thus enemy units move into the hex that is not considered their front and... thus get a flank attack on them which, IMO, is absurd.
There is also a similar problem at times with straight line infantry lines across the field of battle. You could have what would be a straight line if we were not talking about the hex grid but, with the hex grid, instead zig-zags across the field... and this also opens up situations were units can be attacked from their flank which, as above, is kinda absurd.
To be honest not sure what to do about this. Maybe allowing units in forts a 3 hex front (but, this would not jive with the facing so... a 4 hex front?). Another idea is to not allow units to attack another unit in it's flank.... if there is another unit that they are adjacent to that they can fire at and be fired at... and not allow units to move into a hex where their flank can be attacked..... if you can move into the same hex (with a different facing) and not be exposed to a flank attack.
Hmmm.... a 6 hex front... is probably valid for situations where the hex was indeed a fort on all sides.... otherwise if it is just a wall, they shouldn't get any benefit (and should suffer the penalties) from being attacked from the rear.
DeadInTrench
P.S. Hmmm... maybe..... a unit in a fort.... has all the hexes on the other side of a fort hex side... to be considered 'front' hexes. The firing strength of the unit in the fort, might have to be divided by the number of hex sides it is defending... but if so... should be able to fire at each with this reduced strength.
I am not sure if you are getting at exactly this but.... a problem in the game.. units in forts that are at a 'point'.... well, have three hexes that they can be attacked from and thus enemy units move into the hex that is not considered their front and... thus get a flank attack on them which, IMO, is absurd.
There is also a similar problem at times with straight line infantry lines across the field of battle. You could have what would be a straight line if we were not talking about the hex grid but, with the hex grid, instead zig-zags across the field... and this also opens up situations were units can be attacked from their flank which, as above, is kinda absurd.
To be honest not sure what to do about this. Maybe allowing units in forts a 3 hex front (but, this would not jive with the facing so... a 4 hex front?). Another idea is to not allow units to attack another unit in it's flank.... if there is another unit that they are adjacent to that they can fire at and be fired at... and not allow units to move into a hex where their flank can be attacked..... if you can move into the same hex (with a different facing) and not be exposed to a flank attack.
Hmmm.... a 6 hex front... is probably valid for situations where the hex was indeed a fort on all sides.... otherwise if it is just a wall, they shouldn't get any benefit (and should suffer the penalties) from being attacked from the rear.
DeadInTrench
P.S. Hmmm... maybe..... a unit in a fort.... has all the hexes on the other side of a fort hex side... to be considered 'front' hexes. The firing strength of the unit in the fort, might have to be divided by the number of hex sides it is defending... but if so... should be able to fire at each with this reduced strength.
RE: Formations
DiT
I agree that a unit in a fort should be able to treat every adjacent hex as a "front" hex and defend it with reduced firepower. It would be great to have the ability to employ fortifications of different strengths ranging from relatively simple earthworks to fully constructed star forts with out works. The more "finished" the fortification; the more defensive advantages go to the defender -- regarding assaults and artillery fire. Of course the inclusion of mortars and howitzers would enable the attacker to use indirect fire to reach out and touch the defenders.
I also agree that a unit defending a simple wall such as the stone wall terrain feature should only gain a benefit when attacked from its actual front.
I'm not so sure about preventing a unit from entering a hex from which it may be attacked on the flank. Mostly because I think this sort of action could indeed occur. You might choose to ignore the unit firing into your flank defensively in order to coordinate an attack on another unit. Properly supporting such an attacking unit with a follow-on unit can help limit the damage.
Sumter
I agree that a unit in a fort should be able to treat every adjacent hex as a "front" hex and defend it with reduced firepower. It would be great to have the ability to employ fortifications of different strengths ranging from relatively simple earthworks to fully constructed star forts with out works. The more "finished" the fortification; the more defensive advantages go to the defender -- regarding assaults and artillery fire. Of course the inclusion of mortars and howitzers would enable the attacker to use indirect fire to reach out and touch the defenders.
I also agree that a unit defending a simple wall such as the stone wall terrain feature should only gain a benefit when attacked from its actual front.
I'm not so sure about preventing a unit from entering a hex from which it may be attacked on the flank. Mostly because I think this sort of action could indeed occur. You might choose to ignore the unit firing into your flank defensively in order to coordinate an attack on another unit. Properly supporting such an attacking unit with a follow-on unit can help limit the damage.
Sumter