1776 - 2nd attempt to understand the game

[Gary McClellan]

In regards to Column... (and realize, it's been years since I played, and I've not worked on EAW at all). One problem to deal with aside from bridges is Native Troops. They work in their own unique way, but if you want to melee with them, you more or less have to get into column IIRC.

Ideally, they'd have their own separate system, but that would be a pretty deep programming change at this point.

[TheGrayMouser]

Just thought I'd throw a couple thoughts out here.

Crickets: Yeah, often times that's all you hear. These games have been out maybe 2 decades and this site is primarily for PBEM organizing...  Not that people don't voice/have opinions but no doubt many of these thing have been discussed many many times before.

Gameplay Rules: So for the enfilading thing, the PDT files dictate how much a column is penalized for being enfiladed for a given scenario.  The default in 1812 at least appears to be 20%.  These can easily be changed to higher if you wish to mod them.  To be "enfiladed" a unit can not be facing a hex where the fire is coming from

As for columns being allowed to melee.  They shouldnt but there are two very separate issues at hand.

1 IF you made attacking in column highly penalized and or forbid it outright, then meleeing off / onto a bridge or thru a gate hexside becomes either almost impossible or literally impossible.  To fix that  would require  even further engine changes that might not even be possible... 

2) Gameplay Style
if you and your opponent do everything that the engine allows then don't expect it to be realistic.  This IMHO is probobly true of most turn-based wargames to some degree but even more so in the JTS black powder games due to their complexity.  (large amount of modifiers, multiple unit stacking, skirmishers, formations etc)

Doctrine of these eras doesnt lend towards easily created rules ( or programming an AI that can use them) that cover EVERY situational happenstance

So, some sort of house rules or a loose understanding of not to do cheesy things by like minded opponents is in order..

How about just agreeing to NEVER attack in column unless a bridge or gate is involved?  An easy addition to this house rule is a  battalions companies must form lime when within 10 hexes of an enemy ( or even more at this scale, after all the doctrine of Frederick the Great's Prussians to change from an approach column to battle line was minimum of 1 mile distance from the enemy!)


As for playing vs the AI, I haven't tested this extensively for this engine, but from my limited observations it appears that the AI like to maneuvuer in column but once it gets close to an enemy it likes to be in line, which is great!

Cheers!

I don't see units in column being enfiladed at all in 1812. I stuck my ass out in one test and the combat result was like I was in line formation with no enfiladed penalty or notification. Saw it in line formation though.
As for attacking in column, a sever penalty would be better. Good point on the bridge crossing. So we need the ability to attack in column but with a heavy penalty?

Hi, I just re-read the manual and fired up the the getting started scenario in 1812 (JTS version, latest patch) and based on what I see, the 20% modifier as per the PDF applies to enfiladed units.  ( I do stand corrected as columns always get the penalty whether they are enfiladed or not, which is good!)

  In order to see the modifiers you have to play with the option of ON Map Results Off, and then you can see the modifiers and the fire factors when you shoot in a POP up box.

Gary makes a great point about the Indian class of units being gutted if there is a column penalty, I suggest you tweak the enfilade # to 40% in a test scenario and see if that sufficiently deters you from getting anywhere near lines in column!

[bigus]

I stand corrected. In 1812, Units in column do suffer the enfiladed penalty.
I've got to stop testing when I drink.

[-72-]

It just seems like the obvious answer with regards to indigenous forces and columns, that the wrong unit type is being used to represent them; forming up in a nice fat target like a column is not something that they'd be doing ... actually forming up into any sort of fat target is not something that they'd do - their own populations couldn't sustain losses - so in effect battles were mostly existential to a degree - meaning nations were very sensitive to what losses actually meant in terms of their various nations.

[rahamy]

I don't have time to wade into this series now...nor for many months to come most likely, but did want to make a couple of comments:

John's over all design philosophy was not to overly restrict players - outright preventing them from doing things, but rather impose penalties within the game systems for non-historical behavior. So, it's not prevented from meleeing in Column formation, but units in Column can't fire. Also, once a melee is conducted all participants are Disrupted, which gives them a lower movement value among other negative impacts. So if you melee in Column then you are placing your forces at a serious disadvantage for following turns, especially if they don't return to good order immediately.

Indians are represented as essentially loosely formed skirmishers. They are generally armed with "small arms" = limited range, but with melee benefits. They also operate in either column or extended line - which means they aren't intended to stand and fight toe to toe with regular line units, but rather move quickly and harass flanks and the rear of the enemy... extended line is very good for this.

[-72-]

Skirmishers is essentially what I was thinking of, so that's very close to what I would be trying to replicate. I'm also interested in looking at the logistics for American Indian forces...

I mean on the one hand I was aware of the EAW mechanisms for that type of force; extended line, and a few others specifics, although I wasn't strictly talking only about the EAW engine (meaning that as a general statement -and not in reply to Rich).  In what I am putting together, to column or not to column won't probably be a consideration that anyone needs to deal with; actually no specific formation may be.

Indians, at least at Wabash in 1791, targeted leaders; so it might be something that asymmetrical leader loss percentages are used.  Plus, there might be a lesser incidence of capture in melee for the opponents of Indian forces (when no other nations are involved). Looking at things like that ( and putting together a journal ... paper and fountain pen ... old school -plus writing with a fountain pen is addicting).

What's kind of cool, is over at CCC there is a thread there that I think might be a good place to drop in some bio's as I come across them. I can re-use all of that material in various places. Recently I wrote about a William Gray Cobb, and some things I found out about him. W G Cobb was 18 and in St Clair's column; he was in the formal US Army, not a militia unit, or a levy. He was 18 ( might even have been a young 18)... I won't re-write it here, but I guess the reason I even looked into Wabash and more, is a kid like William Cobb. Considering he was in charge of an outpost that got overrun quickly, I don't think it ended well for him.

[Steel God]

All that said, what specifically do I think is wrong and what do I think it should be?

1). Units in column formation do not get flagged as Enfiladed when fired upon from flank or rear.  They may get the fire modifier for casualties- playing with FOW I can’t be sure - but not getting the morale hit is wrong IMO.  Personally I think units in column that are fired upon from any side should be so flagged, but at the very least they should be flagged when fire comes from rear or flanks.

2). I think units that melee while in column formation should be severely penalized, at least a 50% reduction to combat value since they are engaging on a narrow frontage.  It should be a rare event, usually only against an already weakened foe, or in extremely desperate circumstances that a unit would do it. 

Thanks for listening

No worries: I only really added part of that as a way of addressing the 'market' aspect, not being a factor when it comes to development.

Look, I'll be honest, I don't know that the armies of this period actually did fight in column. I keep thinking of that Pyle painting of Bunker Hill with the British in lines marching up the hill ... I'll tell you what I think I might find - and that is that the British's goal was to march right up that hill and into the redoubt and just push through and send the non-army farmers scrambling. I'd sometimes seen 'column' used to represent formations that were not able to fight in line, and in effect fought in formation that were, more or less, big fat targets as well (which was more about density modifiers, and effective frontage ... how many guys were doing the fighting in a unit ... but I mean, to be fair, that was also for a different period).  

That's part of what I am looking for, as it will help with working out where to direct modifiers; column should probably be a bad idea.

Actually ... you know what, leave it as I suspect that you're on the money with that observation.  I also want to have a look at how the British used their artillery in the battle; things like how mobile were they actually? Did the conditions really allow for that.

-But on a broader point, what I'd been spending some time doing is looking at sources on cavalry.

For clarity, let me say that while our first battle was Bunker Hill, our second one (and the one where this thread started with questions about moving and attacking in column) was based on Saratoga.  Not sure that changes anything in the conversation, just clarifying.  That said, in regard to your statement about Artillery and how the British used it, at Bunker Hill it actually played little part in the battle (as opposed to the game) because the British Quartermaster Corps, which was rusty as hell, brought the wrong ammunition for the field pieces.  I think they had a few heavy guns back towards to coast that could fire.  But in the scenario as designed the British have a huge Artillery advantage and enough ammo to fire every gun every turn, which is just bad research in my humble opinion.

[Steel God]

Lots of replies (so much better than crickets) so rather than add half a dozen responses to the thread I'll try and just summarize a general reply here:

1)  Through some trial and error several of you have figured out that the modifier (for casualties) for enfiladed fire is being applied.  That's correct and if you go back to my original post on the thread I said I thought that was the case just not 100% sure because we were using FoW.  Unfortunately that's NOT what I'm trying to communicate.  What is missing is the ENFILADED flag on units that are fired on from enfilade while in column formation.  Failure to put that flag on the units is preventing the minus 2 morale hit and making them more resilient in melee than units in line formation.  That is the problem and is essentially a BUG in my opinion. 

2)  This isn't about Indians, I get the design idea there on why they have to melee in column, but they should suffer accordingly. 

3)  Whilst I appreciate suggestions about "house rules" and the like, it's not really an acceptable answer.  A customer buys a product and the expectation is it will work as designed.  If the rule book states units fired upon from an enfilade position get  flagged as such as suffer a minus 2 morale hit, then by God the game should play that way.  Not trying to be a dick about it, just saying that's a reasonable position.  But more to the point, the BUG is so bad that it allows players to use bad tactics and do better than anyone (even the designer I dare say) would have intended.

PS - Okay I went back and read my original post and I wasn't perhaps as clear as I was in the voices in my head. But in any event.....not talking about the fire modifier for enfilade, I'm talking about the enfilade flag that drops morale by 2 which is a critical missing component and directly contrary to the Manual.

[rahamy]

PS - Okay I went back and read my original post and I wasn't perhaps as clear as I was in the voices in my head.  But in any event.....not talking about the fire modifier for enfilade, I'm talking about the enfilade flag that drops morale by 2 which is a critical missing component and directly contrary to the Manual.

Noted, will look at when we get a chance, but it's going to be a while - still in the re-org phase after John's passing.

[zovs66]

Got this game during the winter sale and am really new to the EAW and M&P series. Only have the WDS versions so that is all I know. Not sure if these points have been addressed yet but am enjoying learning this series and about these battles.