Scourge of War Boards

The battlefield is a dangerous place. Fighting at a distance is better than fighting at close quarters.

In the civil war it was very dangerous to charge a battery, but infantry men did it. Why would men charge a battery knowing the dangers? What is more amazing is that it happened a lot. Maybe the infantry man was tired of sitting under artillery fire and waiting. I have read that it was a hard thing to endure an artillery barrage. Maybe that is why it was better to charge the guns than just sit under its punishment.

If infantry cannot successfully attack a position with artillery because of fatigue then fatigue has gone too far the other way. I find it hard to attack positions especially with artillery with current stock fatigue. I will argue that GCM fatigue is more realistic and more playable.

I also will argue that this game is good at historically representing a civil war battle. The more that historical situations are followed the more playable the game will be. This is my own personal opinion.


I could be wrong. I would like to see fatigue and disorganization treated separate because they are. I see no need to manipulate fatigue in order to find a dis organizational element.

Again, it is my own opinion.

All fair points, and your opinion is always worth listening to NYC..

I'm sure you agree that in warfare there are never any absolutes.

Meless did take place and charges against batteries did take place. I didn't say they didn't, and the theme of this discussion is that they did, BUT THAT THEY WERE RARE. This is what we're talking about, that the instances of melees and the means by which peopl ein MP games can bring them about are too numerous and easy.

More fatigue is needed, stronger morale effects for tiredness and incoming fire and the threat of hand-to-hand contact, and more damage to unit cohesion for massing great clumps of regiments on top of each other and other fantasy stuff like that. Certain players refuse to not do this on the basis that the game lets them do it. I (and many others) have tried to get people to use their troops in a more historical manner by way of Gentlemens Agreements and House Rules (which work perfectly in other gaming groups I've played in over the years) but since you get ultra-competitive types in a game they won't stop, so the game has to be tweaked to encourage and reward historical play and punish fantasy play, with the result that, as you correctly said NYC, we get a game that is more historically accurate, not just in its game mechanisms but in how a player is rewarded for best playing it.

What I would still argue for is stronger morale effects on taking fire and a harsher morale check system when closing to melee. That and an auto-avoid instead of an auto-charge mechanism would fix pretty much all the ahistorical events.

As for Digby, I cannot really say that I am sorry. I think that he offers his opinions on far too many things that he thinks that he is an expert in when in fact he knows next to nothing.

Seal - Final warning. No more insults, please keep it friendly.

The battlefield is a dangerous place. Fighting at a distance is better than fighting at close quarters.

In the civil war it was very dangerous to charge a battery, but infantry men did it. Why would men charge a battery knowing the dangers? What is more amazing is that it happened a lot. Maybe the infantry man was tired of sitting under artillery fire and waiting. I have read that it was a hard thing to endure an artillery barrage. Maybe that is why it was better to charge the guns than just sit under its punishment.

If infantry cannot successfully attack a position with artillery because of fatigue then fatigue has gone too far the other way. I find it hard to attack positions especially with artillery with current stock fatigue. I will argue that GCM fatigue is more realistic and more playable.

I also will argue that this game is good at historically representing a civil war battle. The more that historical situations are followed the more playable the game will be. This is my own personal opinion.


I could be wrong. I would like to see fatigue and disorganization treated separate because they are. I see no need to manipulate fatigue in order to find a dis organizational element.

Again, it is my own opinion.

All fair points, and your opinion is always worth listening to NYC..

I'm sure you agree that in warfare there are never any absolutes.

Meless did take place and charges against batteries did take place. I didn't say they didn't, and the theme of this discussion is that they did, BUT THAT THEY WERE RARE. This is what we're talking about, that the instances of melees and the means by which peopl ein MP games can bring them about are too numerous and easy.

More fatigue is needed, stronger morale effects for tiredness and incoming fire and the threat of hand-to-hand contact, and more damage to unit cohesion for massing great clumps of regiments on top of each other and other fantasy stuff like that. Certain players refuse to not do this on the basis that the game lets them do it. I (and many others) have tried to get people to use their troops in a more historical manner by way of Gentlemens Agreements and House Rules (which work perfectly in other gaming groups I've played in over the years) but since you get ultra-competitive types in a game they won't stop, so the game has to be tweaked to encourage and reward historical play and punish fantasy play, with the result that, as you correctly said NYC, we get a game that is more historically accurate, not just in its game mechanisms but in how a player is rewarded for best playing it.

What I would still argue for is stronger morale effects on taking fire and a harsher morale check system when closing to melee. That and an auto-avoid instead of an auto-charge mechanism would fix pretty much all the ahistorical events.

Garnier has tripled (I think) the fatigue rate for regiments in melee.

[quote]
I would like to see fatigue and disorganization treated separate because they are. I see no need to manipulate fatigue in order to find a dis organizational element.quote]

Mr. Harmon....great post! Please do remember the adage, however, "Fatigue makes cowards of us all!" <S>

J

Is fatigue reffering tireness?, morale or will to fight? battle stress? Are the same?. Into the game, of course.

"Kerflumoxed" post=44455][ "Fatigue makes cowards of us all!"

J[/quote]

Good quote.

Norb usually moves slow to make certain changes which is good. Like Soldier said we need to be careful in what we ask for.

I know in an attack I would rather it fail because my guys got shot up rather than if they tired out. Increased small arms effectiveness in a range under 50 yards would do the trick.

In a civil war battle an attacker usually got the worst of it, so said Longstreet, and he was right. Any attack should really require 2 to 1 odds to be successful. If the defender is on especially good ground than it should take 3 to 1 odds.

Then again we can consider:
If you look at Barksdale's charge of day two what he accomplished was amazing. He charged his brigade one or two hundred yards(?) busted up the peach orchard (he charged into artillery)turned north and rolled up another division of the 3rd corp continued to push on and then tired out and lost cohesion in front of the union line on Cemetery Ridge. One of the most famous charges of the war. All of it was a charge (but not all at a run).

I think it is important to maintain an ability to charge and/or attack.

I understand the other points being expressed in this thread and I'm glad to hear them.

Again, very respectfully regards,
Harmon

Garnier has tripled (I think) the fatigue rate for regiments in melee.

We don't need fatigue in melee we need it before melee.

Norb usually moves slow to make certain changes which is good. Like Soldier said we need to be careful in what we ask for.

It was a great shame that auto-charge was asked for and people didn't fully consider the can of worms they were opening then. Auto-avoid/auto-halt would have fixed the issue (caused by one, I repeat ONE player in MP basically cheating) and given a more historical feel to the game.

I think it is important to maintain an ability to charge and/or attack.

We are in full agreement. Charge all you wish, but we do need to reduce the frequency of melees.

All of the impact of battle on troops; fear, casualties, loss of command control by officers, disorganisation, tiredness... all of these have the same end effect; they reduce the units ability to fight and move about a battlefield with tactical finesse. You don't need six variables to be applied to a unit to represent six different impacts on it, you can easily represent all of these influences (even bullets) by simple fatigue which does the job just fine in SoW. People don't seem to grasp this. In a wargame simulation you can do simple things to achieve complex and subtle effects.

...

We don't need fatigue in melee we need it before melee.



I guess what we (GCM players) need and what you (hits and couriers players) need are different. We (gcm players) need a deterrent to the massed charge. Fortunately we (gcm players) have Garnier to give us what we (gcm players) need. I guess all you hits and couriers guys can do is beg.

"Charge all you wish, but we do need to reduce the frequency of melees."

All you need do is retreat if you do not wish to engage in melee.