Gettysburg '64 is the reissue of Gettysburg '58. Why would anyone still mess with it? Well I was 12 yrs. old in 1958 when my older brother introduced me to it. With that beautiful map, it will always have a fond place in my heart. It was fairly simple. I enjoy the challenge of fixing a game like this.
Yesterday I posted some ideas here. Today I feel a need to go deeper.
Squares [sqs.] automatically create a huge asymmetry, this is another way to look at the problem.
Units arranged along a row in adjacent sqs. form a sold wall. In front of it there are X+2 sqs. in the ZOC of X such units. So, the 6 Divs. of 2 Union Corps can be attacked from 8 sqs. & have 8 ZOC sq. Units behind the line can't join in.
Units arranged down a diagonal in adj. sqs. do not look like a solid wall. In front of them, X such units have 2X+1 ZOC sqs. So, 6 Div. can be attacked from 13 sqs. 8 is not = to 13. This is not good! It is true that units in sqs. behind the line can join in, but this is still different from the row case, because the 2nd "line" units can only be attacked from 1 sq.
A further problem is the fact that along a row even units on every 3rd sq. form a solid wall of ZOC in front of them. But, along a diagonal even units every 2 sqs. do not form a solid wall of ZOC, enemy units can reach the sqs. between them and be tripled [now with my changes doubled]. Now as length goes, 3 sqs. diag. = 4.242 (3 X 1.414), which is about the 4 sqs. of 2 units on a row with 2 sqs. between them. The diag. line can be infiltrated, but the row can not.
Another problem is the 4 corners of the unit's own sq. Enemy units moving over these corners are moving laterally close to and under the rifles of the unit. Such moves seem quite impossible. Under original rules only 2 of the 8 possible cases is not allowed, as they are from 1 ZOC sq to another of the unit.
Solution-- Change the ZOC of units facing diagonally so that the ZOC is 3 sqs. plus the 4 corners of the unit's sq. Those corners can not be crossed in either direction (you must go around them). The sq. directly in front of the unit [facing diagonally] is cut off from the ZOC if the other 2 sqs. are occupied by units of the same player, so the most units that can attack frontally is 2. Units can attack into this sq., but only when the 2 other ZOC sqs, are not both enemy or both friendly occupied (1 of each does not block). On a row, the full ZOC is just the sq. directly in front plus the 4 corners of the unit's sq., the other 2 sq of the old ZOC are now just “half” ZOC sqs., it takes 2 halfs [from 2 units] = a full to stop moving units, but if you stop in a half ZOC you must attack as if a full ZOC. These rules also have the advantage that it looks better than the old zig-zag line.
Now, the above formula for X units facing diagonally, becomes X+1. So, 6 div. can be attacked from 7 sqs. Now, 7 is about = 8. Better.
Player's note-- now most units will be turned to face diagonally coz that way they have a ZOC front of 2 sq. not 1 and their flank is not much more exposed.
You could even now reduce the ZOC of very small units [here Brigades]. On a diagonal, the 2 side ZOC sqs. can be 1/2 ZOC sqs. like on a row. On a row the 2 side sqs. are not even 1/2 ZOC. I have found this hard to use in practice, I forget.
Yesterday I suggested that Inf. & Cav. move 1 sq. down a road for 1/4 MF. This works out to 2 miles per hr. for Inf. At a rate of 1 sq. for 1/5 MF works out to 2.5 mi. per hr. Or even x6 for 3 mph. Both are reasonable.
When going over the map for the hills a lot of latitude is a good thing. A small hill split between 2 sqs. should be put in just 1. A medium size hill split between 4 sqs. should be in 1 or 2 of them. Some hills will just be ignored (pulled into an adjacent hill sq.). There is 1 place where 2 ridges squeeze into 1 sq. This is a problem, use your own rule. The hill on the Emmitzburg Pike at the Peach Orchard should be next to Semminary Ridge not in the center of the valley and may be higher than Cementery Ridge. Little Round Top should be a mixed sq. or maybe woods, certainly not forest.
The 2 army HQ can also move 2 units or stacks, that did not attack, after combat 2 sqs. As above except the army HQ must start this “Phase” adj. to a unit that attacked and did not retreat. Art. firing from 2+ sqs. doesn't count. [This is supposed to let you move reserves forward after a fight.]
When Art. fires at long range, you will need to define what bonus the sqs. in the areas between the extensions of the 8 sqs. around the target unit give to the attacking Art. unit. I can't show you on a diagram. I'll try to tell you-- starting from the rear-- doubled if from all the area between the the 2 X3 lines; then tripled around to the next X3 line; then X2 for just 1 row of sqs.; then +50% the rest of the way to the +50% line; and no bonus in front of the unit. Firing at long range is not allowed on level ground or along ridges because it is assumed that a slight rise or trees or something blocks the line of sight. I suppose some of you could allow Art. on a slope to fire also.
I know that fractional CF are never used, that is why I doubled the CF of all the units to get away from the need for that 1 fraction; that is the AF of small Art. units, 2/3-1-3. This fraction is chosen coz 2/3 +50% = 2/3 + 1/3 = 1 AF; 2/3 doubled = 1.3333, so if you add another Art. unit worth 2/3 more it totals 2 AF; and 2/3 tripled = 2. But Art. is rarely doubled.
When a player's units are already Engaged the owning player can call for a Unit Breaks Result, a Self back 2. When a player calls for a “Self back 2” result, it may not always work. You still roll. Engaged => (=> meaning “becomes”) Self back 2 and Disrupted x3; self Elim => self Elim, Self back 2 and Disrupted x3; Self back 2 => Self back 2 [not Disrupted]; Exchange stays Exchange; enemy Elim and/or back 2 => Self back 2 and Disrupted x2, yes x2. Self back 2 can't be used to soak-off.
Soon I'll post my new OBs. One for basically same size as the original units and one for double size units.
- Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012 6:08 am (Total Number of Edits: 3)
- Posted Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:39 am