PBEM? Issues with melee...

[Nemo121]

I think that starts making it really complex. I like the simplicity of going "Unit quality compared to fatigue allows me to melee. Great, let's melee." Commanders make the melee more successful anyways.
 
If I have to beancount loads more factors then I can see fun leeching out of the game. So, can we go with the original, simple - quality vs fatigue determines whether they can melee? I think that will restrict melees a lot whereas adding leaders in will:
a) complicate things and
b) allow more melees - which I think we were trying to cut down on.

[John 3rd]

I like Nemo's idea of keeping the House Rule simple. If he is willing, I will institute this House Rule right now as of 1840 hours in our AAR.

Leaders can impact fighting and melee but will not be used to make a unit that normally couldn't melee do so.

Does that make sense?

Anyone got any better ideas?

ORIGINAL: 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...

[Ashantai]

It does mean that C and D units will be able to melee perhaps once in a day, seeing how long it takes to recover from fatigue....

Other than that, sounds cool.

[Berkut]

I think I would prefer more of a gentlemans agreement to simply not engage in the surrounding tactics in such an unrelaistic manner (using very small regiments to cut off larger ones that are then reduced).

THe basic problem is that there is not enough fidelity in the movement model - the attacker can move too far before the defenders cna react. In reality, no defender is going to stand their while they are flanked and surrounded, but you cannot react before it is too late. It is too easy to skirt around the side of a unit and get behind it.

[Nemo121]

Another solution would simply be to halve movement rates across the board. When undisrupted infantry hit 6 move points then movement stops. That'd stop a lot of this outflanking in an instant. Right now I think a gentleman's agreement would be difficult as one man's unfair flanking is another man's "brilliant manoeuvre".
 
Category C and D units only meleeing once a day certainly would slow things down, which wouldn't be all bad.
 
 
John,
Cool, I've adopted the new "rule" in my current orders turn.

[nealjhebert]

Congrats to John and Nemo for agreeing to house rules; can't argue with what the actual players agree to.  Looking at the day's casualties, they don't seem extreme compared to what reading I attempted on the actual battle's events.  Each player seems to have accounted well for themselves.  I look forward to Day 2.
 
I believe Berkut's point is valid in reference to unit's being flanked and cut-off with no time to react, however I also believe it's impossible to address in a turn-based game; there's no option other than watch what your opponent does during his movement phase. Flanking an opponent's position is older than dirt, and why would anyone willingly agree to give up that opportunity if there are sufficient forces to effect the maneuver (large or small)? The Chinese were very adept during the Korean War at infiltrating behind our lines and setting up roadblocks with relatively small forces which inhibited both the reinforcement of attacked units and the lines of retreat to the same.
 
Play the game [:D]

[Ashantai]

A change in the PDT might help. Change the line and dismounted cavalry movement, while leaving the column movement the same. It would slow things down, it's true, but that isn't bad in itself, I think.

[John 3rd]

I'm starting a new thread on the movement questions...