American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

<font color="beige"><b>Ahhh the days of 5 inch floppies [;)][:p]

SSI's Gettysburg was a great game, it even came with a lamanted map with a quick refence chart on the back, the only draw backs were the map was a square grid instead of hexes and with the speed of the C64 it took darn near 3 straight days to play the three day battle.

The amount of operation points given to a unit each turn was according to it's command and control status....a unit got out of command and it bogged down.

It had some great features regarding fatigue, regular movement, forced marches and casualties caused fatigue, artillery fire caused greater fatigue than musket fire, a routed unit passing through a unit caused fatigue as did constructing works. Any operation points left over at the end of a turn went to remove fatigue.

It was a "I go/you go" turn sequence but fire and melee were plotted then resolved in a defense fires /offense fires routine, target density modified fire results and artillery crew losses modified the guns fire. It really was a head of it's time....and much more game than the C64 was computer.

I still have it and the C64 to play it on.......been a long while since I fired it up though. A friend of mine liked it so much he picked up a used copy of the game with an old C64 then got another C64 so he would have spare parts to continue to play.</b></font id="beige">

<center><font color="blue"><b>Maj.Gen. R.A.Weir</b></font id="blue">
<font color="yellow">THE CALVERT LINE</font id="yellow">

<b>First--III--AoA CSA</b></center>

A great ordnance-spiking discussion topic, gentlemen.

Robert, ditto the SSI sentiment. The operations point system was perfectly elegant.

Meanwhile,

From http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/hist/army.htm
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A term you may run into is "spiking" a cannon to render it useless. Smoothbore cannon were fired by bringing a light to the touch hole, which was the opening of a hole drilled through to the barrel, and filled with powder to act as a fuse. To spike a cannon, a tapered steel pin was driven into the touch hole with a hammer until it was flush with the surface, or cut off flush. This pin could not be easily drawn out again (there was nothing to hold on to), and had to be laboriously drilled out before the cannon could be used again.

--Composed by J. B. Calvert,
once 1st Lt. US Army Signal Corps
Created 26 March 2001
Last revised 26 August 2006 <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It seems reasonable to me to assume that a certain measure of <i>time</i> is required to spike a single gun.

Is it conceivable to, therefore, require either side to expend, say "1" MP, to successfully spike <u>one</u> cannon. Thus a section of 2 guns would require the expeniture of 2 MP's, a battery of four guns would require 4 MP's, and so forth and so on.

I agree with Bill, that the simple click of the mouse, permitting the spiking of an entire stack of guns, whether friendly or captured . . . just seems far too 'generous', kind, and effortless, eh? With a game that measures unit movement, formation, facing changes via the expenditure of MP's, it only seems fitting to require an MP expenditure to spike a gun, imho.

Overall, I like the effort and tactical effect of the latest patch. ==Denny

Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA (Retired)
1st Tenn Provisional Army



<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>

As I mentioned earlier, Using MPs for other purposes is not an option. But causing a one turn delay may be something I look into.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by shoeless</i>
<br />A great ordnance-spiking discussion topic, gentlemen.

Robert, ditto the SSI sentiment. The operations point system was perfectly elegant.

Meanwhile,

From http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/hist/army.htm
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A term you may run into is "spiking" a cannon to render it useless. Smoothbore cannon were fired by bringing a light to the touch hole, which was the opening of a hole drilled through to the barrel, and filled with powder to act as a fuse. To spike a cannon, a tapered steel pin was driven into the touch hole with a hammer until it was flush with the surface, or cut off flush. This pin could not be easily drawn out again (there was nothing to hold on to), and had to be laboriously drilled out before the cannon could be used again.

--Composed by J. B. Calvert,
once 1st Lt. US Army Signal Corps
Created 26 March 2001
Last revised 26 August 2006 <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It seems reasonable to me to assume that a certain measure of <i>time</i> is required to spike a single gun.

Is it conceivable to, therefore, require either side to expend, say "1" MP, to successfully spike <u>one</u> cannon. Thus a section of 2 guns would require the expeniture of 2 MP's, a battery of four guns would require 4 MP's, and so forth and so on.

I agree with Bill, that the simple click of the mouse, permitting the spiking of an entire stack of guns, whether friendly or captured . . . just seems far too 'generous', kind, and effortless, eh? With a game that measures unit movement, formation, facing changes via the expenditure of MP's, it only seems fitting to require an MP expenditure to spike a gun, imho.

Overall, I like the effort and tactical effect of the latest patch. ==Denny

Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA (Retired)
1st Tenn Provisional Army



<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

Having read through all of the comments so far, I fear a major point is being missed here altogether. The important question to be asked, is not what was the incidence of guns being captured, recaptured and still being fireable during the Civil War, but what was the number of guns found to be "spiked". Having read Van Naiswald's "Grapeshot and Cannister" a history of the artillery of the Army of the Potomac, I would say it was nearly non-existant. At Gettysburg the AOP reported that 33 guns had been taken by the enemy by the evening of July 3rd. A follow up report stated that 30 of those guns were back under Union control having been left on the field by the retreating ANV. Of those 30, 75% to 80% were put in service almost immediately and none had been spiked. If guns that had been in the hands of the opposing side hadn't been spiked while under their control for 2 to 3 days, why would it make any sense that infantry in the heat of battle would either have the time or the implements to spike any enemy guns that might fall into there procession? The whole issue of infantry taking enemy guns and spiking them is moot as it rarely happened during the Civil War. The vast majority of guns "Spiked" were spiked by the artillery crew about to be overrun, to deny their use to the enemy after being taken. They were the only ones on the field with the means to do so.

The bigger issue for me would be one of pocession at the end of the game. The Civil is replete with incedences where guns were taken and retaken during a battle. It seems to me the best way to handle this would be to leave all captured guns on the map as "Uncrewed" and the enemy only receives victory points at the end of the game if still in pocession of said guns. It has always irked me that when artillery was captured the losing player was not given an opportunity to recapture the guns.

The game could also let whoever holds the guns, either recrew them, or move a friendly gun section of the same type guns as are captured, which has lost guns to enemy fire, move to the uncrewed section and like recrewing with infantry, incorporate the guns necessary to bring it to full strength. This was done all the time. In either case if this was done by the side that captured the guns they then would get the VP's for capture.

One more thing...I think we should get away from the idea that the use of the words "Spiking the guns" actually means a soldier taking the time to hammer a nail down the touch hole of a cannon. Again, this rarely happened in the heat of battle in the Civil War, by the common infantryman. Rather, it makes more sense to agree that the use of that term encompasses any action taken to render the guns useless incase of recapture by the original owner. This could mean something as simple as taking or breaking the rammer/sponger, or putting holes in the buckets that held the water for sponging out the guns after each shot.

Col. Bill Spitz
3rd Division
V Corps
Army of the Potomac

IMHO, that's getting a little too technical. The point isn't how often it happened historically, but rather, it could happen. As players we have the option to spike or not to spike.

BTW, I agree, Spking should be a generic term, meaning, the cannon is not longer functional.

Rich


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by BillSpitz</i>
<br />Having read through all of the comments so far, I fear a major point is being missed here altogether. The important question to be asked, is not what was the incidence of guns being captured, recaptured and still being fireable during the Civil War, but what was the number of guns found to be "spiked". Having read Van Naiswald's "Grapeshot and Cannister" a history of the artillery of the Army of the Potomac, I would say it was nearly non-existant. At Gettysburg the AOP reported that 33 guns had been taken by the enemy by the evening of July 3rd. A follow up report stated that 30 of those guns were back under Union control having been left on the field by the retreating ANV. Of those 30, 75% to 80% were put in service almost immediately and none had been spiked. If guns that had been in the hands of the opposing side hadn't been spiked while under their control for 2 to 3 days, why would it make any sense that infantry in the heat of battle would either have the time or the implements to spike any enemy guns that might fall into there procession? The whole issue of infantry taking enemy guns and spiking them is moot as it rarely happened during the Civil War. The vast majority of guns "Spiked" were spiked by the artillery crew about to be overrun, to deny their use to the enemy after being taken. They were the only ones on the field with the means to do so.

The bigger issue for me would be one of pocession at the end of the game. The Civil is replete with incedences where guns were taken and retaken during a battle. It seems to me the best way to handle this would be to leave all captured guns on the map as "Uncrewed" and the enemy only receives victory points at the end of the game if still in pocession of said guns. It has always irked me that when artillery was captured the losing player was not given an opportunity to recapture the guns.

The game could also let whoever holds the guns, either recrew them, or move a friendly gun section of the same type guns as are captured, which has lost guns to enemy fire, move to the uncrewed section and like recrewing with infantry, incorporate the guns necessary to bring it to full strength. This was done all the time. In either case if this was done by the side that captured the guns they then would get the VP's for capture.

One more thing...I think we should get away from the idea that the use of the words "Spiking the guns" actually means a soldier taking the time to hammer a nail down the touch hole of a cannon. Again, this rarely happened in the heat of battle in the Civil War, by the common infantryman. Rather, it makes more sense to agree that the use of that term encompasses any action taken to render the guns useless incase of recapture by the original owner. This could mean something as simple as taking or breaking the rammer/sponger, or putting holes in the buckets that held the water for sponging out the guns after each shot.

Col. Bill Spitz
3rd Division
V Corps
Army of the Potomac

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

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

Rich,

A single turn delay seems satisfactory enough. We'll take it. [^]

Meanwhile, another couple FYI offerings:

<center><i>. . . rendered his guns useless by spiking one and ramming a shot the wrong way into the other</i></center><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The Third Division, under the immediate orders of General Gregg, inflicted a severe loss on the enemy near Brandy Station, and would have achieved more had Colonel Duffié, commanding the Second Division, brought up his command to his assistance in the time he should have done. This delay caused the loss of two guns of the Sixth New York Battery, as Gregg had his whole force engaged with superior masses and the section could not be properly supported; but this mishap only reflected higher honor on Lieutenant Martin, who fought his guns to the last, had 21 men of his small party killed and wounded, with 32 horses, and then rendered his guns useless by spiking one and ramming a shot the wrong way into the other; but 30 rounds were left to these guns when taken, and all the fuses were destroyed by the gunners. For this noble defense of their guns, I request this battery may be permitted to place the name of Beverly Ford on their guidon.

A sketch of the battle-field, with the reports of regimental and brigade commanders and a nominal list of casualties, are herewith transmitted.

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

A. Pleasonton,
Brigadier-General, Commanding.

Brig. Gen. S. WILLIAMS,
Asst. Adjt. Gen., Army of the Potomac.

http://www.swcivilwar.com/PleasantonRep ... ation.html<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And this one from the <b>Civil War Medal of Honor Citations</b>

<center><i>Voluntarily attempted to spike a gun in the face of the enemy. </i></center><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">BURKE, DANIEL W.

Rank and organization: First Sergeant, Company B, 2d U.S. Infantry. Place and date: At Shepherdstown Ford, Va., 20 September 1862. Entered service at: Connecticut. Birth: New Haven, Conn. Date of issue 21 April 1892.

Citation: Voluntarily attempted to spike a gun in the face of the enemy. (http://americancivilwar.com/medal_of_honor1.html)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">



<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>

Since the recent updates have just been released, it will be a while before exisiting games have the following change:

<i>A valid spiking unit must not have moved or
meleed in the same turn that it spikes.</i>



Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

I need some clarification from the updated documentation on spiking guns: <i>"The unit doing the spiking cannot be an unscrewed artillery unit."</i>

Just when is the artillery unit screwed? When they're facing down 800+ charging Rebs? [:D]

Lt. General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC

In answer to Bill Spitz, on the general lack of spiking activity historically:

The armies then were more intent on being able to use those guns - they were valuable over a long term.

In our games, that factor is much less likely - to "win" our battle, just silencing them may be enough...


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

Not to sure about the historical side but I do think there is an exploit in the gun handling that may need addressing as a club rule unless HPS removes it. Guns once captured can be positioned and then elliminated by artillery fire. This insures you get the VP for the guns and all it costs you is some ammo. Scenario is you capture a battery, change its facing so you can place an adjacent gun firing into it rear, exit the hex which returns it to uncaptured and uncrewed status. Now you can shoot it out of existence.

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

Seems like a lot of trouble. All a player need do is place any kind of unit on it (leader, supply wagon, etc... ) and full victory points will be awarded. On the other hand, if forced to abandon the guns, because of the approach of enemy units, then maybe they should be considered targets. Either way, full points will be awarded.

I understand your concern, but in a close battle I don't think it would be too much trouble to place a Col. Anonomous on the guns to gain the points. And if a player wants to waste time and ammo shooting at them then perhaps that's his/her mistake. But I would certainly allow a player to shoot at them if they were about to be recaptured.

Having said that, you may still want a fix. Hmmm, How? Tell the computer not to give points to destroyed uncrewed arty. That won't work. Remember, captured arty that is then vacated, just becomes uncrewed. There are many cases where an arty battery becomes uncrewed while still held by friendly troops. I certainly would want the option to shoot at them before they could become recrewed. I don't see another option.

There is a thin line here. What's is gamey and what is logical.

I suggest, that if these rules are too much to handle, then just leave the capture arty option unchecked before the game begins.



<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 />Not to sure about the historical side but I do think there is an exploit in the gun handling that may need addressing as a club rule unless HPS removes it. Guns once captured can be positioned and then elliminated by artillery fire. This insures you get the VP for the guns and all it costs you is some ammo. Scenario is you capture a battery, change its facing so you can place an adjacent gun firing into it rear, exit the hex which returns it to uncaptured and uncrewed status. Now you can shoot it out of existence.

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

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A valid spiking unit must not have moved or
meleed in the same turn that it spikes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This works for me as it applies fairly to both sides. [^]

Regarding the "Artillery Captured" routine, itself, I have two questions.

1) Why must a gun once "captured" be continually occupied to prove/affirm ownership? I mean, once a VP hex is captured in a Tiller game, the flag immediately indicates the current ownership. The flag never changes unless "recaptured" by the enemy. Why do captured artillery in the game demand a different treatment in this regard?

2) When a limbered gun hex is "captured" (as during a Gettysburg Campaign scenario test case of mine), what prevents it from becoming "unlimbered", observing how it can neither "unlimber" or "move", which suggests all its caissons/horses must have been ruined and/or run-off, hence, by default, the captured limbered guns should automatically assume an unlimbered status, one might think, eh? If not, I'd appreciate a bit more illumination on this part of the routine's thought (programming) process. Thanks. ==Denny

Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA (Retired)
1st Tenn Provisional Army



<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>

1) The difference is one is a tangible object and the other isn't. If you don't have your hand on it, you don't own it. As for land ownership, it's mostly symbolic. But arty can be turned and fired.

2) You cannot capture a limbered arty unit. The unit is disrupted and displaced. The unit may also lose cannon, but the cannon are considered destroyed.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by shoeless</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A valid spiking unit must not have moved or
meleed in the same turn that it spikes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This works for me as it applies fairly to both sides. [^]

Regarding the "Artillery Captured" routine, itself, I have two questions.

1) Why must a gun once "captured" be continually occupied to prove/affirm ownership? I mean, once a VP hex is captured in a Tiller game, the flag immediately indicates the current ownership. The flag never changes unless "recaptured" by the enemy. Why do captured artillery in the game demand a different treatment in this regard?

2) When a limbered gun hex is "captured" (as during a Gettysburg Campaign scenario test case of mine), what prevents it from becoming "unlimbered", observing how it can neither "unlimber" or "move", which suggests all its caissons/horses must have been ruined and/or run-off, hence, by default, the captured limbered guns should automatically assume an unlimbered status, one might think, eh? If not, I'd appreciate a bit more illumination on this part of the routine's thought (programming) process. Thanks. ==Denny

Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA (Retired)
1st Tenn Provisional Army



<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
2) You cannot capture a limbered arty unit. The unit is disrupted and displaced. The unit may also lose cannon, but the cannon are considered destroyed.

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If I am reading what you are stating here correctly, it's incorrect.

If a regiment in Shiloh moves adjacent too and melees with a limbered enemy battery, if it loses the melee (which it usually does if not stacked with infantry) the battery is immediately unlimbered and changed to captured state.

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 Rich Walker</i>
<br />Seems like a lot of trouble. All a player need do is place any kind of unit on it (leader, supply wagon, etc... ) and full victory points will be awarded. On the other hand, if forced to abandon the guns, because of the approach of enemy units, then maybe they should be considered targets. Either way, full points will be awarded.

I understand your concern, but in a close battle I don't think it would be too much trouble to place a Col. Anonomous on the guns to gain the points. And if a player wants to waste time and ammo shooting at them then perhaps that's his/her mistake. But I would certainly allow a player to shoot at them if they were about to be recaptured.

Having said that, you may still want a fix. Hmmm, How? Tell the computer not to give points to destroyed uncrewed arty. That won't work. Remember, captured arty that is then vacated, just becomes uncrewed. There are many cases where an arty battery becomes uncrewed while still held by friendly troops. I certainly would want the option to shoot at them before they could become recrewed. I don't see another option.

There is a thin line here. What's is gamey and what is logical.

I suggest, that if these rules are too much to handle, then just leave the capture arty option unchecked before the game begins.



<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 />Not to sure about the historical side but I do think there is an exploit in the gun handling that may need addressing as a club rule unless HPS removes it. Guns once captured can be positioned and then elliminated by artillery fire. This insures you get the VP for the guns and all it costs you is some ammo. Scenario is you capture a battery, change its facing so you can place an adjacent gun firing into it rear, exit the hex which returns it to uncaptured and uncrewed status. Now you can shoot it out of existence.

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

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The problem comes in on battles that have an ebb and flow like Shiloh. If the Rebel fails to drive the d**n Yankees into the river then he knows he is going to lose all those guns he overran. Solution, but very unhistoric, is destroy the guns by shooting them in the rear at close range so they can't be recaptured, spiked or not.

The game engine solution to this is to not allow guns once uncrewed to be targets.

The player solution is to just agree with each other not to use this exploit.

Historically, in the heat of battle abandoned guns were pretty much ignored. Sometimes on taking a battery the men would try to turn them on the enemy but they seldom bothered to crew the gun once the battle moved on or to destroy the guns completely. Given time, like days, then they would consider hauling them off or disabling them in a more permanent fashion than spiking.

I consider this tactic an exploit because I doubt in any battle that the troops before retreating spent any time running around the field with a large battery so they could shoot the abandoned guns to pieces.

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