American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tony best</i>
<br />Alan
I think each version captures the differences in the time periods. To me, Nappy games are more difficult to master and play well and I would think that by corrollary would be more satisfying once one had mastered them. They do seem more tedious at times.

I think you will be glad to hear that they are NOT superior games -just different.

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia

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

Col. Best, I agree. I enjoy both versions but the Nappy games are mainly more difficult and therefore more enjoyable when mastered which I hope to do within the next decade or so. [:D]

BTW.....corrollary.....isn't that a place where you put horses? [:D][:D][:D]

Colonel John Sheffield,
1st Brigade <b><font color="red">[Fighting First]</font id="red"></b>
2nd Division,
XXIII Corps
<font color="orange">Army of the Ohio.</font id="orange">
<font color="red">U.</font id="red"><font color="white">S.</font id="white"><font color="blue">A.</font id="blue">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />I don't have HPS Nappy envy and enjoy the various series regardless of their differences. But I do feel that there are features in the various series that could usefully be ported over into other series. (So I'm glad that the Nappy engine now has supply points and abattis/trenches and that the ACW series now has weather)

Some Nappy features that might be worthwhile considering for the ACW engine:

1./ <b>Detachable skirmishers</b> (even if only a small number of units can detach skirmishers - but I think this should depend on the scenario, since on a largely wooded battlefield with only a small number of units it might make a lot of sense to allow most/all units to form skirmishers and perhaps count as light infantry. Anyway, having this <i>option</i> would certainly be useful for this engine)

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

I think this would detract heavily from realistic play. Even a "small number" of skirmishers running all over the place having no real connection to their parent units would only magnify the "American Civil War with radios" feeling we have in the games today.

A better option is to simply play without fog of war.

Gen. Doug Burke
XX/AoC/USA

I think adding Napoleonic type skirmishers to the ACW engine would be a big mistake. We've already got a skirmisher rule that I think is entirely adequate in representing how skirmishers were used in the American Civil War. I wouldn't mind seeing cavalry units being able to break down but I'd prefer a system more akin to that of the Panzer Campaign engine rather then the Napoleonic system. Of course you have to weigh the potential misuse of lots of small cavalry units running around the map compared to what we have now and the additional breakdown may not be worth it.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"

[quote]<i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />Leaders DO NOT draw fire if moving independently. Even when entering a hex with combat units.

If you are seeing this, what games and version are you playing.

[quote]<i>Originally posted by Dirk Gross</i>

I tested it and I can't get defensive fire when moving a leader into a friendly unit hex. However, changing the leader mounted to unmounted sets off defensive fire about half the time.

Lt. General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC

LOL! I give up!

You guys could catch a fly with a fishing net!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dirk Gross</i>
<br />[quote]<i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />Leaders DO NOT draw fire if moving independently. Even when entering a hex with combat units.

If you are seeing this, what games and version are you playing.

[quote]<i>Originally posted by Dirk Gross</i>

I tested it and I can't get defensive fire when moving a leader into a friendly unit hex. However, changing the leader mounted to unmounted sets off defensive fire about half the time.

Lt. General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC



<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"

[quote]<i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />LOL! I give up!

You guys could catch a fly with a fishing net!

[quote][i]

Sorry, I thought it had been discussed before...[B)]

I'll make sure to get off my horse before I join my troops...

Lt. General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC

The EXTENDED LINE feature from the EAW engine would be of good use in the ACW engine, as would the CAVALRY SQUADRON BREAKDOWN from the Nap engine. Being able to detach independant skirmishers would not enhance the game, although allowing cavalry to shoot while mounted would.

I've yet to see anyone answer Rich's question of the No Melee Elimination works. What are the mechanics? Does the surrounded unit suffer greate casualties than if it were not surrounded?

I like the concept of the rule, and the few examples I've seen in a recent Waterloo campaign. My opponent is actually performing a very effective rearguard due to me having to use more time and units to reduce those sqdns he is leaving behind to slow my advance. His army is escaping, and he is losing valuable cavalry, but at the rate of hundreds, not thousands over the same time span, and their sacrifice is buying time (a couple of turns extra for each occurence) to allow the slow moving trains and their escorts to run away from my army.

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

I would only be happy to see the extended line formation from the EAW series implemented in the ACW series if it's main weakness is addressed. That is that it should be accompanied by some sort of density threshold, i.e. if there is over a certain number of men in a hex and they are supposed to be in extended order, then the bonuses of the formation are cancelled out. You can't have 1000 men in a hex all getting the benefit of open order (taking less hits) and all being able to fire too. So you can mass your troops in a hex for max fire/melee power, of have a smaller number in open order, but not both. I don't know what the appropriate threshold should be but you'd have to look at the frontage of a unit in open order versus the width of a hex.


[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acw/acw.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/aoc/XXAoC.htm"]XO, Army of the Cumberland[/url]