At the GAMEX convention, I played in a game of GMT's Glory (Chickamauga scenario). This battle seemed rather chaotic and seemed to generate some wierd results. At the risk of showing my limited understanding of the system (and gumming up a nice simple design), here are my suggestions to improve Glory: 1. Without battlelines, the chaotic situation seemed more like fighter air combat. It seemed too easy to circle around and get on each other's "tail". Berg's optional 6-hex (or 5-hex variant) ZOC should fix most of this. By putting someone in ZOC, you can prevent circling around back, because you can't reenter ZOC on the same activation as you leave it. 2. Commands got broken up and spread out all over the place without any penalty. I suggest that activated units also must be "in command" to do anything. After picking the activation marker, pick any one unit covered by that marker to be considered to be "in command". For any other unit to be "in command" they must trace a path of 3 hexes (6 for cavalry) to another "in command" unit and so on. (You can form a chain.) The effect is supposed to keep units of single activation marker together. You can split them up, but then a single marker can't move them all at once. This should not apply to those special markers like "Artillery" or "B-H-K Brigades". 3. Piggybacked artillery fire is too dangerous. If a piggybacked artillery unit fires, adjacent return fire (inluding return INFANTRY fire) can effect its companion infantry before it gets a chance to do anything. I suggest allowing infantry to fire in artillery fire phase or infantry fire phase, but NOT both. Thus, you can fire before or after you move, but only once per activation. This way, at least, you can fire simultaneously with your piggybacked artillery, regardless of the results of return fire. 4. Cavalry can retreat all the time automatically. I suggest a successful CCDR roll (w/ some DRM) is necessary, but it should always fail on an unmodified "9" roll. 5. OCC draws are a fixed number not taking into account reinforcements and casualties. They also seem too random. I suggest that OCC draws should be a percentage of the current force, not some absolute number. Also, the variance should be decreased somewhat, so the command advantage of one side is more recognizable. (Gee, those guys average 20% higher activation.) 6. Why didn't they put the reduced fire strength on the disordered side of the counters, rather than the separate "disordered" modifier? -ted Ted Kim Email: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Dept. http://ficus-www.cs.ucla.edu/ficus-members/tek/ 3564F Boelter Hall Phone: (310) 825-7307 Los Angeles, CA 90095 FAX: (310) 825-2273 > > At the GAMEX convention, I played in a game of GMT's Glory > (Chickamauga scenario). This battle seemed rather chaotic and seemed > to generate some wierd results. At the risk of showing my limited > understanding of the system (and gumming up a nice simple design), > here are my suggestions to improve Glory: > > > 1. Without battlelines, the chaotic situation seemed more like fighter > air combat. It seemed too easy to circle around and get on each > other's "tail". > > Berg's optional 6-hex (or 5-hex variant) ZOC should fix most of this. > By putting someone in ZOC, you can prevent circling around back, > because you can't reenter ZOC on the same activation as you leave it. > I agree with this, Ted. However - Remember, the battle of Chickamauga itself was rather chaotic and generated some weird results! Besides, you were fighting your divisions like it was the East Front in '41... (Attack, breakthru. Attack, breakthru... AND YOU WERE UNION!) Seriously, I've setup the battle again, and playing a more conservative Union Southern flank the lines are forming with slightly more stability. It -is- possible to cover your flanks with crossing fire from multiple brigades (preferably with artillery). There -are- those damn cav regiments to contend with, however. > > 2. Commands got broken up and spread out all over the place without > any penalty. > See my comments above regarding the actual battle. This is how it happened, though possibly not without penalty (C'mon, Reynolds! Roll a FIVE! ) ;-) > I suggest that activated units also must be "in command" to do > anything. After picking the activation marker, pick any one unit > covered by that marker to be considered to be "in command". For any > other unit to be "in command" they must trace a path of 3 hexes (6 for > cavalry) to another "in command" unit and so on. (You can form a > chain.) > > The effect is supposed to keep units of single activation marker > together. You can split them up, but then a single marker can't move > them all at once. This should not apply to those special markers like > "Artillery" or "B-H-K Brigades". > This might just work out. We may have to give it a shot. > > 3. Piggybacked artillery fire is too dangerous. If a piggybacked > artillery unit fires, adjacent return fire (inluding return INFANTRY > fire) can effect its companion infantry before it gets a chance to do > anything. > On the contrary, I think artillery fire is slightly underpower. 'Ever hear the term "The God of war"? Infantry brigades approaching artillery in the open should be prosecuted severely. In the woods, of course, it should be attenuated. > I suggest allowing infantry to fire in artillery fire phase or > infantry fire phase, but NOT both. Thus, you can fire before or after > you move, but only once per activation. This way, at least, you can > fire simultaneously with your piggybacked artillery, regardless of the > results of return fire. > This could work. Allow 'in-place' infantry to fire with artillery but give-up movement/regular fire. Charges would still be allowed by non-dispersed infantry that fired during the artillery phase. Cool? > > 4. Cavalry can retreat all the time automatically. > > I suggest a successful CCDR roll (w/ some DRM) is necessary, but it > should always fail on an unmodified "9" roll. > I posted a suggested for a possible one-hexside facing shift for infantry when approached in the enemy turn. What do you think? > > 5. OCC draws are a fixed number not taking into account reinforcements > and casualties. They also seem too random. > Again, see the above notes regarding the breakdown of command during this battle. Brigades often fought alone without even divisional command contact. I think this is represented rather well. Other battles with the same system may not have such an extreme swing. (BTW, it -is- an optional rule, anyway.) I'm in turn number three now, playing with the same rules we followed. I'll let you know how it goes. Hopefully we'll get a chance before the next Con to get together to play again. -Danny From: "Ted Kim (Random Dude)" Subject: Re: Glory Joseph Witek writes: > I'm not sure I understand the problem that's being posited for the > Glory ZOC rules ... you need to make damned sure that an enemy unit > can't get on your flank or in your rear. You also need to form > reserves so that if a front-line unit disorders (and therefore only > has a single-hex ZOC) there are backup troops to prevent a > shattering of the whole line. I agree with the general sentiment. However, IMHO, it's too easy to dance around units or slip past them in practice, especially when there are not enough to form a line. > It strikes me that giving all-around ZOCs makes defense a nobrainer IMHO, it's unlikely that the enemy will just stand still while you withdraw from their front in plain view, circle around and then hit their rear. The 6-hex ZOC prevents you from doing that in a single activation. (Note firing is still only to the front.) Other mechanics could be used, but I guess Berg didn't want to add another concept and so just extended the ZOCs. This probably doesn't happen much when their are enough troops to form a line, but can happen with low troop densities (hence the resemblance to fighter air combat). > Also, artillery: Yes, the infantry takes the hits when stacked with > artillery, but if the "piggybacked" stack retreats, the infantry > goes back two hexes and the artillery only one, at which time > they're dead meat to an infantry attack--any charge kills them. What is being objected to is the interaction between return fire (to artillery) and the turn sequence. IMHO, when piggybacked artillery is adjacent to the enemy, it is often times worse to use your artillery. Firing your artillery allows enemy units to return fire (both units if he is piggybacked), thus allowing counteraction before your infantry can do anything. If you withhold artillery fire, the best he can do is a simultaneous trade of fire with your infantry. Your poor infantry is incapable of firing at the same time as your artillery, though his is not. My suggestion was just to allow an infantry unit to fire in either the artillery of infantry fire phase, but not both. This way you can fire together with your artillery offensively. (You can also conduct fighting withdrawals, where you fire and then move.) > Since the key in GLORY is to inflict multiple disorders on units, by > themselves cavalry (with their small combat factors) are little more > than a nuisance. They can fuss around with other cavalry, or hold > gaps in the line, but that's about it. They can do some damage by combining (and totaling factors) in a charge. My suggestion was just to make the retreat before fire/charge not be a sure thing with some kind of die-roll (add some risk to it). IMHO, once in while they should get caught. My apologies if I missed some subtlety in the rules ... -ted Ted Kim Email: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Dept. http://ficus-www.cs.ucla.edu/ficus-members/tek/ 3564F Boelter Hall Phone: (310) 825-7307 Los Angeles, CA 90095 FAX: (310) 825-2273 From: "John D. Coley" Subject: GLORY suggestions Ted, thanks for the suggestions for modifying some rules in GMT's GLORY. A few random thoughts: >1. Without battlelines, the chaotic situation seemed more like fighter >air combat. It seemed too easy to circle around and get on each >other's "tail". True, but isn't it historically accurate that units who didn't maintain battlelines suffered? It seems like having units supporting your flanks is a pretty important tactical concept, no? >3. Piggybacked artillery fire is too dangerous. If a piggybacked >artillery unit fires, adjacent return fire (inluding return INFANTRY >fire) can effect its companion infantry before it gets a chance to do >anything. > >I suggest allowing infantry to fire in artillery fire phase or >infantry fire phase, but NOT both. Thus, you can fire before or after >you move, but only once per activation. This way, at least, you can >fire simultaneously with your piggybacked artillery, regardless of the >results of return fire. You could also try using artillery from a range of more than 1 hex, rendering it out of range of return infantry fire, and then closing with your infantry if the artillery has disordered the target. JC From: Joseph Witek Subject: Re: Glory I said: > > I'm not sure I understand the problem that's being posited for the > > Glory ZOC rules ... you need to make damned sure that an enemy unit > > can't get on your flank or in your rear. Ted: > I agree with the general sentiment. However, IMHO, it's too easy to > dance around units or slip past them in practice, especially when > there are not enough to form a line. That's just it, though. You need to form a line. I'm not being snotty, but it's poor planning to get close enough for the enemy to pull such flanking maneuvers unless you *do* have the support. There's a lot of waiting for support and jockeying for position, at least in 2BR and Chickamauga, or there should be. > > > It strikes me that giving all-around ZOCs makes defense a nobrainer > > IMHO, it's unlikely that the enemy will just stand still while you > withdraw from their front in plain view, circle around and then hit > their rear. The 6-hex ZOC prevents you from doing that in a single > activation. (Note firing is still only to the front.) Other > mechanics could be used, but I guess Berg didn't want to add another > concept and so just extended the ZOCs. Well, Berg has been very much in his "we make this stuff up, so can you, so if it makes you happy go ahead and play that way"-mode here lately; you oughta see the Three Days of Gettysburg errata. The problem I have here is that Civil War brigades had nothing resembling a ZOC to their rear, although at the brigade level they could redeploy reserve regiments enough to justify the 3-hex frontal ZOC (rather than the vertex facing of the regimental-level games). If you really want to keep the enemy off your flanks, you need to have interlocking ZOCs to prevent it. Very few ACW brigades could change front quickly while engaged (and especially not in heavy terrain like at Chickamauga). On artillery: > IMHO, when piggybacked artillery is > adjacent to the enemy, it is often times worse to use your artillery. > Firing your artillery allows enemy units to return fire (both units if > he is piggybacked), thus allowing counteraction before your infantry > can do anything. If you withhold artillery fire, the best he can do > is a simultaneous trade of fire with your infantry. Your poor > infantry is incapable of firing at the same time as your artillery, > though his is not. Well, that's the "defender's vigorish" in this game. Since charge is so deadly if used correctly, and terrain isn't all that effective for the defense, the defender gets that first combined shot, *if* he wants to blow all his defensive fire for that activation at the first unit that shoots. That's why you have to attack with more than one unit. Assuming three piggybacked stacks on a single piggybacked defender, if attacker 1 fires and is fired on by both the defending artillery and infantry (and assuming that puts attacker 1 stack out of the fight completely, which is unlikely) that leaves two more artillery shots, two infantry shots, and a big charge without any reply from the defender at all. That should result in a rout at least. Also, artillery bombarding from range behind the assaulting troops can soften up the line and draw defending fire before the assault hits home. On cavalry: > They can do some damage by combining (and totaling factors) in a > charge. My suggestion was just to make the retreat before fire/charge > not be a sure thing with some kind of die-roll (add some risk to it). > IMHO, once in while they should get caught. Well, again, if infantry is properly supported, I can't see much that cavalry by itself can do to them. If the infantry is routed or attacked in the rear, that's a different story. But of course that's cavalry's historical usage. Civil War line infantry could not "catch" mounted cavalry that didn't want to be caught. > > My apologies if I missed some subtlety in the rules No apologies necessary. The subtlety I see is in the way units die: a routed unit must get an additional disorder, so if a unit is disordered by artillery fire, routed by infantry fire, and disorderd by charge, they die. If they get caught while disordered at the beginning of an activation phase, they're much more vulnerable as well. On the other hand, if you can prevent the enemy from getting access to your disordered and routed units (by use of support lines), they generally will bounce back into action sooner or later. What I think is subtle is the way a few units have a hard time doing much more than push each other around a few hexes, while a closely coordinated attack or defense can blow out enemy units at a pretty brisk clip. Rusty