Actually, they're a lot more of us than that, KGS B) Having recently revised our contact list, I see we have 25 players on the rolls, although some do play more regularly than others. Our largest games are 10-12.
Some other recent comments have implied that we just play against the AI. Depending on numbers we are just as happy playing as 2 teams, and for our larger games invariably do that. With smaller numbers, we often play vs the AI instead of having 2 small teams, as this enables us to create a proper chain of command, which is part of the fun for us.
You raise an interesting issue re agreeing houserules. It's not something we've had a problem with, so far. Perhaps we play more for the experience than for the competition? No one has every tried using the column charge for example. One of our group did suggest recently that we should perhaps codify some houserules. Someone's mentioned a good one on this thread in terms of limiting player scouting to within a few hundred yards of friendly troops, and I will suggest we pinch that idea for our games
Martin
Martin -
Some really good points here. Part of the problem is enforcing house rules as sometimes that can be subjective. The scouting rule is pretty easily enforceable as generally you can see friendly troops within 200 yards of a friendly commander. The problem comes about when the circumstances are less clear.
For example, early in SOW's release there was a serious issue with players rolling up artillery to within 200 yards of infantry and blasting away with impunity. Because CB fire doesn't work and infantry couldn't defend themselves (with 160 yard rifles), that 40 yard gap became a game breaker. Players could roll guns up and fire away, retreating by recoil and infantry would get decimated because they couldn't close the gap quick enough. A smart player would actually place batteries in depth so as one battery fell back, the others could cover with devastating results.
Using the example above everyone would have different interpretations of the tactic and its enforceability. In a similar situation a player could place his guns 200 yards behind his infantry on a ridge. However if the infantry got hit with an assault and had to pull back, the enemy would quickly approach the guns that were now on the new "front line." The player in this instance didn't roll the guns up but would quickly be accused of doing so.
Now players are exploiting the ability of troops to fire over their own regiments. They stack their infantry brigades together in assault columns with reserve regiments behind them. The end result is that players taking the offensive have the ability to focus the fire of 5-6-7 regiments on one defending regiment, which is then quickly routed. Here two exploits are at play - 220 yard rifles which allow the player to stack alot of regiments in depth and the ability of units to ahistorically fire above their own units. This tactic is almost perfect as the defender has only one choice but to pull back, which generally results in destabilizing the defensive line. It can be beat if the attacker is on the flank, as the open flank can be quickly enfiladed as the defender pulls back at the point of attack. However that requires quick coordination that even veteran players have difficulty mastering. If the attack, using this tactic, is initiated with support on both flanks, it is extremely difficult to beat.
How does one enforce such houserules on this assault tactic? The easy fix is to mod the fire over ability of infantry. That would negate the need to have any house rules - instead we are stuck with an ahistoric exploit of the game engine with no one to enforce it.
