1776 - 2nd attempt to understand the game

[Steel God]

Alright, so I've progressed onto a second game of 1776 in an attempt to grasp this system.  This scenario is a little more wide open than Bunker Hill, more space for maneuver and less of the expected routes as it were.  So, we're almost 10 turns in and combat is just starting to happen and I'm noticing that units in column can melee with no apparent penalty (am I seeing that correctly)?  Dare I ask if they also receive the 10% bonus for not firing before melee since they're in column?  Also I have noticed that even when firing into the flank and rear of units in column they are not marked as enfiladed, that only seems to happen to units in line or extended formation.  Is that also normal?

[-72-]

Alright, so I've progressed onto a second game of 1776 in an attempt to grasp this system.  This scenario is a little more wide open than Bunker Hill, more space for maneuver and less of the expected routes as it were.  So, we're almost 10 turns in and combat is just starting to happen and I'm noticing that units in column can melee with no apparent penalty (am I seeing that correctly)?  Dare I ask if they also receive the 10% bonus for not firing before melee since they're in column?  Also I have noticed that even when firing into the flank and rear of units in column they are not marked as enfiladed, that only seems to happen to units in line or extended formation.  Is that also normal?

I wish I could say that I had an answer for you SG, however I did want to let you know that I am getting a lot from your posts about this period, and how you are seeing the series operating ... but more especially how it feels like it ought to be working (like in comparison to your understanding of the period and history of what you're taking on)...

The Bunker Hill material got me thinking about that battle specifically (it happened to come along right at about the same time that I had been reading Philbrick's book on Bunker Hill (technically about Boston from before the Revolution ... and I assume through to when the British evacuated.).

I plan on reading a few books on that period (well at least a couple - and then chapters in others as I come across them) -with the aim of getting a handle on the respective views from each side as to what they had hoped to accomplish (and how/why they were going to go about doing that).

In effect keep it coming.     Great stuff. :)

[Steel God]

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.

[Sir John Cope]

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.

A little disheartening, frankly. If it really needs to be said, then fine, I'll say it: that's not quite right. I believe I do understand the market dynamics involved, and I appreciate that with Mr. Tiller's death this is not an opportune moment to make a fuss about the pre-20th c. line of games, but I do hope that at some point someone will have the time and interest to take a hard look at things like this.

[-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.

[Steel God]

People who know me, know my conversational style is rhetorical, so yeah I kind of already know “it ain’t right” - I was just venting. That said, this period is not personal to me, but is one I’m fairly passionate about.  My knowledge is less than what it is about WW2 or the ACW, which is why I leave the door open on the possibility that maybe there’s something about the history I just don’t understand.  

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

[-72-]

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.

[bigus]

I can confirm that it's the same for 1812.
I agree that their should be penalties for being fired on in column and sever penalties for being enfiladed.
Personally I think that units in column should not be allowed to initiate a melee and/or if they do, there should also be a sever penalty.
The only good thing. Units in column can't fire.
I hope this will be fixed soon in an update but I have a feeling it will be a while.

Cheers,

[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!

[bigus]

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?