1776 - 2nd attempt to understand the game

[-72-]

We have continued on with our battles, and I simply do not yet quite grasp either the historical reality of 17th Century warfare, or the game itself.  What our battle has evolved into (devolved maybe?) is very close to a rugby scrum.  We're playing with the alternate rule for line disruption while moving, and that, combined with units in column formation never EVER getting flagged as enfiladed (even if you shoot em in the ass) and and units in column getting no penalty while meleed, and in fact get a 10% bonus since they can't fire....well why bother dropping into line at all?  Just push your army around in a column and shove until a line breaks somewhere.  I mean, if someone wants to tell me..."THAT'S IT", and that was the designers intent because it's historically accurate, or the designer just thinks it makes a better game, I'm okay with that.....but if someone would say "hmmm, that's not quite right" it sure would be nice.  Maybe that's the issue....I mean the silence on the subject is quite deafening so maybe very few people bother playing the titles.

The crickets effect of silence, is probably more about the period and wargaming, as opposed to being limited to any particular publisher.

For me the period has become personal (well that and maybe as far back to about 1620-30s, give or take a decade or so), so yeh ... I'd say it is accurate that I see this being my period.  And probably for exactly the reason that you alluded to ... the crickets effect.

I need to put together a generic test map (read that to mean cutting a bit out of an existing map), and adding in an OOB I'd been building. Mainly because I did this by scratch, I want to run some combat testing for myself; I'm not one of those guys with an idea that expects others to do my groundwork -most especially when it comes to coming up with something from scratch.

Now, you can maybe extrapolate that there are some reasons for this; but yeh sure I don't think it is quite right ... but I mean just saying that itself, doesn't mean much without (and I'm talking about me in this case) adding what you feel is right, and why, plus where you came up with that information.  I had a pretty strong feeling that Bunker Hill is a great example of that (as I had played that one in 1776 in the past).

I sorta had to set Philbrick's book aside a couple of weeks ago to let it dry out (might have had a water related incident), however I filled up the time with doing some testing on material I had had around.

If it needs to be said, in this case market dynamics are meaningless; as I mentioned it is personal. Although in my case, I'd say that the reason it is personal, is genealogy. And that is the priority, the design work fits in with this, and especially with the research (and research materials).

I tend to not really focus on getting involved in discussions that often.  But heard you loud and clear I hope. People don't play these games just to be playing these games (ok yes sure some people do ... I don't get why that is - it isn't why I do that), but want to know more about the subject ... that's the entire point; leastwise that's how it seems to me.