HPS ACW system

[Havoc]

I have HPS Gettysburg and am having a rough time with my games. It seems to me that the system operates in an ahistorical fashion. I have had opponents conduct frontal assaults on my guns that were supported by infantry with minimal damage to his troops as all the guns do not fire in their own defense. WWII tactics of blitzing your opponent seem to be more effective.

I've noticed that the advantage in fire is to the attacker as they can mass fire from more than one regiment while the defenders fire piecemeal and at 50% strength. This seems contrary to actual historical fighting where a strong defensive position supported by artillery was difficult to overcome. I know I can use manual defensive fire, but I don't want to slow down the game and lose the ability to change from column to line after begining movement.

What am I doing wrong here?

Also, where can I find descriptions of the optional rules? I scanned the MS Word user's guide and can't find them.

Havoc

[Baron]

I have Cornith and Gettysburg HPS and I don't care for either. I like you was totally over whelmed by massed attacks. I doubt the Rebs would have ever won an engagement using this system. Not only do they have smaller Regiments with worse weapons but they are also over whelmed on the defense by massed attacks. The arty doesn't do squat so why include it? Needless to say I don't play those titles.

Now if there was a way to use the HPS engine to generate scenarios with the older TS units and rules then you'd have a winner!









'

[Havoc]

I believe that if you use manual defensive fire, then it functions pretty much like the TS games. Then you can mass your fire from the guns stacked together. This kind of defeats the reasoning for designing a new game system.

I think they should have left the guns in batteries of 4-6 guns.

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

Be sure to get the latest patches and use the optional rule that calls for full defensive fire before melee. This will fire your units at full strength at units committed to melee them. This helps quite a bit in my opinion. Secondly it is important to rotate units in the line trying to keep fresh undisrupted units in place as they have a greater chance of defensively firing as units move to attack them. I've generally found that putting guns in the front line is not beneficial. Better to find them some ground behind your infantry where they can fire over their heads but be safe from melee. Also, be sure to keep a reserve to plug gaps as they occur but that is common to the TS games also.

[rahamy]

I find it funny to see both sides on this topic, where you guys are complaining about ineffective defensive fire, and others are complaining about units firing too many times with defensive (opportunity) fire.

As Mark noted, the latest patches add in optional rules where the defending units do a guaranteed 100% defensive fire prior to melee, so that should address some of your concerns.

Personally I find it very unrealistic for units (in the BG & Manual defensive fire systems) to be able to march across an open field and not take any fire. That would never happen unless they were simply out of range.

I played the BG series for about 5 years before and after the HPS titles came out, but I put them away several years ago and only play the HPS titles now. There's just too many benefits to stick with the old titles.

The PDT files are modifiable, so if you want to change fire factors, stacking limits, movement rates, etc. you can...

And finally, the run down on each of the optional rules can be found on the screen where you select them. Just click the Help button and it will bring up a description of each.

Cheers!

[Baron]

Rich,

I totally agree and like the defensive fire when moving to engage. My problem with it is the the Rebs might as well be throwing spitballs. They have smaller regiments and worse weapons, the net effect being unit for unit they are not as effective as the Yanks. This is just not representative of the actual engagements.

The cannon being broken into sections is also a big dissapointment from my stand point. As was pointed out you combine them and fire them in stacks. Net result? why were they broken down into sections in the first place. They may allow a little more tactical freedom but the lower results make this a mute point IMHO.

The files might be able to be modified but you'd have to have your opponents blessing and agreement on the changes made. Net result - more trouble than its worth, again IMHO.

I am in awe of the different CW games released by HPS and I'd love to like them. I just can't see paying more money for games with mechanics I don't like. Maybe you or Mark will give this old grognard the pleasure of a game. I'd like to think that with your input my thinking could be changed. In any event I miss gaming with those who broke me into these games many moons ago. I hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas! You also Mark!

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

Merry Christmas to you too Emmette! I don't even have my old TS games anymore so I'm strictly HPS. If you've got one that you want to give a go let me know. I've got all of them except Vicksburg and Ozark. There is quite a bit of difference in the size of Rebel regiments depending on the game so I don't think you can make a blanket statement about their size. Where I find the Rebs most effective is during the Union turn. Their higher quality ratings generally give them more opportunity to fire on Union regiments as they move to advance or retreat or even swap units in the line. I find myself really enjoying the Gettysburg campaign as the maps give you an incredible amount of room to maneuver so the number of Union regiments has a chance to make a difference against the overrated Reb quality ratings and Peninsula is pretty good as the armies are pretty equal. Anyway, if you stick with the system I think you might find you can put up with the warts.

[Havoc]

Baron,

Why don't you and I play a game of HPS Gettysburg and hash out optional rules we want to use. I liked the new games at first glance and would still like to give it a go.

Havoc

[rahamy]

FWIW here's the optional rules I generally prefer:



Enjoy!