damage as threat modifier for AWI-FMA

G'day,

> Instead of rolling damage on a shot the result of the roll

I reckon it would capture the idea of unit disintegration and stragglers well,
but would probably miss some of the actual kill effect degradation of combat
effectiveness of a unit unless you also modified FP based on morale.

Cheers

I idea that could work for that is simply stating that the maximum range band
is based on the morale.

CO = 5 bands?? = 4 bands SH = 3 bands BR = 2 bands RO = 1 band (if they even
get the opportunity)

A Confident Green unit can fire 6*5 = 30" range. A Shaken Elite unit can only
fire 12*3 = 36" range.

Of course, it does make quality more important, as you're also less likely to
lose morale with a better unit.

Brendan 'neath southern skies

> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.  2. This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain confidential information for the use of the intended
recipient. 3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the
sender by return
e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and
delete and destroy all copies of this e-mail.  4. Any views
expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are not
a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated. 5.
Finally, please do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware
of these restrictions.

> On 2/17/04 5:21 PM, "Beth.Fulton@csiro.au" <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

> I reckon it would capture the idea of unit disintegration and

I imagine that would be the case for units of like experience and equipment
where a player constantly rolls a +1 on their die when attacking.  Or
not rolling high enough to actually modify the confidence roll.

Wouldn't current confidence limit what you could actually do with a unit?
There might have to be some tweaks to the allowed actions...

Damo

On 2/17/04 5:45 PM, "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au>
wrote:

> I idea that could work for that is simply stating that the maximum

That would work. I'd be using 15mm figs so I'd probably make it 2 inches per
band. Or make smooth bore weapon range bands 2" and rifled weapons
3".
Havn't even started talking about cannon yet.

> Of course, it does make quality more important, as you're also less

Quality is *very* important. Question is when does quality stop and equipment
start?

Damo

> At 9:35 PM -0500 2/17/04, Damond Walker wrote:

sometimes it makes it go backwards. Rifle ranges have gone down with advances
in tech since Victorian times. Enfield rifles regularly had
sights fro ranges up to 2000+ yards for volley
fire. 1200 yards for normal aimed fire. As technology has developed more
weapon systems rifles have had less need for long range fire. Machine guns
used to accomplish the missions that mortars accomplish now.

> Damo wrote:

> Quality is *very* important. Question is when does quality stop and

To answer that, read Brent Nosworthy's book, _The Bloody Crucible of
Courage_. It's about the American Civil War, not the American War of
Independence (or the War of the American Rebellion *g*). Much of it isn't
relevant to the AWI, though he does mention the Napoleonic period.

One of his conclusions is that training and leadership dictated
engagement ranges far more than the weaponry. Rifled muskets could --
when properly used (meaning that the soldier stopped to use the
backsight properly) -- hit targets from 600 to 1000+ yards away.
However, the average engagement range of the ACW was 140 yards, with many
units holding fire to well within 100 yards.

I don't have the book with me so I can't quote the numbers, but he mentions
casualties as a function of bullets fired in both the Napoleonic Wars and the
ACW. The casualty rate for the Napoleonic Wars was something like a tenth of
one percent (or a single casualty for every 1 bullet fired). The ACW was
between 0.6% and 1.5%, depending on the battle. Quality of the unit firing was
a bigger influence than the weaponry.

The tricky part in all of this, and the part I'm struggling to add to my
Hardtack rules (SG2 for the ACW) is the effect of bayonet charges. _Not_
bayonet fighting, but what they called the bayonet charge. A unit would charge
the enemy with bayonets gleaming. More times than not, the enemy
would retreat -- in good order or in a rout -- giving ground to the
attacker. This was sometimes a deliberate withdrawal, but usually it was
due to a failure of morale. If the enemy did _not_ run away, the
attacker usually ended his charge in close range due to the same sort of
failure of morale. This resulted in a close action firefight. Rarely did the
attacker continue to charge while the defender held his ground, resulting in a
melee. The timely bayonet charge was a major tactic in Napoleonic battles, and
was often a decisive tactic in the ACW. The trick is representing it properly
on the wargame table.

From: <agoodall@att.net>

> The tricky part in all of this, and the part I'm struggling to add to
This resulted in a close action firefight. Rarely did the attacker continue to
charge while the defender held his ground, resulting in a melee. The timely
bayonet charge was a major tactic in Napoleonic battles, and was often a
decisive tactic in the ACW. The trick is representing it properly on the
wargame table.

But amongst some troops, the problem is getting your own guys to stand

> At 1:48 AM +1100 2/19/04, Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:

Make sure you give those little nepalese a bonus for their kukris.

> Alan wrote:

> But amongst some troops, the problem is getting your own guys to stand

Keeping cool could be a problem, particularly with green units, but there were
relatively few accounts of units firing prematurely during the ACW. The
prevalent feeling was that you gave the enemy a nasty shock if you fired at
close range, and so the troops tended to wait until close range to fire.

As for holding back units to stop them counter charging, this happened but it
was exceedingly rare in the ACW. I can't think of an action in a major battle
where a unit uncontrollably countercharged a charging unit. I'm not saying it
didn't, just that I can't think of a specific instance when it happened. I do
know of a couple of instances when a regimental commander took it upon himself
to charge at the enemy, and was dressed down for it by the brigade commander.
That's not the same thing, though. I suspect that uncontrolled countercharging
just wasn't that likely a thing in the era of linear tactics.

> The timely bayonet charge was a major tactic...

I've seen shows on the history channel talking about the bayonet and the ACW.
In the reading I've done about AWI the continentals had a habit of just
running away when the Brits fixed bayonents, hit skirmish order, and charged.
In their case I think it had more to do with terror than anything else.

Later on it was a different story...but by then there was a trained army to
take the charge.