I think it would be very good if there was a button to save MP for HQs so they can move and then go out of T mode.
Also should cav HQ not have to pay the 2/3 cost to mount up?
I still have not read the notes (Mrs B permitting that is todays job if it rains) but whilst I understand the artillery batteries use their MP to go from T to being able to fire I do wonder if Horse Artillery should pay 1/3 I recall from my youth Victor comic used to have a strip on people who won the VC and one of those was a horse artillery unit that came in to action and held back the enemy. Odd what you remember. Certainly the Kings troop using WWI 13pdrs can ride up unhook and fir in minutes
Should cavalry and lorried infantry be able to go "on foot"?
I think I read somewhere that in the future aircraft would attack with a 2 hex scatter. I have to say I think that is wrong. Pilots flew lower and slower knew where they were much easier than in WWII and when they bombed/straffed they saw the whites of the eyes. Often combat reports say they saw enemy infantry at polygon wood and attacked them. In that respect WWI bombing was more accurate than WWII just not as effective.
Mike
(06-19-2010, 09:09 PM)Mike Bowen Wrote: [ -> ]I think it would be very good if there was a button to save MP for HQs so they can move and then go out of T mode.
Also should cav HQ not have to pay the 2/3 cost to mount up?
I still have not read the notes (Mrs B permitting that is todays job if it rains) but whilst I understand the artillery batteries use their MP to go from T to being able to fire I do wonder if Horse Artillery should pay 1/3 I recall from my youth Victor comic used to have a strip on people who won the VC and one of those was a horse artillery unit that came in to action and held back the enemy. Odd what you remember. Certainly the Kings troop using WWI 13pdrs can ride up unhook and fir in minutes
Should cavalry and lorried infantry be able to go "on foot"?
I think I read somewhere that in the future aircraft would attack with a 2 hex scatter. I have to say I think that is wrong. Pilots flew lower and slower knew where they were much easier than in WWII and when they bombed/straffed they saw the whites of the eyes. Often combat reports say they saw enemy infantry at polygon wood and attacked them. In that respect WWI bombing was more accurate than WWII just not as effective.
Mike
In regards to the cav HQs costing 1/3 movement to "mount", no I don't think it is necessary given how the HQ works (you can't exactly charge anything with it after all), and unlike a cavalry unit which would dismount and send it horses to a "safe area" an HQ would keep its transport in immediate proximity.
In regards to horse artillery being able to setup quicker, well, what you say is true but this is all a gameplay abstraction that is rationalized to be beyond the scale of this game. I doubt that there will ever be a method to specify in the engine what is a "horse artillery" and what is not, because they all are in fact horse mobile guns and the ability to specify the two would require separate flags which is something that I believe will not pass over well. But then again, there is always the next Tillercon for people to make suggestions. :)
In regards to infantry and cavalry not having the ability to go on foot, it is specifically excluded from this series because it is not desired for these units to be as flexible as they are are in PzC. Primarily it is not desired that cavalry can go on foot and leave their horses who-knows-where so they can cross restricted terrain, because the cavalry units of this period did not work this way. The horses stayed with the unit, they did not disappear at go to brigade HQ where they were collected by the thousands. Of course this means that "motorized" infantry units (I hate using that term during this time period) are not allowed to go on foot either but this too is desired so they are not represented as true WW2 type motorized infantry with full flexibility. Maybe one day there could be a separation between cavalry not being able to go on foot and "motorzied" being able to, but at the moment I think it is fine.
In regards to the scattered airstrikes, the scatter has nothing to do with an air units accuracy and instead has everything to do with the fact that there wasn't guys on the ground with radios communicating with the pilots in the planes for close air support. So basically the scatter is the pilot choosing his own target to attack or to recon in a "general area" rather than him attacking or reconnoitering exactly what you want every time with absolute precision, because that precise level of command and control and coordination was not there. Besides, one only has to read about the Lost Battalion and their attempt to supply it by air to see how targets can be planned out by high command, and slow and low flying aircraft can still miss their marks by miles because of the crude nature of all factors involved during the period. So, although there are no airstrikes in F14, the rational of how they behave in the future is in place and thought out already. :)
Ok thats good and I can see the sense of it the answers.
The air scatter I would accept easier if the scatter was to an enemy hex not a vacant one. I think at that level it would always be possible to find someone although I accept not the someone you may want!
One other thing that I wondered about is should there be a number the? for enemy unit strengths as there is in ACW series? At this time of the war I would err towards yes as it was more open and you could see if it was a regiment or squadron perhaps later I would say no.
Mike
I forgot to mention that the 13-pdr field gun does have a higher degree of mobility being that it was so light (speed is higher that "other" guns). So, it does have a slight advantage over other guns in that regard - I know its not much, but it does try to represent one strength of it.
In regards to your question, I think the air recon in FWWC (if that is what you are referring to) does have a chance for more "?" markers to show up rather than the detailed spotted markers, but I am not totally sure about that. As much as we might want the air portion of these games to improve, I don't think it will happen unless someone really harps on it at a future Tillercon.
Sorry what I meant was should units sizes show up as say 7?? or 1??? like they do in Nap or ACW at least in this early stage of the war I think it is something to consider in particular for Cav units as the could be 100 -500 men and i think units on the ground would know the difference
Mike
Ah, OK. Well, that does make sense for units located in clear terrain but I am not sure how valid that would be by late war. What I mean is, late in the war it would be almost impossible to know how many men are in the open because of how the tactics changed, and also in historical accounts, the reoccurring comment about how war had changed from the 1800s to 1914 was the new "invisible battlefield" because of the long ranged fire, infantry taking cover, and so on (I think even Rommel refers to this in his book). So, in regards to the latter, it probably doesn't make sense to do it like Napoleonics and ACW in this regard because the units were not standing shoulder to shoulder like the previous era.
But who knows, maybe an improvement like that could work its way into the next title if it is thought to fit in well with the period, but don't hold your breath. :(
I agree its a date thing (and possibly a terrain thing) By late 1914 the moment had passed for the western front. The Eastern was mobile for longer of course.