American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents. I don't use house rules because they can sometimes lead to these unpleasant situations. Enough said.

Capt. Bill Cirillo
3rd Brigade, 1st Div.
XX Corps, AoC, USA

Gentlemen of the Club,

Thank you for your insight and words of wisdom. I have extended an olive branch to my opponet taking into consideration some of the suggestions I have recieved both here and form my Army Commander. I posted here for just this reason to gain insight and understnading. I now understand my opponent's position and feel confident there was no rule violations involved. I extend my sincer public appology for my breach of edicate by including his name in my origian post. I am sorry Sir! Thank you Gentlemen! Now I believe this round of drinks is on me.

Lt Gen Joseph C. Mishurda



Lt General Joseph C. Mishurda,
"Killer Angels"
VI Corps, AoS, USA

Good luck to you both, glad it came to a resolution!


General Jeff Laub
Union Chief of the Army
ACWGC Cabinet Member
http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/

I am of the opinion that the house rules regarding night action have been made unnecessary by the changes to the games themselves. It also seems that these rules almost always lead to confusion.

I am currently in a mult-player Gettysburg game with the "no melee at night" rule in place and my opponents surrounded a couple of my cavalry units with unlimbered artillery on the last turn before darkness. This situation occured when I moved Stuart and 3 brigades of horse around the Union right and occupied Two Taverns and blocked the Union I Corps path of retreat. I counted 56 guns that I could have taken if melee were allowed. In this game we also have a house rule that units cannot move forward and are restricted to moving behind positions established at night fall. With this rule, theoritically the Union I Corps would have had to stop pretty much all movement as my cavalry and units of another Confederate command had all roads to the SE blocked by simply being there. In other words the Union forces could not move without moving toward Rebel line.

We settled this through discussion in which I ageed to abandon Two Taverns to let the Yankees pass. So to make the house rule work and to avoid a unpleasant dispute I surrendered a major advantage that could have quite possibly resulted in the distruction of an entire Union corps.

I play these games for fun so in every situation when some issue arises, and they seem to come up every time a house rule is agreed upon, I simply concede to the Union players. It's just not worth the argument.

Major General Jon Thayer
Old North State Divison
3/III
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jon Thayer</i>
<br />I am of the opinion that the house rules regarding night action have been made unnecessary by the changes to the games themselves. It also seems that these rules almost always lead to confusion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi, General,

I would agree with you, except for the night morale penalty that can lead to massive rout. I'm not sure where that idea came from, but as near as I can discern historically night attacks almost always ended badly for the attacker. Does anyone know of the historical basis for this penalty???

I am generally against house rules, but one Kelly Ross and I agreed on was prohibiting deliberately using supply wagons to shield units from enemy fire. Since the supply wagons are essentially ammunition wagons, using them to shield troops from fire is ludicrous. But I would much rather have a solution whereby supply wagon losses are increased by a factor of ten times within the game engine. This would force players to do the right thing for the right reason and eliminate the need for the house rule.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jon Thayer</i>
<br />I am of the opinion that the house rules regarding night action have been made unnecessary by the changes to the games themselves. It also seems that these rules almost always lead to confusion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi, General,

I would agree with you, except for the night morale penalty that can lead to massive rout. I'm not sure where that idea came from, but as near as I can discern historically night attacks almost always ended badly for the attacker. Does anyone know of the historical basis for this penalty???

I am generally against house rules, but one Kelly Ross and I agreed on was prohibiting deliberately using supply wagons to shield units from enemy fire. Since the supply wagons are essentially ammunition wagons, using them to shield troops from fire is ludicrous. But I would much rather have a solution whereby supply wagon losses are increased by a factor of ten times within the game engine. This would force players to do the right thing for the right reason and eliminate the need for the house rule.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I assume you are refering to the 200 (sometimes 300) fatigue for meleeing at night. It's there to create a penalty for meleeing at night. Along with the new fatigue penalty for movement at night they are there to add a cost for players using their troops at night for marches/fighting. Historically there were night marches but they were always very fatiguing to the troops executing. We forget how dark it gets in woods and back roads before all that reflection from city lights. I think now this is relatively well balanced. A player can still make a good night march but he must plan it better and allow for a rest stop just before dawn.

Supply wagons are still a problem. They added a VP value to supply itself which I didn't think was needed. Losing your supply was quite enough penalty for the Rebel and the Union rarely cares. They should have made the VP apply to the wagons and given them a point value like artillery. I say this because the typical situation (except in Peninsula where there so many wagons they get in the way) is that a wagon that is down to <20 supply points is used for cover or blocking roads. The supply points are useless since no unit is small enough to use them and under the VP for sp it has little risk.

If wagons had an inherent value of 6 with each point counting for 50 VP so that if they took a hit like artillery they would lose a point or were overrun by infantry lose all, no one would use them for screens or blocks.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

Hi, Bill,

I think your cavalry breakdown idea has merit. I know it is done in the Napoleonics, and should be implemented in ACW, imho.

I would support infantry meleeing cavalry if there was an opportunity for the cavalry to retreat before melee. This would give the infantry one extra hex if they were facing an inferior cavalry force.

I think if a unit is surrounded and forced to retreat, it ought to be eliminated, even if it is General Forrest. But it ought to be pretty difficult to force an A morale unit with a strength of 600 to retreat. Even more difficult to surround them, unless you are playing single phase, which I seldom do. It is interesting to note that a Forrest book I am reading gives the time from the signal for assault at Ft Pillow until the flag was lowered as 20 minutes. There were about 600 men in Ft Pillow. The assault force was about 1200. Do you think that could happen in the game?

The bone of contention in the game was adoption of a house rule banning night melee, so I wouldn't think it would matter if they are playing single phase or multiphase. I'm not sure why the rule was adopted, but it was agreed to by both players.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Kennon,

VPs for SPs can be set at a 1-to-1 ratio, at least in the other engines (EAW & Nap). Then a 100 SP wagon is worth 100 VPs, and your next to worthless 20 SP wagon is still worth 20 VPs.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!