American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

<font color="yellow">Supply Wagons Should Rout!</font id="yellow">

It has been called to my attention that supply wagons for the rebel in the Peninsula Campaign are so plentiful that they get used as blockers, another pet peeve of mine because it is such an unrealistic tactic. (I don't have The Peninsula Campaign, yet)

I propose that HPS correct it by changes:

1. Supply wagons that are damaged should be subject to rout, an F quality morale check, as wagons were driven by civilians and slaves.
2. Rout routes should be toward the lowest movement cost pathway toward the source of supply, usually a road to the map edge, while avoiding enemy units.
3. Routed wagons should be unable to supply combat units until rallied.
4. Routing wagons should affect and cause a morale check to any neighboring wagons, including those along its runaway path, but not to combat units.

Combat units would see their supplies running away, that they need to keep fighting. That would put an end to such a perfidious strategy as players try to protect their supplies. [}:)] I used to control it in TalonSoft by requiring any supply points lost to enemy artillery fire be counted as 30 VPs to be kept manually and figured in at games end. Somehow it never was a problem again. [:D]


Ross McDaniel



Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.
Winston Churchill

Blockers?

You receive VPs for killed supply points. That would be an expensive use of supply wagons.

Rich




<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ross McDaniel</i>
<br /><font color="yellow">Supply Wagons Should Rout!</font id="yellow">

It has been called to my attention that supply wagons for the rebel in the Peninsula Campaign are so plentiful that they get used as blockers, another pet peeve of mine because it is such an unrealistic tactic. (I don't have The Peninsula Campaign, yet)

I propose that HPS correct it by changes:

1. Supply wagons that are damaged should be subject to rout, an F quality morale check, as wagons were driven by civilians and slaves.
2. Rout routes should be toward the lowest movement cost pathway toward the source of supply, usually a road to the map edge, while avoiding enemy units.
3. Routed wagons should be unable to supply combat units until rallied.
4. Routing wagons should affect and cause a morale check to any neighboring wagons, including those along its runaway path, but not to combat units.

Combat units would see their supplies running away, that they need to keep fighting. That would put an end to such a perfidious strategy as players try to protect their supplies. [}:)] I used to control it in TalonSoft by requiring any supply points lost to enemy artillery fire be counted as 30 VPs to be kept manually and figured in at games end. Somehow it never was a problem again. [:D]


Ross McDaniel



Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.
Winston Churchill
<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 Ross McDaniel</i>

It has been called to my attention that supply wagons for the rebel in the Peninsula Campaign are so plentiful that they get used as blockers, another pet peeve of mine because it is such an unrealistic tactic. (I don't have The Peninsula Campaign, yet)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><Salute> BG McDaniel,

Do you think the suggestion from fellow ConsimWorld wargamer, Jim Matt, is as timely today as it was when he offered it way back then (2002)? . . . to wit., <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm not new to wargames or to computer games. I make my own variants and house rules when I encounter something that is out of whack with my version of reality. With computer games, as a hobbyist, I can't change the code to bend to my will. That's why I bring attention to it -- so maybe new versions of the series (or designers with games in the future) think about it and at least rationalize why it should be done the same way. --Jim Matt (ConsimWorld Forum - John Tiller's Wargames for HPS Simulations - Post #160, Dec. 2, 2002)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Alas, without a House Rule every now and then to keep these games more historically focused and honest, it can prove a mighty long dry spell before your otherwise detailed patch suggestions see the light of day. In other words, rather than wait, can you and your game opponents devise a Wagon House Rule or two to address your concerns? ==Denny

Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA
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>

To address these concerns about the possible abuse of supply wagons, VPs were given for their destruction or reduction.

<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"><i>Originally posted by Ross McDaniel</i>

It has been called to my attention that supply wagons for the rebel in the Peninsula Campaign are so plentiful that they get used as blockers, another pet peeve of mine because it is such an unrealistic tactic. (I don't have The Peninsula Campaign, yet)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><Salute> BG McDaniel,

Do you think the suggestion from fellow ConsimWorld wargamer, Jim Matt, is as timely today as it was when he offered it way back then (2002)? . . . to wit., <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm not new to wargames or to computer games. I make my own variants and house rules when I encounter something that is out of whack with my version of reality. With computer games, as a hobbyist, I can't change the code to bend to my will. That's why I bring attention to it -- so maybe new versions of the series (or designers with games in the future) think about it and at least rationalize why it should be done the same way. --Jim Matt (ConsimWorld Forum - John Tiller's Wargames for HPS Simulations - Post #160, Dec. 2, 2002)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Alas, without a House Rule every now and then to keep these games more historically focused and honest, it can prove a mighty long dry spell before your otherwise detailed patch suggestions see the light of day. In other words, rather than wait, can you and your game opponents devise a Wagon House Rule or two to address your concerns? ==Denny

Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA
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"

I said about blocking fire with wagons: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I used to control it in TalonSoft by requiring any supply points lost to enemy artillery fire be counted as 30 VPs to be kept manually and figured in at games end. Somehow it never was a problem again. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
by Rich Walker: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To address these concerns about the possible abuse of supply wagons, VPs were given for their destruction or reduction.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Wow! I did not know. I am so careful with wagons that the few times that mine took hits in HPS, it was at long distance, only a few points were lost, and I did not realize that VPs were earned. [:0] Brilliant minds move in similar directions. [:D][;)]
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Alas, without a House Rule every now and then to keep these games more historically focused and honest, it can prove a mighty long dry spell before your otherwise detailed patch suggestions see the light of day. In other words, rather than wait, can you and your game opponents devise a Wagon House Rule or two to address your concerns? ==Denny<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I wholeheartedly agree that we need to create house rules to address bothersome lack of realism and/or holes in programming. Meanwhile, I would like to see something on the order of "Hey, that's a good idea, an improvement, and it will be incorporated somewhat in the next edition." or "We've decided to leave it as is....We have decided on this other change as better, preferable,..."etc.

I don't have the skills to program computers. Wish I did. I designed a board wargame (<u>GEA Guerrilla</u>)(unpublished)about 25 years ago, on the WWI German East Africa campaign, German forces led by Col Otto von Lettow-Vorbeck. With a force never larger than 14,000, he tied down 125,000 allied troops and was in Northern Rhodesia attacking, at the end of the war.

House rules are done best when there are a limited number of units or situations that they apply.

Meanwhile, it would solve a myriad of problems if there was a computer option that penalized units out of command range of their assigned commanders, such as restricted movement or not allowed to melee. There are just too many units to keep track of, and with FoW, usually you cannot tell when your opponent has made a mistake or is fudging. [;)]

BG Ross McDaniel
2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG

"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving."
--Ulysses S. Grant (1822 - 1885)

<i>I wholeheartedly agree that we need to create house rules to address bothersome lack of realism and/or holes in programming. Meanwhile, I would like to see something on the order of "Hey, that's a good idea, an improvement, and it will be incorporated somewhat in the next edition." or "We've decided to leave it as is....We have decided on this other change as better, preferable,..."etc. </i>

Well, that's what we have been doing!

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

The reason I keep bringing up the supply wagon problem is the assigning of VP points to ammo loss only partially addresses the problem. I actually think assigning VP to ammo created a new problem. In many small scenarios capturing a wagon can change the result a whole victory level. Ammo was valuable but the affect of not having it in most battles is sufficient penalty.

The problem with wagon occurs when they get down to 1-15 ammo points. Now they have almost no VP value but are great for blocking roads during withdrawals, etc. This is usually the situation on any long multi day battle. The HPS system doesn't allow these wagons to be easily drawn down to zero so they disappear.

Here a house rule is probably the easiest and quickest solution. Assigning a VP value to capture of a wagon would work for battles but not for campaigns. Probably the better rule is to have the player move wagons with less than say 10 ammo to the rear and off the map.

The ideal solution would be to have wagons have a value like artillery has number of guns, they would have number of wagons. All hits against them would be done in terms of number of wagons destroyed and prorated ammo lost. VP value would be assigned only to wagons lost. A division train would have say 20 wagons. If artillery or infantry fire destroyed 2 wagons then the attacker would gains 2x(VP value of wagon) and the train would lose 10% of its ammo.

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

Here is a thread on this subject from awhile back.

http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... C_ID=10207

I think the ammo wagon capture penalty is only in HPS Vicksburg, and even there it is based on how much ammo is captured on a 1:1 ratio. So if you lose a wagon that only has eight points of ammo left, your opponent only gets eight points. Maybe there ought to be a mechanism for destroying your own supply wagon other than shooting at it until it disappears. Keep in mind these represent ammunition trains and not the myriad of wagons used for other purposes, so they ought to be pretty easy to blow up.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Speaking for myself, I think players want a little too much along the lines of micromanagement. I prefer the KISS method, for playability and fun.

Example: Recently I loaded Minsk 44 from the PZC series. But it's been so long since I last played that series that I'm finding it difficult to catch up on the new rules and play in general.

So I hope that the ACW doesn't get too complicated, because frankly that takes some of the fun out of it.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that many players want more realism, but it can get a bit much at times.

<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 />The reason I keep bringing up the supply wagon problem is the assigning of VP points to ammo loss only partially addresses the problem. I actually think assigning VP to ammo created a new problem. In many small scenarios capturing a wagon can change the result a whole victory level. Ammo was valuable but the affect of not having it in most battles is sufficient penalty.

The problem with wagon occurs when they get down to 1-15 ammo points. Now they have almost no VP value but are great for blocking roads during withdrawals, etc. This is usually the situation on any long multi day battle. The HPS system doesn't allow these wagons to be easily drawn down to zero so they disappear.

Here a house rule is probably the easiest and quickest solution. Assigning a VP value to capture of a wagon would work for battles but not for campaigns. Probably the better rule is to have the player move wagons with less than say 10 ammo to the rear and off the map.

The ideal solution would be to have wagons have a value like artillery has number of guns, they would have number of wagons. All hits against them would be done in terms of number of wagons destroyed and prorated ammo lost. VP value would be assigned only to wagons lost. A division train would have say 20 wagons. If artillery or infantry fire destroyed 2 wagons then the attacker would gains 2x(VP value of wagon) and the train would lose 10% of its ammo.

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"

from Rich Walker <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Speaking for myself, I think players want a little too much along the lines of micromanagement. I prefer the KISS method, for playability and fun.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree. We all like for nit picking issues to be easy, effortless, and handled realistically by the game program so that ridiculous results are avoided. [:p][:D] Sometimes I get so angry about unit behavior that I quit playing the stupid, flawed game forever and quit the club and wasting valuable hours of my life. [:(!]
I get over it. [8D] Sometimes hours, sometimes weeks, but I really love the competition against a good player. [:p]

I also believe that when I describe a problem, I ought to suggest and describe a solution. Here is a problem described by Ken Whitehead that I agree should be easily addressed. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The problem with wagon occurs when they get down to 1-15 ammo points. Now they have almost no VP value but are great for blocking roads during withdrawals, etc. This is usually the situation on any long multi day battle. The HPS system doesn't allow these wagons to be easily drawn down to zero so they disappear.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It would be simple to fix it by programming. Assign multiple small value wagons to a single unit as in melee programming. Consume the wagons, smallest values first, and presto! The problems go away. Even small wagons would gain value. Supply assignment would also give players control over which low ammo units should withdraw for rest( as in high fatigue or low quality)and giving supply priority to units expected to fight. [:p] What a concept! [:)]

Ross McDaniel


Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.
Winston Churchill

Well, since you haven't taken 3-4 years to play a PZC game, you can't truthfully make that statement.

On the other hand, I may just be stupid!



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />From Rich W. "Example: Recently I loaded Minsk 44 from the PZC series. But it's been so long since I last played that series that I'm finding it difficult to catch up on the new rules and play in general."

Au contraire:

One man's burden is another man's treasure I guess. I find the ACW series lacking some essential things for me to ever put it up against the Panzer series which IMHO is NOT hard to figure. The new rules for the Panzer series are NOT hard to figure out at all. If I had to pick one series of the two that was easier to figure it would be the Panzer series. Why? Here is why?

1. ZOC issues: both have a weak ZOC rule but the Panzer series one is simpler to figure out. I had to create a special scenario to figure out all of the different configurations that it takes to ZOC kill a unit in the ACW. In other words for me, how to avoid it. The Panzer series makes it simple. If you have a ZOC around the unit then it cant retreat. There is no rear hex thingie to figure out.

2. Command Control: much simpler for me to figure out. The command test also is easier to understand. The ACW either has or needs the K hot key to be added to help you highlight the command ranges. Its in the menu but if its not there now it needs also to be a hot key.

3. Attacks - MUCH simpler to figure out if you will win an attack or lose it. If the units are disrupted in the Panzer series for the most part they are going to retreat unless ZOC'd and then they take additional losses.

Any day of the week if I was not playing either series I could jump right back into a Panzer game right away and get going. The ACW series has cavalry getting disrupted moving in woods, etc. Lots more in this series for me to remember.

Bill Peters
<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"

Hi, Bill,

While there are many things I like about the PZC series, in a lot of ways it is like comparing apples to oranges. For one thing, units don't have flanks in PZC. Due to the linear nature of Civil War tactics, doing away with flanks in ACW would be very unrealistic. Then of course there is indirect fire, something field artillery was practically incapable of in the Civil War. Then there is the scale; except for artillery, unit ranges are one or two hexes I think, due to different distances. I like the action point concept in PZC because it gives you the ability to balance movement, fire and melee. The routine where units that can't retreat get penalized with extra casualties in the form of POWs is great. The mechanism whereby road use is limited is a definite improvement but frustrating. Overall, I found most ACW games to be more fluid than the two PZC games I have, Bulge and Korsun. You are right that they are easier to play, but pounding away with every artillery unit you have two or three times a turn can get a little old. Maybe there are PZC games that are different, but I haven't played them. Since I only have time for one war, I'll stick with my first love, ACW.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

I'm in the "more ammo" school. One of my favorite games in the Talonsoft series is "Antietam" and that game is completely ruined by the fact that the Rebels DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH AMMO! That game almost has a lock on it as the Union can just fire all day and the Rebels HAVE to conserve their fire or just run out and that is that.

Look, when a General like Robert E Lee decides to fight a battle where the fate of his whole army is at stake, I think it is a given, that he calculates and/or delegates his officers to make sure the army has enough ammunition to fight the battle.

That is: General Lee had enough ammunition on hand to fight the Battle of Antietam. In fact the army was prepared to fight a battle on the second day had McClellan so obliged him. So lets get that out of the way.

Another good example would be the Battle of Gettysburg. Lee's army stayed as we all know for THREE DAYS. Ammunition wasn't an issue. Ah! you say, what about the third day and the great bombardment? Yes,towards the end of the Great bombardment (which nobody agrees exactly on the length of it - estimated 40 minutes to two hours) Porter Alexander did report to General Longstreet that the caissons of his long range ammunition were running low and would have to be replenished.<b></b>

But, Alexander never stated that the artillery was totally out of ammunition, he clarified to Longstreet that the 'replenishment wagons' were not in position to replenish the supply.

So, over all I say. More ammo. The nice thing is, it's easy as pie to correct ala the .pdt file. The mechanism for running out of ammo I find is completely fine. There are many instances where green regiments went in and fired all of their ammunition very quickly and other accounts where regiments got along just fine for several hours.

Perhaps some of you remember the "Shiloh" board game which used the "Terrible Swift Sword" system. In that game an attempt was made to give individual ammo for each regiment via a note pad. In my opinion it did nothing to add to the "pleasureability" of the game and indeed made it more cumbersome and another thing to keep track of.

True, computer wise this could be take care of automatically but I don't mind the present artillery ammunition rules - Just give us more.

Incidentally, I do agree with the Peninsula comments. TONS of ammunition available there.

<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 />Speaking for myself, I think players want a little too much along the lines of micromanagement. I prefer the KISS method, for playability and fun.

Example: Recently I loaded Minsk 44 from the PZC series. But it's been so long since I last played that series that I'm finding it difficult to catch up on the new rules and play in general.

So I hope that the ACW doesn't get too complicated, because frankly that takes some of the fun out of it.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that many players want more realism, but it can get a bit much at times.

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">

This is the age old, me being old[:D], debate that I use to follow in SPI's publications and Avalon Hill's General. Should the games be more simulation, accurately reproducing the unit dynamics, or games, with simpler mechanics that still reproduce the result.

Obviously, I favor the simulation school of thought after all I bought Advanced Squad Leader the ultimate boad game of micromanagement.[xx(]

I also believe with the level of power modern computers bring to the table a computer game on the Civil War should be more sophisticated than the board games of the 70's and 80's. It should have the detail under the hood but should hide it from the player. The player should have to handle his troops by developing a "feel" for what different quality regiments can and can't do not because they checked their "Quality rating" and "Fatigue Level" and determined they could melee or advance. The game should accurately simulate a regiment but it shouldn't allow the player to micromanage that regiment.

More specific to HPS games, it damages the playability of the game if their are obvious exploits in the game like blocking roads with a wagon having one ammo point left or losing a battle because you ran out of small arms ammo even though you know historically there were huge army trains less than five miles away.

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

Guys,

I don't disagree with more detail and realism. I just advocate simplicity.

As for the ammo question, you may well be correct. I haven't played a full three day battle to know one way or the other. But I would like to make one general comment. These games generate 10x more firing then a "real" battle. Folks have said that the "real" armies rarely had ammo problems. Well that may be, but I can assure you, that if a "real" battle had as much firing as we tend to engage in during the course of a game, ammo would most likely have been a bigger problem. IMHO


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