Whats the Dif.............

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

An important question however-

If I fire on a unit, do they always fire back? I ask as my feeling is that firing on a unit does always get return fire, so this can multiply the response fire. One unit fires a specific amount of shots in any one move.... I have four units who all fire on an enemy unit, and it 'seems' to gain four sets of firing back at my units by virtue of me firing at it.... and is able to do so to front, both flanks and flanking rear.... if that is indeed the case then its daft to fire on the unit surely?

Or am I dreaming this?

Roger

Yes, it always gets return fire, even if out of weapons range. No casulties in that case ofc.
IMO, there are valid reasons for that. If it didnt humans would take advantage of that so focus even more on single units with no "reprisals".
No its not daft to fire on same unit many times.
Well each time a unit fires smoke to a certain point fills its hex since that will happen to the 1 unit firing many times its return fire will in short order be subjected to that and have reduced effect from that. The smoke also affects ur units effectiveness but since smoke both in target and firer is count smoke will affect him more than u.

2ndly. Fireing in back and flanks are about the best thing. IIRC fire to back is reduced 75% so u fire, so assumming every thing else is same weapons, quality, dice rolls and so on u will do 4 times casulties. Flank is a hefty bonus too if not quite 75%.
3rd if u have units facing same unit in adjecting hexes u get extra bonus on top of that.
Lets say u get 75% from firing into back and another 75% from several units adjecting and facing.
VERY nice fires all of a sudden again assuming all other factors are equal.

3rd and most importandly. Whan an army hits 50% of its units routing. Use the V to check on this. A army starts to panic and its Will to Fight will drop rapidly. This is the main cause for winning/lossing battles tho not the only in HW/DC.
Well the more units u have firing on same the sooner it will run. Assumming it dont reorgazine the sooner u get AI to a point where 50% of its units routing the better for sake of winning. Focusing ur attention on a lesser number AI units is certainly a way to get there. Ofc there is pitholes in that tactic i cant always 100% recommend. It as any thing its situasional, but given a situasion that allows it. Its one of the area's human minds seems to tend to out wit AIs.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

P.S Roger ill happily answer more questions but this is sorta off topic so if u will make a new thread for that, TIA

[Roger Neilson II]

Agree its going off topic.... will do

Roger

[captskillet]

Roger you old thread highjacker u [:D] [;)] !

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II
If I fire on a unit, do they always fire back? I ask as my feeling is that firing on a unit does always get return fire, so this can multiply the response fire. One unit fires a specific amount of shots in any one move.... I have four units who all fire on an enemy unit, and it 'seems' to gain four sets of firing back at my units by virtue of me firing at it.... and is able to do so to front, both flanks and flanking rear.... if that is indeed the case then its daft to fire on the unit surely?

There always is return fire. Surrounding a unit gives you the flanking bonus, so it's worthwhile to gang-up on a unit.

[Roger Neilson II]

ORIGINAL: captskillet

Roger you old thread highjacker u [:D] [;)] !

I got carried away in the discussion.....

[Gray_Lensman]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

<snip>

[There always is return fire. Surrounding a unit gives you the flanking bonus, so it's worthwhile to gang-up on a unit.

ericbabe
re:flanking bonus

Is the flanking bonus applied only due to positioning or do you have to fire from more than one unit from a diff position? In other words if several units move up to an enemy unit in several of its adjoining hexes, but only one unit fires, is it going to get the flanking bonus by itself?

[Walloc]

Yes and no. There is a direct bonus in reduced effect from being of axis to flanking and direct bonus for firing into a flank/rear axis of a enemy unit. Think its called degree of attack in Attack reports working from memory here. This bonus is based purely on axis of attack between the 2 units in question and range is not a factor.

Seperatly from that. If u have several units all facing and adjecting to an enemy unit flanking, u get a bonus from that too. That bonus is seperate from the above bonus.
If only 1 unit fires it still gets bonus from that having friendly units being adjecting and facing to the enemy units.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Gray_Lensman]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Yes and no. There is a direct bonus in reduced effect from being of axis to flanking and direct bonus for firing into a flank/rear axis of a enemy unit. Think its called degree of attack in Attack reports working from memory here. This bonus is based purely on axis of attack between the 2 units in question and range is not a factor.

Seperatly from that. If u have several units all facing and adjecting to an enemy unit, not only flanking u get a bonus from that too. That bonus is seperate from the above bonus.
If only 1 unit fires it still gets bonus from that having friendly units being adjecting and facing to the enemy units.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Thanks Rasmus, that was not so clear in the manual, and I had been meaning to ask but kept forgetting.

[Walloc]

To add 1 thing for total clarification.

Seperatly from that. If u have several units all facing and adjecting to an enemy unit flanking, u get a bonus from that too. That bonus is seperate from the above bonus.
If only 1 unit fires it still gets bonus from that having friendly units being adjecting and facing to the enemy units.

The firing unit here doesnt even have to be adjecting or facing to get the bonus. Its based on if friendly units that are adjecting and facing, to the target enemy. In pratice the firing unit can be any where with a LOS and fire oppertunity, but ofc for that unit to also get it self added to that bonus of more units adjecting and facing, it has to be that. U still get bonus even if u dont from other units tho.
Any one get that?

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Gray_Lensman]

Sounds like they have this particular situation covered pretty thoroughly, then, which is good.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Odox

Esteemed friends:

I've just spent the last little while perusing the info available on this new American Civil War game, AACW.

To be honest, I feel sad. No, in fact I feel downright gloomy. I struggle to control myself, but I can feel the power of my outburst ready to explode out of me despite me literally trying to clamp my jaws together with BOTH HANDS:

WHEN IN THE WORLD WILL GAME DESIGNERS STOP MAKING GAMES DESIGNED FOR ADULTS LOOK LIKE CARTOONS???

*ahem*

(Pardon me while I straighten my tie and regain my composure.)

I'm sure AACW is a fine game, and I'm equally sure I'll be buying it sometime in the not-too-distant future.

But it's the same thing for me with AACW as it is for FoF, and for that matter Civ IV and countless other games. These creations may contain subtleties of gameplay as yet unheard-of in the world of wargaming. They may incorporate the very cream of research of LEGIONS of doctorates in history of the various time-periods they endeavor to recreate. But gentlemen, I beg you, let go your seeming obsession with childish little figurines and storybook houses, with garish primary-colored terrain and cartoonish displays! I literally become ill from hours of staring at second-grade renditions of human forms and broad formless swashes of screaming landscape colors. I feel as though I have been living in some Looney Toons nightmare; Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Wile E Coyote et al.

You have created masterpieces of simulations and raised them to a level of an art form! Why then, do they still retain so much crudity in their art?

(I remember loading Civ into my computer for the first time. I didn't know whether to retch or laugh hysterically. "Oh, look," I said to myself, "aren't those little forts and barbarians so CUTE? I think I'll send this off to my grandson. He's eight. He may enjoy it for awhile before he hits PUBERTY.")

Forgive me friends, gentlemen, fellow enthusiasts. But there's only so much an adult can take. Hat in hand, I bow most humbly and beseech you all: PLEASE, RAISE THE BAR.

With abiding admiration,

Odox [font="Arial"][/font]

In the case of AACW, my guess is they did it because the vast majority of people like it. That's usually the way it works.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

I have to agree with you, its the usual 'dumbing down'. I can think of very few games where the artwork is reasonably real as opposed to 3d animated smiley stuff.....

On the DB FOF has it about right I think and you can always switch to NATO symbology. However the displays are still too cartoonish for me. I 'suspect' these could be modded though.

Roger

Though there is something a bit odd about seeing NATO symbols in a 19th century game. Is there such a thing as "dumbing up" a game?

[Queeg]

Returning to the topic, I own and enjoy both FOF and AACW. Both are very thoughtful and nicely done. But they are different games. I hesitate to do a Pros and Cons because those sorts of comparisons always seem to rile someone.

Suffice it to say that this has been a VERY good year for ACW games.

[Gray_Lensman]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

Returning to the topic, I own and enjoy both FOF and AACW. Both are very thoughtful and nicely done. But they are different games. I hesitate to do a Pros and Cons because those sorts of comparisons always seem to rile someone.

Suffice it to say that this has been a VERY good year for ACW games.

You can say that again !

My preference though leans towards FoF, due to my taste for the detailed battles, but AGEod's game which I just bought, looks intriguing enough also. AGEod's map is a lot busier, so I just posted on AGEod's site forum to ask if there was a way to "unclutter it", just for strategic planning purposes. I may mess with (AGEod's AACW) occasionally just for variety, but the detailed battles of FoF are just too fun for me to leave for long.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Gray_Lensman

My preference though leans towards FoF, due to my taste for the detailed battles, but AGEod's game which I just bought, looks intriguing enough also. AGEod's map is a lot busier, so I just posted on AGEod's site forum to ask if there was a way to "unclutter it", just for strategic planning purposes. I may mess with (AGEod's AACW) occasionally just for variety, but the detailed battles of FoF are just too fun for me to leave for long.

I addressed your AACW map question over on the AGEOD board.

(Comparisons between FOF and AACW are inevitable and it is entirely reasonable for folks to check in here and over at AGEOD to solicit opinions. It's a disservice to duck the issue. So my new rule: When in Rome, I'll discuss what I like about Rome. When in Athens....)

[Gray_Lensman]

Thx
&nbsp;

[jkBluesman]

ORIGINAL: Queeg
So my new rule: When in Rome, I'll discuss what I like about Rome. When in Athens....)

So sometimes you like eagles but at other times you prefer owls?

[Gray_Lensman]

Subtle ! [:D]

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Queeg
In the case of AACW, my guess is they did it because the vast majority of people like it. That's usually the way it works.

That's probably the case.

Speaking for WCS, our artist ("Pixelpusher") and I tend to prefer things that look more period and so have more desaturated colors. However, the desaturated pure-period look didn't resonate very well with players or (most) of our reviewers, and we ended up increasing the saturation of the map fill colors because so many players wanted a more "colorful" looking map. Our COG map has a very authentic look based almost directly on a map Pixelpusher found from the late 18th century, yet we received many more complaints from people who opined that the map had "boring" colors and was too "flat" than we did praise from the very few people who seemed to enjoy the very authentic look of it. For FOF, we compromised by taking a period map and combining that with what looks like satellite imagery to give the terrain the more interesting colors that people thought were lacking in the COG map.

For my tastes, I don't find anything childish about little rendered units or buildings though; to me they look much like the little miniatures and miniature buildings which many adults love to paint and scoot around on 4'x8' tables. Many players of our games are miniatures buffs (as I used to be, when I had more free time!)

For COG we had many players for whom the little details of the rendered uniforms were of a truly cosmic level of importance...there were probably more discussions about the colors of the epaulets than any other single detail of the game. For COG, when I floated the idea of having little dress-up soldiers so that players could customize the pipings, buttons, epaulets, helmets, sashes, and so forth on their little soldiers, many people thought it was a great idea, and even cited some other games they liked that let players customize the appearance of their little 3D-looking guys. So: De gustibus non disputandam! but there are many adult players who do seem to like the little rendered object look, and I don't think we're completely out of touch with our players on this point.

[Queeg]

I think the artwork in both games is very good. Each does a nice job of capturing the period. Which, after all, is what a period wargame ought to do. Frankly, the idea of an ACW game using NATO counters gives me the willies.