A Request for Increased damage against a regiment in Column Formation

[maym]

Hello all.

I would like to bring up the subject of the use of column formation by regiments moving into battle.
I believe incoming damage against a regiment in column should be increased by 2-3x more than against units in line. I have seen multiple players in the GCM using columns to un-realistically maneuver into positions of advantage. Although I believe this tactic should be allowed, I also believe the game should model firepower against the regiments in column accurately.

As an example of the ridiculousness of this tactic existing in this game, is an occurrence when a player, in a recent game, sent his whole division in double quick through a area of the opposing players line through an area not more then 250-300 yards wide to effectively move his whole division through a small gap in the opposing players line, then he proceeded to attack from behind. An intelligent, competitive move, but a move that shows the need for increased damage against infantry regiments in column.

The reasons I found this as a great example is this, the attacking player should have taken far more losses realistically moving so many men in dense column past close range artillery and incoming fire from 3-4 regiments. If a damage increase was implemented the attacking player may make an effective assault but would take an accurate amount of losses for such experimental doctrine.

If anyone disagrees with the fact that an infantry formation in column would take more casualties then line formation. Well, then we can discuss that in this thread to more detail.

I would also like to thank the dev’s for providing the best civil war game currently on the market. Thanks.


(Also the 2x-3x dmg increase suggestion, is just a suggestion, anyone with any ideas to properly simulate the effect of fire power against a dense formation should prove those suggestions as well.)

[SouthernSteel]

Ah, the monthly call to penalize column chargers - been playing against Seal, eh?

[DavidAcheson140PVI]

Geez I havent been on GCM in a while..almost miss Seal and his crazy gamey tactics but then I realize that would be a stupid statement..

[JC Edwards]

Hello all.

I would like to bring up the subject of the use of column formation by regiments moving into battle.
I believe incoming damage against a regiment in column should be increased by 2-3x more than against units in line. I have seen multiple players in the GCM using columns to un-realistically maneuver into positions of advantage. Although I believe this tactic should be allowed, I also believe the game should model firepower against the regiments in column accurately.

As an example of the ridiculousness of this tactic existing in this game, is an occurrence when a player, in a recent game, sent his whole division in double quick through a area of the opposing players line through an area not more then 250-300 yards wide to effectively move his whole division through a small gap in the opposing players line, then he proceeded to attack from behind. An intelligent, competitive move, but a move that shows the need for increased damage against infantry regiments in column.

The reasons I found this as a great example is this, the attacking player should have taken far more losses realistically moving so many men in dense column past close range artillery and incoming fire from 3-4 regiments. If a damage increase was implemented the attacking player may make an effective assault but would take an accurate amount of losses for such experimental doctrine.

If anyone disagrees with the fact that an infantry formation in column would take more casualties then line formation. Well, then we can discuss that in this thread to more detail.

The use of Battle Columns is not as ridiculous as you would put it. American Infantry Battle Columns were first implemented during the ACW......most notably by Longstreet during both Chickamauga and The Wilderness due to maneuvering troops through the heavy/dense forests. Though both battles came after Gettysburg, it would not have been a surprise they could possibly have been in use even before hand.

Also, your perception that a unit(s) in column formation would have taken more casualties is about 30% accurate.....only if that unit(s)were being flanked would they POSSIBLY receive 2x more casualties.
Units in a forward attacking Battle Column would suffer even less..........because, as Longstreet and other commanders discovered, a unit in column formation moves quicker and more concise than one in line formation......thus, covering more ground and distance at a much faster pace.

One of the purposes of SOWGB, and it's predecessors TCCWBR and TC2M, is to CHANGE HISTORY.....the "what if's".
There are plenty of them......just enjoy yourself.

kindest regards

The Mad One

[Garnier]

What I would most prefer, if anything is done, is a multiplier for casualty rates depending on formation, effecting only musket fire, or ideally one for musket and artillery independently -- which would allow us to fix counterbattery fire as well. The modifier would have to be part of what can be modded or it would likely cause more problems than it solves.

But yeah, we discuss this every now and then. I imagine it will happen at some point. Some things are easier to change than others.

Meanwhile because we can control fatigue, the column charge is usually ineffective for actual fighting. It's useful because of how our objectives work, because you can turn an objective in a last minute rush and change the outcome. We may be able to solve that separately if we think of a good objectives setup.

[SouthernSteel]

just enjoy yourself.

Never!

[maym]

"Also, your perception that a unit(s) in column formation would have taken more casualties is about 30% accurate.....only if that unit(s)were being flanked would they POSSIBLY receive 2x more casualties.
Units in a forward attacking Battle Column would suffer even less..........because, as Longstreet and other commanders discovered, a unit in column formation moves quicker and more concise than one in line formation......thus, covering more ground and distance at a much faster pace."

I am not talking about Battle Column I am talking about Column formation that is used for cross country travel by regiments.

I disagree a regiment firing within 200 yard of a regiment in column would inflict HIGH casualties either head on or from the flank, more damage on the flank of course. Just think about it when you have a mass of rifles shooting at a formation of men less than 20 yards wide (not sure the yardage of the width of a regiment in column) as opposed to a formation in line spread out over 100-200 yards (depending on regiment size) the column provides a much smaller target and casualties will be higher.


Not sure what the damage increase should be, balance wise, but i think there should be a dmg increase against regiments in column formation.

I agree there are instances of regiments in columns moving under fire in the Civil War. My argument is the game should accurately model damage dealt to that formation.

[X Navy Seal]

All i have to say is OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !



!


And one more exclamation point for good measure !

[30th PVI]

I think we have the distinct ability to use 20/20 hindsight. The tactics used during the Civil War changed dramaticly from beginning to end. Both armies learned the hard way numerious times for what worked and what didn't. We, 150 years later, have at least a passing interest in the war and so have continued the human trait of learning from mistakes. The tactics used, within the constraints of the game engine, have evolved. I personally don't have an issue with the tactics used.

~Matt

[Willard]

The use of Battle Columns is not as ridiculous as you would put it. American Infantry Battle Columns were first implemented during the ACW......most notably by Longstreet during both Chickamauga and The Wilderness due to maneuvering troops through the heavy/dense forests. Though both battles came after Gettysburg, it would not have been a surprise they could possibly have been in use even before hand.

Also, your perception that a unit(s) in column formation would have taken more casualties is about 30% accurate.....only if that unit(s)were being flanked would they POSSIBLY receive 2x more casualties.
Units in a forward attacking Battle Column would suffer even less..........because, as Longstreet and other commanders discovered, a unit in column formation moves quicker and more concise than one in line formation......thus, covering more ground and distance at a much faster pace.

One of the purposes of SOWGB, and it's predecessors TCCWBR and TC2M, is to CHANGE HISTORY.....the "what if's".
There are plenty of them......just enjoy yourself.

kindest regards

The Mad One

I think your history is off by at least 55 years. Napoleon was utilzing attack columns to increase mobility and add weight to a charge at the decisive point back at the turn of the century. This was a practical tactic at the time due to the decreased range of infantry weapons at the time and the shorter effective engagement ranges and less destructive artillery. Rifled guns significantly increased the accuracy from the smoothball muskets of the Napoleonic era thereby making attack columns less useful. Additionally, improvements in both the range and killing power of Civil War artillery made attack columns very susceptible to destructive battery fire.

Although Longstreet massed his division at a brigade level at Chickamauga, the tactic you describe of using columns is generally accredited to Emory Upton at Spotslyvannia. The tactic used required regiments to assault in column formation from covered positions across a maximum distance of 200 yards. The columns did not stop to fire a shot and were able to successfully cover the distance at the Horse Shoe primarily due to two factors - it was an early morning suprise assault and Lee had pulled all of his artillery out of the position completely. Without artillery support and at such a close in assault distance, such a tactic could be effective. However what is described above is generally occurring in the open field as there are no punitive defensive measures that can inflict a high enough damage to deter the use of the tactic.

We all agree that the purpose of SOW is to try to change history. However in order to benefit from that experience, one must operate with the same tactics and limitations as Lee or Meade to truly appreciate the command difficulties of the era. I have no problem with someone using the column formation provided that the penalties are historic.

If you would like to see the tactic used in a real life large scale MP game, join us in TS and we can set it up so you and XNS are on opposing sides. You will find out that "what you think" should happen is quite different from "what is happening" in the MP experience.