PBEM? Issues with melee...

[Berkut]

I am interested in getting some feedback from people who have PBEMed this game to some degree, and their views on an issue with how the game works, especially when played between players who understand the system to a decent degree.

There is a problem with how melee works, and how units can be used to cut rout/retreat paths. Basically, the game *seems* like it becomes one of "exploiting" the IGOUGO system to cut off some units, surround them, then destroy them completely. That becomes the primary tactical strategy between people who have played the game a bit - trying to effect this, and trying to keep it from happening.

I recall this from when I played these games a lot in the past, and I am looking at picking up the combined set and giving PBEM another go, since I really liked these games.

So, I have three questions/concerns/viewpoints I would like to explore with others who have played the game against humans. None of this particularly applies to playing against the AI (although the tactic works well against the AI).

1. First, is there an effective counter to this? Perhaps the problem is relaly one of poor deployment, and "good play" can fix it - does anyone know a good way to make it harder to effect these tactics?

2. If there is not, and this is a true problem, is there a good house rule of set of house rules existing or one that we can come up with, to mitigate this problem? Additional stacking restrictions perhaps? Requirements for support for melee attacks?

3. If in fact it is recognized that this issue exists, is there any chance, assuming a good fix cna be thought up, of there being a patch that could implement additional game mechanic rules, or are the core mechanics pretty much frozen at this point?

[dpstafford]

The surround 'em an and eliminate the whole stack phenomenon is my predominate recollection of the years I spend playing the Talonsoft originals. The effect is so profound, and rifle fire so ineffective that the entire game is played locked in a melee death struggle. Completely the opposite of the reality of ACW battles and weaponry.

Then there are the fatigue and fatigue recovery rules. A couple of (20 minute) turns of combat and a typical regiment is so fatigued that it is useless. And under the rules I remember, it would take longer than the age of the universe for a unit to recover any appreciable readiness.

[Berkut]

I don't agree that rifle fire is ineffective, I just think melee is too effective, when using the tactic of penetrate-cut off-destroy.

And since that is so effective, ti becomes the predominate strategy.

I am more interested in figuring out how to fix it than I am railing about it though. At the moment, the only other game in town when it comes to this kind of conflict sim, is prohibitively expensive, IMO.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: Berkut
I am more interested in figuring out how to fix it than I am railing about it though. At the moment, the only other game in town when it comes to this kind of conflict sim, is prohibitively expensive, IMO.

Well, I am known as a bit of a railer.

So, what is this other expensive sim that you are talking about?

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

ORIGINAL: Berkut
I am more interested in figuring out how to fix it than I am railing about it though. At the moment, the only other game in town when it comes to this kind of conflict sim, is prohibitively expensive, IMO.

Well, I am known as a bit of a railer.

So, what is this other expensive sim that you are talking about?

The HPS ones.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: Berkut
The HPS ones.

But isn't John Tiller the guy behind both of these lines?

I wonder what the differences are?

[Ashantai]

As I explained elsewhere I don't think they are too expensive if you compare apples with apples. Not 1 HPS game with the combined TS ACW games, but instead how they were originally released would give you an equal price. It's not fair comparing 1 new game against a 10 year old collection.

Anyway, regardless, I actually don't use melee that much except to wipe out stacks. Concentrated rifle fire is quite effective, especially in the TS series where losing casualties in the offensive fire always caused either disruption or routing. My personal mode of operation is to hem in a unit and fire on them until they are disrupted and broken up, then melee and clean them up.

Now, to answer the 3 points:
1 - An effective counter this this strategy is allowing no breaks in your line, and have artillery support. They can only encircle units when they can break your lines.
2 - Personal interests and beliefs of course rule here. I don't think a house rule is needed here. Mainly because they'll keep shooting your unit anyway until it is routed. The best rule to have on is 'partial retreats' which means that if the unit cannot retreat to a friendly hex because of size, some of them escape instead. So, a unit of 500 is almost surrounded, but has one hexface next to a unit of 600. The unit of 500 loses the melee and 50 men, they can't normally retreat to the unit of 600 because that'd take it over the limit, so they all get removed. Partial retreats makes it possible for 400 to escape.
In the HPS games you also have the excellent 'weak ZOC' option which means a unit will always escape unless surrounded on all 6 sides.
3 - I think that some extra optional rules for the TS series would help, like weak ZOC, and 'no melee eliminations' which are both in the HPS games (though the latter is a Napoleonic games rule).
3 -

[Nemo121]

Well, as someone playing the Gettysburg scenario as a bit of a newbie to the game I can say that I think the movement, ZOC, routing and elimination rules need a lot of work.
 
Firstly when units rout they often tend to rout DEEPER behind the enemy position ( usually an issue when being meleed ) with the result that, when they recover, the enemy has actually effected a penetration of your lines through being manifestly UNABLE to penetrate your lines with formed formations. This is completely ahistorical and unfair.
 
2. When your own units then rout you find that they are stuck where they are because the presence of these routed units behind your lines interacts with the "routed units cannot move closer to enemy units" rule to create a situation where your routed units CANNOT retreat from the front lines as would be historical.
 
3. Melee attacks are highly effective and bring a quick end to a particular fight but I question their relative effectiveness vis a vis rifle fire in a game sense AND the ease with which they can occur. I think that, based on my reading on the ACW- I've read Paddy Griffiths and tactical stuff much more than actual accounts of who did what when in actual battles - melee attacks WERE highly effective BUT happened rarely enough. I think that if units could simply refuse to melee even if ordered to do so that this would help a lot to cut down on the high numbers of melees which seem to occur.
 
ZOCs... Well you can have two enemy units in your front-left and right hexes and find your unit - even though it is in a contiguous line with its fellows - unable to retreat. The ZOCs lead to some very strange results. I would prefer to have the ZOCs be permeable such that they could never absolutely forbid retreat ( unless of course EVERY surrounding hex was occupied ) but, instead, the more your line of retreat was interdicted the more "stragglers" you would lose through making such a move. I think that would be more reasonable than what we see in this game.
 
Combine more permeable ZOCs with "morale checks" before meleeing and I think that the pace of the game would slow, the balance between meleeing and shooting would shift a little AND the ability to cut off and utterly eradicate units would also lessen markedly such that there would be more attrition and less utter annihilation of entire regiments.
 
 
With that said I think that it is up to the players to decide what they want to do in terms of how to play the game. IF there were an optional rule to have permeable ZOCs and morale checks for melee then I would enable that rule but in its absence I play the game as given.

[John 3rd]

Nemo really nails my thoughts about the game as well.  I REALLY appreciate some serious discussion within the Forum and would love to see more of it!  Over in the WitP Forum it get pretty crazy (that is good and bad)...
 
I have tried to maintain realistic lines of battle within the Gettysburg scenario that Nemo and I are playing.  The shocker for me was in concentrating the Union troops in their attacks upon my lines, Nemo completely broke-up my assault and threw me into mass confusion.
 
A partial solution would be to limit the number of regiments in a hex, however, that would be tough based on their differing sizes.  Thickening the line would help but I am not sure how you could do that...
 
I totally agree about the need for a morale check to see if a unit would melee another.  That is a nice idea for any change of the game engine.
 
What other ideas for either:  1.  House Rules or 2. Game modifications do people think could be made?  Considering there isn't going to be any major changes by Matrix, why don't we focus on Option 1 for thinking and discussing?
 
House Rules?  Anyone??
 

[Ashantai]

House rules - no meleeing is the only way to stop this happening. Artillery, supply wagons and routed units excepted. Rely on shooting only. Melee with infantry units in hexes with guns is allowable - providing a deterrent. After all, usually the guns were placed well back from the frontlines because of the danger to horses and gun teams.

Since so few melees are actually hand to hand fighting historically, this is not as bad as it seems.

[nealjhebert]

If I may comment, I haven't PBEM however I look forward to it. I saw the AAR's and purchased the set just for that purpose [:D]
 
I don't have a problem with "super stacks"; isn't hitting the enemy with overwhelming force at the point of attack a basic principle? Also, I'm not convinced that a blanket 'no-melee' house rule would be appropriate; I'd be disappointed to have my assault delayed because a disrupted unit I outnumber 5-1 simply won't rout. Ashantai commented that historically few melees were actually hand-to-hand. I'm sure in many instances the soon to be overwhelmed defender realized it was beat feet now or die in place. The game system is such that the defender realizes his impending doom only after being assaulted.
 
Day one is coming to an end; how about a report on the opposing casualties for comparison the the actual battle's to determine if they are excessive?
 
 

[John 3rd]

I am happy as all Hell that you have joined our Forum Sir!  Glad you got the game too.  Nemo and I need to get kickbacks from Matrix...
 
As soon as the sun sets I will post the battle stats.  It is pretty grim for both sides!
 
Need to think on your House Rule proposal.  That would take some adjusting...
 

[Nemo121]

I think the Rebels have lost about 7,500 Infantry, 22 cannon and 200 cavalry. I lost 1.900 cavalry and 5,100 infantry and about 18 cannon. I've lost slightly more leaders too but only Bde level leaders apart from Buford whereas the Confederates have lost a couple of divisional leaders.

All in all I think things are pretty even in terms of casualties and Day 2 will be very interesting. I think that I'm in a superior position since a draw on Day 1 is the same as a win for the Union really.


In terms of house rules etc. I don't think a "no melee" rule is the answer. I think that something akin to "partial retreats" is the answer as well as a few changes to ZOC impingement on movement.


P.s. Grim? How so, if you don't mind me asking... 7,000+ casualties per side but, from my perspective at least only 2 Infantry and 1 Cavalry Division have been mauled. The other 5 Divisions are largely intact with 3 entire divisions not yet even having been within rifle range of the enemy. I'm pretty insensitive to losses but even so I don't see how that's grim at all. But I'd be interested in your perspective on that.

[John 3rd]

As soon as I posted that I had an idea.
 
Could you limit Melee to the unit's QUALITY coupled with morale?  Examples:
 
"A" Quality could Melee at anytime.
"B" Could Melee until their Fatigue hits 6+
"C" Could Melee until their Fatigue hits 3+
"D" Could Melee until their Faitique hit 1+
Anything else could NEVER melee...
 
Is that a stupid idea?  Might be...
 

[John 3rd]

Nemo--Is my turn lost is cyberspace AGAIN???

[Nemo121]

Personally I could sign on to that as a House Rule if you wanted to implement it into our game.... Of course I have an entire uncommitted Class A division [:D]

[Ashantai]

That's actually a pretty good idea.

It requires a lot of trust from your opponent, since you can never see the enemy quality.

A - can always melee.
B - can melee from Fatigue 0-6
C - can melee from Fatigue 0-4
D - Can melee from Fatigue 0-3
E - Can melee if unfatigued
F - Cannot melee

It's an interesting idea. Maybe have it so leaders count a unit they are in as one quality higher?

[John 3rd]

Son--I don't want to burst your bubble but I have an entire CORPS that fits this description that arrives tomorrow...

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Personally I could sign on to that as a House Rule if you wanted to implement it into our game.... Of course I have an entire uncommitted Class A division [:D]

[John 3rd]

Ashanti--THAT is a very good idea to use a Leader to raise a regiment's Quality rating.  How would we do that?
 
Must the Leader be in the same hex?  Is there a difference between a Brigade, Division, Corps Commander?  If yes, what would that be?
 
I am willing to use this in Nemo's game.  We could model the Quality Units in the AAR to see what value they would have and see their impact.
 

[Ashantai]

Well, the leader that is in the hex with the unit, so long as they are a parent leader, raises the unit's quality to the same as their leadership value if it is higher, and adds plus one to it if it is lower. That's just for routing/rallying though.

What I meant is for melees, a B unit with 8 fatigue couldn't melee under these house rules, but stick their commander in there and they could. See what I mean?

OR, you could have it so that melees can only take place if a leader is involved. That's a better, more enforceable house rule. After all, the Civil War was very much about leadership and such heroics as leading from the front. You could concentrate a thousand men from different hexes to attack, so long as you use a leader...so no meleeing with your whole army at once.
Or, if you wanted to be strict, only the single hex with a leader can melee. IE, no chopping and changing to get better odds from multiple hexes.