American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

The Official House Rules state:

"5.1.4 Withdrawal of all (or a substantial portion of) forces from the battlefield, unless specified in the scenario as a victory condition, will cost the withdrawing player a 2-step reduction in the level of victory. Removal from the map of individual units, routed behind enemy lines by the game engine, is allowed. (This rule is waived in the case of campaign scenarios.)"

It is the last sentence (in parenthesis) about which I ask . . . Why is map removal waived for campaign scenarios? Because of the ongoing nature of campaigns? Easier to 'run away and fight another day?' I have played campaign battles several times where this matter would/could have played an important part.

Thanks in advance for any consideration in answering.

Brig Gen Dwight McBride
1st Brigade ("The Regulars")
2nd Division/V Corps/AOP/USA

Gen. McBride,

The rule itself was around long before the HPS Campaign series came out and has always brought up a bit of controversy (even then).

You are correct that the waiver in the case of campaigns is to allow a player to save his units for another battle. Of course, that is assuming the player knows this is not the 'last' battle in the campaign -- in which case he might regret having given up the use of the units!

It's also important to remember that this rule can be negotiated with your opponent. If, at the beginning of play, you both agree one way or the other, that agreement would take precedence over the rule.


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory


David W. Mallory
ACW - General, 3/2/I/AotM (Club President & Cabinet Member)
CCC - Ensign, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Department, Colonial American Army

Thank you, sir. That makes sense.

Actually, if one thinks about it, there would be a quasi-penalty for removing units to 'save' them: the resulting dearth of troops would make it easier for the opponent to capture any remaining Objective Hex locations, etc.

Brig Gen Dwight McBride
1st Brigade ("The Regulars")
2nd Division/V Corps/AOP/USA

In many campaign scenarios, removing units via an exit objective is actually what the battle is about for one side or even both.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

My guess is the original reasoning behind the rule was to keep one side from running up a big lead in casualty points when they have an advantage in numbers then leaving the field to prevent the other side from counterattacking when their reinforcements show up (rebs in Shiloh, Gettysburg come to mind). Since holding the field was what was often considered the deciding factor in most ACW battles by the public it is not likely an ACW commander would use this tactic.

In the campaign series leaving the field when you're outnumbered just makes good tactical sense and was often done during the war resulting in the other side claiming victory. In the scenarios where I've used such tactics my opponent has invariably ended up with a minor or major victory by taking the vp hexes.


Gen. Ken Miller



Army of the Shenandoah

General Walter:

No, no . . . "Exit" objectives was not what I was talking about. That's a different thing entirely. In the case you're referring to, a player is given credit for exiting at a particular hex (usually equal to what the exiting spite would be worth in casualty math). I'm talking about simply going to the closest/nearest map edge and clicking "Remove From Map" to prevent further effusion of blood.



Brig Gen Dwight McBride
1st Brigade ("The Regulars")
2nd Division/V Corps/AOP/USA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DwightMcBride</i>
No, no . . . "Exit" objectives was not what I was talking about.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I know. But it's what the club rule you are referring to is talking about.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

"5.1.4 Withdrawal of all (or a substantial portion of) forces from the battlefield, unless specified in the scenario as a victory condition, will cost the withdrawing player a 2-step reduction in the level of victory. Removal from the map of individual units, routed behind enemy lines by the game engine, is allowed. (This rule is waived in the case of campaign scenarios.)"

As stated it applies only to single battle scenarios not campaigns. However it allows removal of routed units regardless of situation. I find this exception questionable since the primary purpose of the rule is to keep a player from running up a quick victory margin and then leaving the field win things start turning against them.

It also doesn't clarify the fact that any scenario that has an exit victory hex does allow units to leave the field but only through that hex.

As to Campaign games besides the fact that the rule doesn't apply in any form, we should clarify that for scenarios generated by the campaign leaving the map is a legal tactic. Many of the new campaign game scenarios are so lopsided it is the only tactic available to the defender to save his army. Almost all thes scenario are set up so that leaving the map will result in an enemy Major Victory.

The rule originated due to some of the long standalone scenarios, like the three day battle of Gettysburg, starting with one side having superior force then shifted favor to the other side later in the battle. The rule was needed to keep the CSA player from running up a victory level on the first day and then leaving the battlefield during the night and claiming victory.

I do recomment that you clarify with any player that you intend to uses map removal before you start a campaign so no one gets upset.

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

As anyone who has played these games with more then just a cursery interest knows, nothing happens in a vacuum.

In part, one of the orgins of the rule came about because of the occassional practice of rear raiding parties (mostly cav) scarfing up SW's and whatnot and then, when on the verge of capture, stepping "out of bounds" leaving the pursuer with an empty net.

Which brings me to my first paragraph where I refer to battle context (the vacuum).

In seeing the activity I describe above occur, the pursuer would likely reassign other assets, maybe currently on other missions, some maybe critical, to the chase. When the "out of bounds" maneuver occurs, it leaves these assets, not only diverted, but unable to pursue and thus denied any V points. They likely may be woefully out of place given the context of the overall battle. This renders the other side with a further advantage. An advantage maybe not as obvious as a unit running around in the rear, but one of causing a redirection of assets to eliminate the threat. A threat that has an "out of bounds line" adjacent and thus in a position to deny the pursuer any reward for the pursuit while possibly leaving the pursuer out of position to counter other threats. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

That's a reason the rule is there.


Gen. Doug Burke
XX/Aoc/USA

Sirs! I found this discussion at once very interesting, enlightening and disconcerting. The latter because of my relatively new entry to the campaign genre, <b>and </b>having just embarked on the full HPS Gettysburg campaign. I have not discussed this issue with my venerable opponent as recommended, but I will think about doing so. I think that I know him well enough that he would not take offense by me bringing it up (as in it sounding like a suggestion that either of us would want to win by doing something "gamey" or unethical though not against the rules per se).

I have not yet read the new articles posted in the War College comparing TS games to the HPS series. I would expect that this issue of so exiting the map in a campaign might well be discussed there. I find it one [embarrassingly so] a tad confusing and in the least a mixed bag of understandable conflict between "fairness" and historical precedence as in the examples given. While "rules lawyering" is not something I particularly care about, I do like to have some things rather pinned down when not doing so has what seems to be a potential for a degree controversy and ill will between gaming friends.

Thank you all.


LtCol.Tom Ciampa

2nd Bgde,1st Cav
XIV Corps, AoC

<font size="4"><font color="pink">Gentlemen! <salute>

I have enjoyed this thread and at the same time learned some new stuff. I was aware of the first part with regards to single battles but the part about the Campaigns is truly an eye opener. Lots of Campaign battles have the Rebs (what is historically correct, darn it!) at a numbers disadvantage and as happened historically ran when it was wise to do so! Many thanks!

Perhaps it would be of interest to the newer members of the Club (yeah, like myself) to discuss other seemly gamey topics such as when melee in column formation would be proper?

Respectfully,
</font id="pink">


</font id="size4">

<font color="orange"><font size="4">Nick Kunz

General
Commandant
Cabinet Secretary
Confederate States of America</font id="orange"></font id="size4">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by warbison</i>
<br /><font size="4"><font color="pink">Gentlemen! <salute>

I have enjoyed this thread and at the same time learned some new stuff. I was aware of the first part with regards to single battles but the part about the Campaigns is truly an eye opener. Lots of Campaign battles have the Rebs (what is historically correct, darn it!) at a numbers disadvantage and as happened historically ran when it was wise to do so! Many thanks!

Perhaps it would be of interest to the newer members of the Club (yeah, like myself) to discuss other seemly gamey topics such as when melee in column formation would be proper?

Respectfully,
</font id="pink">


</font id="size4">

<font color="orange"><font size="4">Nick Kunz

General
Commandant
Cabinet Secretary
Confederate States of America</font id="orange"></font id="size4">

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Nik...Sir! Funny that you mention the need for more discussion of "gamey" topics. I was discussing "house rules" with my West Point trainer saying that I understood it was improper to scout with lone leaders ahead of the front, using wagons and artillery to block retreat paths,and the one I really hate, leaving a wagon on a hilltop to draw arty fire in the auto defensive fire phase. I was, however, surprised to hear that attacking in column was not against the rules but perhaps frowned upon as both an uncommon and an ineffective tactic in the CW. I am not arguing because I am not nearly the historian of this period as most in the club. However, I didn't think that meleeing in column was either particularly imprudent nor ineffective. In fact, I thought just the opposite. Should the lads be lucky enough to survive the disruption of more or less point blank defensive fire while in column and still be close enough to charge home home; they ought to deserve being able to so charge. Its costliness may well label the tactic reckless but it was usually devastating the couple of times I tried it. And then only when in I was in a desparate strait usually trying to recover a maddeningly unexpected capture of a dearly loved hex. [:)] The point here again, as in my remarks about exiting the map in campaigns, is that I am fine with any rule. I am a keeper of rules. I just prefer that they be pinned down, no exceptions made, and be proclaimed as such so that we are all playing by the same set. Then again sometimes exceptions do have to be made as was pointed out to uphold a more realistic historic circumstance. Indeed I suppose, the pre-game agreement of house rules is probably the best solution.

Thanks.

LtCol.Tom Ciampa

2nd Bgde,1st Cav
XIV Corps, AoC

Sometimes it is hard to come up with a "house" rule that will work in all situations or will anticipate all situations. The problem of "Melee in Column" is a good example. Right now there is no rule against it and, obviously, since the game allows it it must be a valid tactic. Unfortunately, it is easily abused and some players get right down upset if you use it, so its another area that it is a good idea to clarify with your opponent if you plan to play it free for all or limited.

The problem with meleeing from column comes in because in the game column is really "Road Column" and allows rapid movement down pikes, roads, and trails. In reality a column in this formation, four men abreast, shouldn't be able to melee anything. Just die in great numbers when they run into a line of troops.[:D]

As a result many players want it totally barred but then comes the problems. Since the game doesn't have "Column of Companies" which is a close packed assault column (which the Nappy games have), there is no way to assault certain hexes like across bridges. Actually Assault Columns were used quite often particularly against fortified positions both to prevent the troops from stopping to fire and to create a much denser formation for the melee.

It gets more complicated when you have a bridge or creek crossing situation that requires column to move through it but, unless you are using the screwed up Turn system, there is no way to attack the forces that are one or two hexes back from the bridge since you are stuck in column. In other words, the defender can exploit a "no column melee" rule too.[}:)]

Night is another time the game mechanics has a problem with column melees. You can exploit the fact that regiments moving in column at night don't have problems with getting disrupted. They also can usually avoid auto defensive fire since for some reason the game forces the defender to make a die check to shoot but puts no such limit on the attacker. Then melee from column becomes a rather decisive device unless you have a game with the updated night melee fatigue in it.

My idea of the ideal Column Melee rule would be if a regiment used road movement rate anywhere in it's move then it would be considered in "Road Column" and couldn't melee. Unfortunately, the game doesn't allow you to track movement costs this way so its hard to implement.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br />Sometimes it is hard to come up with a "house" rule that will work in all situations or will anticipate all situations. The problem of "Melee in Column" is a good example. Right now there is no rule against it and, obviously, since the game allows it it must be a valid tactic. Unfortunately, it is easily abused and some players get right down upset if you use it, so its another area that it is a good idea to clarify with your opponent if you plan to play it free for all or limited.

The problem with meleeing from column comes in because in the game column is really "Road Column" and allows rapid movement down pikes, roads, and trails. In reality a column in this formation, four men abreast, shouldn't be able to melee anything. Just die in great numbers when they run into a line of troops.[:D]

As a result many players want it totally barred but then comes the problems. Since the game doesn't have "Column of Companies" which is a close packed assault column (which the Nappy games have), there is no way to assault certain hexes like across bridges. Actually Assault Columns were used quite often particularly against fortified positions both to prevent the troops from stopping to fire and to create a much denser formation for the melee.

It gets more complicated when you have a bridge or creek crossing situation that requires column to move through it but, unless you are using the screwed up Turn system, there is no way to attack the forces that are one or two hexes back from the bridge since you are stuck in column. In other words, the defender can exploit a "no column melee" rule too.[}:)]

Night is another time the game mechanics has a problem with column melees. You can exploit the fact that regiments moving in column at night don't have problems with getting disrupted. They also can usually avoid auto defensive fire since for some reason the game forces the defender to make a die check to shoot but puts no such limit on the attacker. Then melee from column becomes a rather decisive device unless you have a game with the updated night melee fatigue in it.

My idea of the ideal Column Melee rule would be if a regiment used road movement rate anywhere in it's move then it would be considered in "Road Column" and couldn't melee. Unfortunately, the game doesn't allow you to track movement costs this way so its hard to implement.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

General Whitehead. That is the most detailed explanation of the tactic that I have read. It certainly seems to allow an unintentional loophole in the rules [Judging from your explanation of the historical difference between <i>road colum </i>and <i>column of companies</i>]. Loopholes are usually not good things unless one finds them in the tax code.[:D] You certainly make a good case against using melee in column as far as I am concerned. It would seem to be gamey at best and historically incorrect at worse. Puts the issue to bed as far as I am concerned. Does it make any sense or would it be impractical <i>to add melee in column </i>to the other "house rules" section of the club's rules and make them all subject to approval by players in advance? After all, those other things like scouting with lone leaders, et. al. are not prohibited by the rules either yet are logical to consider rather gamey. The implication on bridges would remain a sticky wicket however.

Thank you. That was very helpful...at least it was to me.


LtCol.Tom Ciampa

2nd Bgde,1st Cav
XIV Corps, AoC

General Whitehead has done an excellent job of covering the topic.

One House Rule I have used is that melee in column is allowed at bridge crossings where that is the only way to move. Included is units that cross the bridge in column are permitted to melee adjacent units. This prevents the defender from setting up one hex from the bridge and not having to worry about being meleed.

His idea of units that use road movement not being allowed to melee probably makes more sense. However it does produce a problem as there is no way for a unit to move along a road without using road movement even if it has enough MP to make the move without it.


Gen. Ken Miller



Army of the Shenandoah