Wish list (1)

[Eckerslyke]

If the game designers could produce new features at the stroke of a (pen? mouse? keyboard?), and expense was no object, what would you like to see by way of enhancements to our battling software?

Top of my list would be something to enforce the more common house rules so that I would not accidentally violate them, (and which would also prevent deliberate violation by someone who is cheating). Accompanied, perhaps, by an optional rule which permitted them to be turned off when not desired for a particular battle.

For example, a common house rule is to have skirmishers not voluntarily going beyond three hexes from their parent unit when in clear terrain. It takes a quite a bit of care to make sure you don't do this accidentally, and it can be embarrassing when you forget it, and make an 'illegal' move.

Wouldn't it be nice if the software could throw up an error message when it detects that a skirmisher is going too far, and this rule is ON? A bit like it does when you try to move a skirmisher to a hex adjacent to a cavalry unit.

I'm not suggesting that this would be easy, or even feasible. It's just one of the things I sometimes wish we had.

Is there anything else people would like to see?

[Havoc]

"For example, a common house rule is to have skirmishers not voluntarily going beyond three hexes from their parent unit when in clear terrain. It takes a quite a bit of care to make sure you don't do this accidentally, and it can be embarrassing when you forget it, and make an 'illegal' move."

What I do is use the formation highlighting toggle while I'm playing my turn. That way the parent formation's battalions are easily identifiable as I move. If I inadvertently move farther than 3 hexes, I refrain from offensive shooting or melee with that skirmisher till it is back within 3 hexes.

No much you can do about deliberate cheating other than not playing that individual again.

[-72-]

Cavalry overrun is a nice limiter to skirmisher overreach, but I think probably what you are meaning is more along the lines of skirmishers all over the place.

Personally I just sort of dispense with a lot of units being able to form skirmishers -really, do you need 100 men (give or take) formations all over the map -with the ability to basically do maybe gamey things with them? Or would those multitudes tend to be overkill?

Interesting question.

I sort of like one guy's suggestion that I think I read over at GS some time ago - artillery fatigue -when artillery accrues fatigue when firing. But -well... yeah - I don't really discuss engine changes (too many variables) and it usually ends up in some sort of pie in the sky snowball of ideas that are not particularly realistic.

[Eckerslyke]

I sort of like one guy's suggestion that I think I read over at GS some time ago - artillery fatigue -when artillery accrues fatigue when firing. But -well... yeah - I don't really discuss engine changes (too many variables) and it usually ends up in some sort of pie in the sky snowball of ideas that are not particularly realistic.

Like having to stop firing for a time to cool the barrels down? It would certainly introduce one more thing for commanders to have to take into account when defending against an assault. Might even affect the tactics used by the attacker.

At present I think they only take fatigue from being fired upon, and this does not appear to affect the firing rate or the effectiveness of their fire. (Unless I am mistaken - I was not able to find any discussion in the handbook about the effect of fatigue of artillery fire in my brief scan.)

I'm fairly inexperienced in battling with these JTS and HPS titles, so I may not be aware of all the features available. But one thing struck me about artillery - they appear never to run out of ammo on a local basis. As long as the side has ammo, then all the guns can fire, it appears. If I'm correct, then how authentic is that?

Ideas along these lines may be pie-in-the-sky, and unrealistic, as you say, but I think that by putting them out there it gives the producers a better idea of what they might want to implement over time. Or even, for battlers who aren't averse to house rules, a way to attain greater realism in the meantime.

[Lohengrin]

Continuing on with the artillery ammo thought, I've always wanted ammo accounted for by the number of guns, rather than just a battery. There are numerous historical OOBs with 1 or 2 gun "batteries" and it makes no sense that they use ammo the same as an 8-gun battery. It makes me reluctant to use the smaller gun batteries due to inefficient use of ammo (where ammo supply is a concern). Of course we all know that different ammo types are ignored currently, so I won't comment on that abstraction.

And if there was a way to track ammo held on hand by each battery, I'd be all for that too.

[Eckerslyke]

. . .
What I do is use the formation highlighting toggle while I'm playing my turn. That way the parent formation's battalions are easily identifiable as I move. If I inadvertently move farther than 3 hexes, I refrain from offensive shooting or melee with that skirmisher till it is back within 3 hexes.

Good idea, makes it a bit less of a chore. Probably a good idea to acknowledge the mistake to the opponent as well, if it doesn't give away too much, just to keep the air clear.

Thanks for the suggestion, but my wishlist allows me to be lazy, and therefore to wish for something that would remove the drudgery and embarrassment altogether! Whilst still keeping our movement realistic in a historical sense.

No much you can do about deliberate cheating other than not playing that individual again.

Yes, true. When I think of my idea of a good battling relationship, it is when you find an opponent with whom you can fight a scenario one way, come to a conclusion, then fight the same battle taking the other side, turn about.

That won't happen if either battler suspects the other of dishonorable conduct, so when I'm considering taking on a potential new opponent I look over his record, and if I see too many entries where a single battle with one member has resulted in a major win for the potential opponent (which could have been the member deciding not to continue through distaste for the opponent's 'sharp practices'), and without further engagements between the member and that potential new opponent, I confess that I become a bit wary.

[Lohengrin]

Continuing on with the artillery ammo thought, I've always wanted ammo accounted for by the number of guns, rather than just a battery. There are numerous historical OOBs with 1 or 2 gun "batteries" and it makes no sense that they use ammo the same as an 8-gun battery. It makes me reluctant to use the smaller gun batteries due to inefficient use of ammo (where ammo supply is a concern). Of course we all know that different ammo types are ignored currently, so I won't comment on that abstraction.

And if there was a way to track ammo held on hand by each battery, I'd be all for that too.

Sorry about quoting my own post, but I just remembered also that Civil War Battles now has ammo by cannon instead of battery, so porting that over to the Napoleonic engine shouldn't be too tough a chore, not having to reinvent the wheel as it were.

[Havoc]

. . .
What I do is use the formation highlighting toggle while I'm playing my turn. That way the parent formation's battalions are easily identifiable as I move. If I inadvertently move farther than 3 hexes, I refrain from offensive shooting or melee with that skirmisher till it is back within 3 hexes.

Good idea, makes it a bit less of a chore. Probably a good idea to acknowledge the mistake to the opponent as well, if it doesn't give away too much, just to keep the air clear.

Thanks for the suggestion, but my wishlist allows me to be lazy, and therefore to wish for something that would remove the drudgery and embarrassment altogether! Whilst still keeping our movement realistic in a historical sense.

No much you can do about deliberate cheating other than not playing that individual again.

Yes, true. When I think of my idea of a good battling relationship, it is when you find an opponent with whom you can fight a scenario one way, come to a conclusion, then fight the same battle taking the other side, turn about.

That won't happen if either battler suspects the other of dishonorable conduct, so when I'm considering taking on a potential new opponent I look over his record, and if I see too many entries where a single battle with one member has resulted in a major win for the potential opponent (which could have been the member deciding not to continue through distaste for the opponent's 'sharp practices'), and without further engagements between the member and that potential new opponent, I confess that I become a bit wary.

Generally it's a "one-off" deal with a single skirmisher. I've had opponents stray as well. I don't make anything of it unless its in mass or frequently repeated.

[SnakeEyes]

A bone of contention for me (one of them). :-)

Having agreed that skirmishers stay close to formed units, for simplicity sake not necessarily the actual regiment they are from. I then find the only troops in the front line of their advance is 5, 6 or 7 one hundred men units stacked in the same hex. Fire can only be directed at one of those units at a time making it difficult to take those hexes or blunt their attack.

But to insist on skirmishers being near their parent unit would be a pain, especially as I quite often can't work out the writting.

[agmoss99]

Actually if you shoot at a stack of >250 skirmishers - the formation takes hits as though it's a formed unit. The pesky things soon rout off all over the place. And they are vulnerable to cavalry overrun although it's probably only a 50-50 chance. It was a fairly effective tactic in BG games although I bagged several thousand in one game turn, but not so much in HPS/Tiller.