American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Just thought I would highlight some of the ideas from the ACW discussion. (I thought a new thread would be better, then using the TillerCon thread)

Bug fixes
1) Routed unit movement (going in the wrong direction)
2) All units should be able to move one hex.

Engine enhancements
1) In single phase play, units move and fire, then melee is resolved for all intended melees simultaneously. A next button would likely be used to avoid the firecracker effect. This will prevent move, melee, move, melee actions. A more historical resolution process.

2) Random entry hexes for incoming troops. Each with a different percent chance for entry. This will provide a double blind. Neither friend or foe will have perfect understanding of incoming troops. Great FOW and playability.

3) One shot per tube for arty ammo. John can program an on the fly adjustment for established scns.

4) Arty gun crews.

5) No disruption for units that melee and overrun defenders (units eliminated without the need for retreats).

6) 3/4 movement extended to routed units.

The no elimination rule was discussed, but if the above rules are implemented, the NE rule would be redundant.

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

If we have to prioritize this list, place them in your order of preference. Don't include the bug fixes.

Feel free to add items


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

Well, RATS!

I see the ammo supply shortage as not taken seriously in scenarios that historically, there was no shortage, but in these games, I know that the rebel will run out of wagons everytime and be badly handicapped late in the scenarios such as Gettysburg-3 day battles.

One arty ammo factor per tube fired is a good change.

But show me any account that many or any rebel regiments were out or low on rifle ammo on the two days after Pickett's Charge. That goes for artillery supply also. In fact, Meade did not attack but let the ANV retire unmolested through two days after the 3rd day disaster. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Engine enhancements
1) In single phase play, units move and fire, then melee is resolved for all intended melees simultaneously. A next button would likely be used to avoid the firecracker effect. This will prevent move, melee, move, melee actions. A more historical resolution process.
<font color="yellow">Important good change.</font id="yellow">
2) Random entry hexes for incoming troops. Each with a different percent chance for entry. This will provide a double blind. Neither friend or foe will have perfect understanding of incoming troops. Great FOW and playability.
<font color="yellow">Good important change. Is it optional?</font id="yellow">
3) One shot per tube for arty ammo. John can program an on the fly adjustment for established scns.
<font color="yellow">Good important change.</font id="yellow">
4) Arty gun crews.
<font color="yellow">What about them? Points for losses? Partial crew loss? [?][?][?]</font id="yellow">
5) No disruption for units that melee and overrun defenders (units eliminated without the need for retreats).
<font color="yellow">Does that mean that 500 men who annihilate a 500 man unit which could not retreat won't be disrupted?</font id="yellow">
6) 3/4 movement extended to routed units.
<font color="yellow">Good, but why cannot men running away go even faster than a unit marching under good discipline?
I see no change on disrupted units moving away from the enemy. It means that disrupted units will always be subject to being caught by a superior advancing enemy, even when their disruption was caused by neighbors running away. <u>That is another reason that these games have such unhistorical heavy casualties.</u>

My preference on ammo supply would be to have the wagons replenish in the same pattern as fatigue recovery.
What about resupplying of units being under control of the owning player? Assignment could be as in melee and it would eliminate the uselessness of small factor wagons. </font id="yellow"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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

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

Gentlemen,

I have another idea for your consideration. (I had intended to bring this up during the ACW discussion at the convention but it slipped my mind.)

My idea is to add two additional Termination Bid options: Rebel Surrender and Union Surrender. These would result in the same campaign branch as the matching 'Major Victory', with the exception that any units still on the board of the surrending side would be considered 'captured'.

Reasoning: Sometimes a game becomes totally lopsided and either one or both of the players want to end it and go on. This is what the Termination Bids are for. When HPS first came out with the campaign series, it was suggested that the Termination Bid only be used in situations where contact between the forces had broken off and both sides agreed further action was unnecessary. However, I've been involved in games where I had totally surrounded many of my opponent's forces and would logically have eliminated them long before the end of the game. My opponent acknowledged he was beaten and offered me a Termination Bid of a Major Victory so we could move on to the next scenario. Knowing all of those forces could be available to my opponent later, I was less than eager about accepting the offer. On the other hand, I didn't want to force my opponent to have to play through what could be many more turns of a hopeless situation just so I could enjoy the fruits of my success. These two additional Termination Bid options would solve this problem.

Personally, I tend to play a scenario to the end until my opponent submits a termination bid. If (I said 'IF' [:)]!) I were ever in the situation where my force was encircled by a much larger force and in danger of annihilation, I would try to fight my way out and escape with as many men as I could, inflicting as much damage to my opponent on the way as I could. As I said, however, there are others who just want to move on. The addition of these two options would allow that.

What do the rest of you think? If this is an easy program change, would it be worth implementing?


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory


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

BG McDaniel,

I'll try to answer your questions.

#4) The final form isn't determined, but arty tubes would be given crews. So arty effectiveness would be reduced as crews were reduced.

#5) NO, the rule refers to overruns. For example, a unit that melees another unit and the combat result was elimination (without the need for retreats) would not be disrupted. So let's say a 750 man regiment assaults a 25 man unit, the 25 man unit is lkely eliminated and the attacker would remain undisrupted. This will help prevent small units from being used as blockers or disrupters.

#6) Units running away will be given a greater chance of running, but it should be noted that most loses are inflicted on armies that have begun to run. So a greater chance to run them down and force a surrender should be allowed. So this rule will give more MPs to run, but still allow for follow up attacks.

Some scns may need more supply wagons, that's for each designer to consider and fix. If you see that in any of my games, let me know. Franklin, Shiloh, Atlanta, and Chickamauga.

On the other hand, there is alot more fighting in these games, than what was historical, so it may be an effort to reduce some of the excessive firing. After all, these games can sometimes reflect action movies were the hero can fires 50 rounds from a 6 shooter without reloading.

BTW, if your playing a game and need more supply wagons, just use the editor.

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

<b>Straggler Recovery </b>would be a great feature.

This could work in the same way as fatigue recovery, with say 50% (ideally a % modifiable in the pdt) of all losses actually stragglers rather than killed.

You've pointed out that <i>"... there is a lot more fighting in these games, than what was historical"</i>, so it's clear that a straggler recovery system would be beneficial, since:

1./ It would encourage players to rest their troops more (fatigue recovery does this to some extent, but not enough)
2./ It would help reduce casaulty levels to historical proportions, without resorting to reducing fire factor values (which doesn't work anyway, because if firing is ineffective, players will just resort to more melees)

Consequently, while the engine changes proposed at TillerConII are all worthwhile, I feel that a straggler recovery feature would be a useful addition to the list.


Brig. Gen. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

"On the other hand, there is alot more fighting in these games, than what was historical, so it may be an effort to reduce some of the excessive firing. After all, these games can sometimes reflect action movies were the hero can fires 50 rounds from a 6 shooter without reloading."

One of the reasons for ammo shortages for small arms is the inability to control it. The current AI settings for Auto Defensive Fire, Short or Long Range, is to extreme limiting our ability to not waste ammo but still defend.

One good solution would be to add a medium range selection like Artillery has. Maybe not random though.

Another I used in my modified 007 Scenario is to shorten Rifle range to four hexes. This significantly reduces ammo wastage with little loss to the player since firing at 5 hex range really isn't a good idea. This works in games where there are more rifles than muskets.

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

Kennon,

The rifle range would be a quick pdt fix. I'll bring it up with the other designers. Though I sometimes freely change the pdt files, I would like other opinions on the change.

The addition of a medium range would also be a simple thing to add, I suppose.

Rich,

You idea is certainly worth consideration. We have greatly increased the recovery rate for between battles during a campaign. For example, if the interval is greater than 60 days, the recovery is 50%.

As for your specific idea, one strange effect would be the possibility to inflict more loses than troops engaged. Wounding the same guys twice. As for stragglers during the heat of battle, were there many historically. Most straggling occured on the way to battle, not during actual combat, and were later recovery after the battle.

I'm not sure how this would lower loses inflicted? Would recovered troops be removed from the loss counter on the victory screen, and if so, would VP levels also be lowered? Or, do we maintain VP loses and just add troops to reduced regiments during a battle.

These are just a few question off the top of my head.



Lt. Col. 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">#6) <font color="yellow">Units running away will be given a greater chance of running, but it should be noted that most loses are inflicted on armies that have begun to run. So a greater chance to run them down and force a surrender should be allowed.</font id="yellow"> So this rule will give more MPs to run, but still allow for follow up attacks.
...<font color="yellow">On the other hand, there is alot more fighting in these games, than what was historical, so it may be an effort to reduce some of the excessive firing.</font id="yellow"> After all, these games can sometimes reflect action movies were the hero can fires 50 rounds from a 6 shooter without reloading.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well Rich, I understand your designer problems of trade offs in what's important, and that you try to build in realism. In this case, you are building in more casualties even as you acknowledge that excessive combat and casualties are an unrealistic outcome. There would be fewer casualties and combat if disrupted units could move away at max factors to better positions preventing surrounds.
I think that you guys chose the wrong tack on this problem. Disrupted units on the move fire at half strength on defense, quarter power on offense, if they moved. Also, historically, even superior forces had such a difficult time pinning down a smaller army to do great damage in the field, that it seldom happened. Not so when they stayed in place and held forts such as Donaldson, Vicksburg, etc and allowed themselves to be surrounded. Compare those fort sieges with Richmond to Petersburg, late in the war.

Lee's march from Richmond and Petersburg while outnumbered 5 to 1 still found it difficult for the AoP to catch his troops and certainly not to "fix" them in place so that they could be destroyed. Lee retreated on the 2nd April, the only major catch up battle was on the 6th because Lee gave away a day's march hoping for supplies, and he was finally cornered, Gordan could not break out and then Lee surrendered on the 9th.

I am arguing that disrupted troops could still easily march away from a superior enemy, although shaken troops might be slow and reluctant to attack. In these games, one routed unit can easily disrupt a dozen. Those neighboring units are often not even beat up yet, so why should they march at half speed?

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

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

<i>"As for your specific idea, one strange effect would be the possibility to inflict more loses than troops engaged. Wounding the same guys twice. ..."</i>

My line of thinking is that a proportion of the "losses" inflicted in fire and melee combat (maybe 50%, maybe more/less) aren't actually killed and seriously wounded, but a mixture of the following:

1./ Slightly wounded, who are only temporarily out of action, but can return to the ranks, say an hour or two later, maybe longer.
2./ Men that temporarily lose their heads and rout (ie. individuals routing rather than the entire unit)
3./ Men that get temporarily detached/isolated and/or pinned down, or who might lose contact with the main group. (units moving through difficult terrain in line might be liable to lose stragglers in this way, even if not coming under fire or meleeing)

The feature could be either a straightforward formula, eg. 50% of fire/melee casualties = stragglers

Or it could be more sophisticated, with say higher straggler losses for melee than fire combat, and with the possibility of losing stragglers due to movement too:

eg. perhaps as high as 25% chance of losing some stragglers just for moving through difficult terrain in line. (higher for low quality troops)

and 50% chance of losing stragglers during a night march in column along a road (and 100% probability if moving off road, or in line)

Maybe even 5% (or 10%?) chance of losing stragglers for any non-road, non-column day movement?

Thus armies that rush about the battlefield - especially a large battlefield - are likely to haemorrhage stragglers and either need time to rest and recover them or else fight at increasingly reduced strength.

In contrast, armies that move slowly along roads with regular periods of rest will remain at full strength.

During the actual battle, it'll be useful to pull brigades back out of the front line, to recover stragglers as well as fatigue.

<i>"I'm not sure how this would lower loses inflicted? Would recovered troops be removed from the loss counter on the victory screen, and if so, would VP levels also be lowered? Or, do we maintain VP loses and just add troops to reduced regiments during a battle."</i>

If 50% of losses are actually stragglers rather than killed/wounded then ONLY the other 50% are counted on the VP screen.

Thus the game engine remembers that 50% losses are permanent losses (dead and seriously wounded) and the other 50% are just stragglers, who can gradually recover in the same way as fatigue recovery.

If there's also <i>movement</i> stragglers, then they're not added to the VP losses, and up to 100% of these movement stragglers can, theoretically, recover during a battle.


Brig. Gen. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

Excessive Casualties

This is really a product of the game system and what it allows you to do rather than a flaw in the Game Engine and how it simulates combat.

One way to address it is through treating casualties not as true kill/wounded but as a combined effect of real casualties and straggling. Here straggling is more than just those that can't keep up but those who have become ineffective due to combat or loss of organization.

The other is to introduce some system to limit the ability of the player to simultaneously control so many formations in such an absolute way. This would mean some type of activation system which would be a major game change.

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">Excessive casualties
The other is to introduce some system to limit the ability of the player to simultaneously control so many formations in such an absolute way. This would mean some type of activation system which would be a major game change. by Ken Whitehead<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I have high hopes on the weather, smoke, and such to increase the FoW.

However, what if a program(s) were written that whichever command unit on the map that is senior would represent the player (that is us opponents) for that side, and that his movement instructions for distant subordinate units (out of command radius) would be implemented on the following turn, a time delay representing the time that a courier would need to transport those orders?

A player would have immediate control for movement and combat only of the units within his immediate command radius. It might be done in phases that only those units would be moved and fought, then next phase, same turn, his other units would move toward their selected destinations.

It would require automatic combat and/or withdrawal, under AI, when distant units encounter the enemy. I can imagine preinstruction options upon contact such as:

<b>Offensive Mode:</b>

1. Aggressive- Keep other units moving forward and try to encircle. Fire in stacks or by individual units. Melee, if 2 to 1 odds or better.

2. Cautious- Advance and form a front supporting contacted units with flanks protected. Follow next turn, if enemy withdraws. Otherwise fight in place until orders arrive from higher command.

<b>Defensive Mode:</b>

1. Rigid- Stand and die in place as necessary.

2. Flexible- Fall back 1 hex (or more) when attacker adjacent, maintaining a front line with flank protection.

3. Fighting Withdrawal- Withdraw maximum movement factors maintaining a front and with flank guard units.

It would definitely be a lot of programming and might require much computer capacity and several game discs. [:D] We would see the enemy commander unit dashing back and forth to handle points of crisis.

It will happen sooner or later. [;)]

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

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

<i>"... some type of activation system ..."</i>

Should be feasible, since units/formations can start out fixed, presumably with the probability linked to the leader checks at the start of the turn.

However, I suspect this would need to be an optional feature, as it probably won't be popular with a lot of gamers - not much fun having an entire corps suddenly fixed for a turn, or even a brigade at a crucial moment. It would effectively give the opponent an extra free turn on that sector of the battlefield.

Brig. Gen. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

Gentlemen,

How about breaking up the current fatige system into two parts Moral and physical fatigue. Use the moral rating for routs, disruptions and melee checks, and the fatigue to reduce fighting effectiveness (movement, firing, and melee). This would add an element to limit the amount of fighting a unit does, would require resting your troops, and using fresh troops....

Lt Gen Joseph C.Mishurda



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