Phased vs Non-Phased play

[High Krausen]

Hi all,

Just curious as to the concencus here on phased vs non-phased play.

What are the pros and cons of each?

Does non-phased play really lead to ahistorical actions?

thanks in advance for your comments

HK

 

[CyberRanger]

Before I vote ... I'm always getting this terms confused. Is non-phased when the computer handles all the defensive fire?

 

[Alex Krolikowsk]

Before I vote ... I'm always getting this terms confused. Is non-phased when the computer handles all the defensive fire?

It's in the way we are playing a Tourney games for example. Turn is not divided into any phases ie. Movement phase, Def. Fire Phase...

 

[rahamy]

For me the phased system where you can march across an open field and not draw any fire is just not appealing. Any system will have un-historical results...we are, after all, using a computer to replicate something that took place 140+ years ago...there's no possible way to be 100% accurate. The application of a few house rules can always curb practices that are problems.

 

[Alex Krolikowsk]

I play in non-phased system because then game is more interesting, more unexpected, more lively etc. You must consider and be prepared for almost everything Also you can plan and execute really fine actions.

To me phased play is too schematic. I go, they fire, I fire... In such way few skeleton regiments put in hollows are able to stop considerable force of enemy..for example.

Generally it is easier to defend in phased game as your guys will always fire in their defensive phase (if they have ammunition). Non-phased system favors attacker but when you are attacking you are always doing some mistakes. So old rule say that to seize a position is only one thing...the other is to survive there until next turn.

PS. Recently added optional rule 'Full Defensive Melee Fire' is really good addition for non-phased game.

 

[Grant W]

For me the phased system where you can march across an open field and not draw any fire is just not appealing.

But that's not what is happening at all. Distinct phases allow for reaction fire which is much more realistic than "all in one turn" gameplay. The big problem with the latter is that you can soak off enemy reaction fire, then move the bulk of your forces. You cannot do this with phases.

 

[rahamy]

There is no way to "soak off" reaction, or what is called "opportunity fire". There is no code saying that each unit only get's three shots of opportunity fire, for example.

And I question if each and every unit would fire at 100% at every given opportunity in actual combat. We're talking about very confusing, stressful, high tension situations - so to say that every unit would act with precision and fire a complete volley at the intended target every time is not realistic. Just look at the casualty numbers from our games, either turn or phased, and you will see much higher than historical results.

 

[Grant W]

And I question if each and every unit would fire at 100% at every given opportunity in actual combat. We're talking about very confusing, stressful, high tension situations - so to say that every unit would act with precision and fire a complete volley at the intended target every time is not realistic. Just look at the casualty numbers from our games, either turn or phased, and you will see much higher than historical results.

Doesn't unit fatigue reduce the effectiveness of fire? That's one of the things I was thinking about; unhinging a position by fatiguing one or two defending regiments, and subsequently bringing in the rest of your regiments to mop up.

 

[rahamy]

Yes, but ranged fire doesn't add that much fatigue, at least not in a single round.

As for preventing big breakthroughs in a single turn, there's defense in-depth...which will allow ZOC's to stop penetrating units. Then of course you can always agree on certain house rules to curtail over aggressive players.

My experience has been that the things people dislike about the engine, such as the ability to create break throughs in the single turn mode, or another is meleeing in column formation - always have draw backs for the players using those tactics as well. So, it pretty much comes out in the wash.

The engine is designed to reward players for using historical tactics, maintaining formations and unit cohesiveness, and not over exerting their troops. If they go against these principles it will catch up with them sooner or later.

Of course that's a prime reason I like larger battles...as the tiny ones do allow room for very gamey play with little room to recover.

 

[arckon]

Only real problem I have with melleeing is where the routed units go. I think you get quite a large advantage successfully melleeing as your normally close to guarateed that the losing units will rout. I have no problems with that; it is where they rout to.

I recently tried having fresh full strength units behind my first line defense ready to fill the gaps. They were 3 hexes behind the front defensive line, 3 hexes wide with two hexes between the next group of 3 hex wide reinforcements.
My thinking was hopefully any routs from the front line would have 375 yrds to spot the 250 yrd gaps in the reinforcement line. Well you have guessed it not one rout went thru the gap they all went thru the units disrupting them, greatly curtailing my effectiveness with the reinforcements. I didn't expect them to all go thru the gaps but thought some would. Even those where the gap was directly behind them veered into my units.

If you can successfully mellee it seems to me you get a double advantage in this type of battlefield situation.

Arckon

 

[Alex Krolikowsk]

I recently tried having fresh full strength units behind my first line defense ready to fill the gaps. They were 3 hexes behind the front defensive line, 3 hexes wide with two hexes between the next group of 3 hex wide reinforcements.
My thinking was hopefully any routs from the front line would have 375 yrds to spot the 250 yrd gaps in the reinforcement line. Well you have guessed it not one rout went thru the gap they all went thru the units disrupting them, greatly curtailing my effectiveness with the reinforcements. I didn't expect them to all go thru the gaps but thought some would. Even those where the gap was directly behind them veered into my units.

Arckon, yes such things happen but see my attached pics! I just had a similar situation to yours but my soldiers behaved as they should
10th Virginia panicked after lossing only 10 men Behind them were 6 guns and two hexes farther ca. 400 men from Gordon brigade, hurring to help on the flank. I had lot of luck that 10th didn't choose to run thru them all

 

[arckon]

Heartening to see that, although I did like the word "luck" in your last sentence.

Granted in example I gave above it was a stack of 3 units and a stack of 2 units that routed, 5 units in total so I expected some to run thru the reinforcements. Truth be known I was probably more disappointed due to lengths and planning I went to in advance to avoid this happening only to have it happen anyway. It still seemed a touch strange though.

Arckon

 

[rahamy]

Though not always possible, one way to prevent them running through you is to meet, or at least get very close, to the stacking limit...then they won't be able to enter the hex.

 

[arckon]

Arrrgh, thanks for the tip Rahamy, I hadn't thought of that.

The reinforcements I had were at about the 700 men mark in the stacks and yes each individual unit from the routing stacks had each been whittled down to only 200 odd or less mark over the several previous turns.

This gives me something to work on.

Arckon

 

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

My only beef with the ADF is that it isn't strong enough and favors the Rebs. Defensive fire ruled the day in most battles and in this engine it fires at half strength and then only haphazardly or maybe not even at all. I believe that the probability of a unit firing defensively is based upon fatigue and quality. Given that the Rebs are given higher quality (another arguement to have) they get to fire more often unless they are highly fatigued. Therefore it can almost be impossible to withdraw sometimes when you are on the defensive as you come under what seems like Confederate machine gun fire.

 

[hrik]

I prefer single phased games in most respects, but feel that the game engine could do with some improvements to strengthen the defender.

The most important consideration is whether the current system is biased towards the attacker. Unfortunately, the ADF system seems less reliable for the ACW engine than for the Nappy one - it's quite likely that defending units won't fire at all, let alone three times, so firing at 50% strength means that the attacker has an inbuilt advantage. So, I'd recommend increasing the probability of defensive fire or putting this into the pdt file so that players can determine this themselves.

Also, there seem to be too many melees occurring, which seems unrealistic and again favours the attacker. So, maybe attacking units should only be able to melee if they've only used up 1/3 or less of their movement allowance?

The action point system of the WW2 engine makes it much harder for units that have moved to melee - maybe this would be a useful system for the earlier games too, since movement, firing and melee are linked, whereas in the current engine (for the ACW, EAW & Nappy games) a unit can use its full movement allowance, fire at full effect at point blank range and then melee as well! With an action point system, a unit that's moved gets less firepower and if it has used its full movement allowance it can't fire at all, let alone melee. However, the (stationary) defenders will be able to fire up to three times. So an action point system would actually discourage rather than encourage blitzkrieg tactics.

 

[CyberRanger]

The action point system of the ...

Some version of this does seem like a great idea. Every point you make is very valid.

 

[Alex Krolikowsk]

The most important consideration is whether the current system is biased towards the attacker.

I like games as they are now... but to increase the probability of defensive fire (a bit) would be okey.

After movement, attacker is firing at half effectiveness so if he will not break defender’s line, he will receive the most effective fire next turn, assuming that defender will not move his units, only fire. Also attacker with his fighting blood up, always is doing some mistakes (for example leaving open flank/rear after succesfull melee) endangering himself for a counterattacks. So when defender is handling his forces well, it is not so easy to attack. Just my opinion.

Re blitzkrieg attacks (and frequent melees) – it usually happen when your opponent is putting a weak, single regiment line, you are on his wide open flank or after some firing half of his guys panicked and he is unable to form a line. Then indeed you can mass your units and go through him in panzer style. But again, if he is handling his troops well, there will be no any blitzkrieg attacks.
Personally, I don’t melee frontally anything above 500 men (only in emergency). Even if I win, it cost too much fatigue. Far better is an 'isolation' tactics :laugh: