An idea to prevent the "maneuver column charge"

[Garnier]

Anyone who plays much MP has probably seen a lot of maneuver column charges. Maneuver columns are faster and easier to maneuver of course, so even if they do take more casualties from gun fire, they'll still close the distance sooner and probably lose less in the end than a line would.

It looks silly of course, to have columns running in and charging through holes in the enemy line and then hitting them in the rear, or whatever you manage to pull off with them. I'm definitely not accusing anyone of doing this, don't take it the wrong way. I do it myself because it works.

So how to make this tactic not work is the question. Of course you could remove TC... but I don't view that as a solution to the problem, to me that would just be removing half the game to "solve" half the game's problems.

One way I think would be to make maneuver columns move as slow as any other formation when within musket range of enemy troops (not cannons). This way, assuming maneuver columns do behave worse under fire than lines, there won't be a reason to attack in column. Any other ideas?

I don't think simply increasing casualties that maneuver columns take would be enough, because it's possible to run around the enemy line's flank so fast that they won't be able to wheel fast enough to get any shots off, so often you don't even take any casualties when attacking like this.

[Janh]

Garnier, honestly, I don't think it needs to be changed. I don't know whether there is a moddable parameter for inf and cav that allows you to tune formation specific loss parameters in the new version, but if at all, I would up the losses of column formations a bit.

But assaulting in column was done in civil war, and it was not even highly uncommon. Rather the opposite, on the eastern theater it was often done in wooded and rugged terrains if attacking along roads and trails. At Wilderness and Cold Habor several occurances can be found of mostly rebel formations doing exactly that. There is couple of good books by Gordon C. Rhea on the eastern battles who reports this. As well study the typical references like Longstreet's biography etc. I also recall this tactic to be used occasionally attacking forts on the sea borders, as well as in later battles at Petersburg, or Franklin. And if I am not totally wrong, there was even a few confed regiments doing this at either Mechanicsville or Boatswains Swamp in 1862. So I don't think this is off. Maybe it is used too frequently, but who of you players does really play at the historically typical slow pace that battles would usually go, with lots of pauses and maneuvering?

[Paladin]

Janh wrote:

Garnier, honestly, I don't think it needs to be changed. I don't know whether there is a moddable parameter for inf and cav that allows you to tune formation specific loss parameters in the new version, but if at all, I would up the losses of column formations a bit.

But assaulting in column was done in civil war, and it was not even highly uncommon. Rather the opposite, on the eastern theater it was often done in wooded and rugged terrains if attacking along roads and trails. At Wilderness and Cold Habor several occurances can be found of mostly rebel formations doing exactly that. There is couple of good books by Gordon C. Rhea on the eastern battles who reports this. As well study the typical references like Longstreet's biography etc. I also recall this tactic to be used occasionally attacking forts on the sea borders, as well as in later battles at Petersburg, or Franklin. And if I am not totally wrong, there was even a few confed regiments doing this at either Mechanicsville or Boatswains Swamp in 1862. So I don't think this is off. Maybe it is used too frequently, but who of you players does really play at the historically typical slow pace that battles would usually go, with lots of pauses and maneuvering?

You are talking about something that was used when the ground dictated it, a lack of maneuver room due to terrain features.....not something that was normally done

[Marching Thru Georgia]

The assault column was the preferred choice of Napoleon after 1807. By then, many of his old veterans were dead or wounded and the replacements did not have the training necessary to carry out assaults in line formation. Pickett's charge would have been very unusual to see. It's really a testimony to their abilities to have successfully carried it off in line formation.

I agree though, that maneuvering a column through a small gap to reach the enemy's rear is very gamey. But for MP play, I would try instituting a 'house rule' to prevent this. Once the breech was wide enough, (whatever you decide that is), then the troops would be allowed to pour though in column. Double-timing units around the flank is another legitimate concern. Only TC'd troop do that. The AI works it's way around methodically and deliberately. Here again, maybe a house rule could be developed.

[Garnier]

The problem isn't that it's possible to move men in column to attack, the problem is that in the game right now it is almost always the best way to make an attack. Yes, in real life now and then they used maneuver column attacks because they were going on roads or through narrow gaps. You could still do this with the change I propose.

Realism can generally be argued on both sides. I can claim that this change would give more realistic gameplay because:
1. It would be more dangerous to charge in maneuver column than in another formation, which was generally the case in the civil war.
2. It would be more difficult to suddenly disengage your infantry when they are being fired upon. (Right now just click column and run away, they can usually get out in a matter of a few seconds in good order)
3. It would help represent the confusion and difficulty of maneuvering men effectively while under fire, which is why they usually deployed into line before getting into musket range.

[Hancock the Superb]

Perhaps, unless it is set within the scenario, code could be writen so that if regiments were so far out from an enemy one, and there was no other friendly regiment in front of it, they could only be in line or skirmish formation, even when TC'd.

[Garnier]

That would accomplish a similar thing but would be far more annoying because they'd change formation without orders. I think there's nothing wrong with moving a column close to enemies in theory, just it shouldn't work so good for attacking.

[Mowgli]

I just read the following in American Civil War Tactics:=
http://www.civilwarhome.com/tacticscivilwar.htm
Battle lines delivered the most firepower defensively and offensively. Offensive firepower alone would not ensure success. Attackers had to charge, and massed columns, with their greater depth, were often preferable to battle lines for making frontal assaults.

[Garnier]

I'm talking about "Maneuver columns" which are the 4-abreast columns for marching. They very rarely made attacks in this formation.

The game already has the "Column by Divisions" and "Brigade Column" which are what that site is referring to.

[MrSpkr]

Rather than tinkering with what formations are allowable when troops are in close proximity to the enemy, perhaps we should consider imposing negative morale hits to troops in those situations. For example, if a player attempts to "column rush" his troops to a position 30 yards from an enemy line, perhaps there should be a significant morale loss if those enemy troops begin firing on the column, either during movement or, more particularly, while the regiment is changing from column formation to line formation. That would seem to handle the issue, as a column of troops who are not being fired upon might well be able to close with the enemy with little or no losses and be able to make the rapid change to line formation, while a column being decimated by enemy fire, then attempting to change formation under extremely close proximity fire would tend to break and run.

Thoughts?

Steve