American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Gentlemen of the Club,

I am currently engaged on the HPS Gettysburg Campaign, Large map near Bull Run. My Opponent is calling into question my tactics. We are currently one day into the battle and it is night. We have agreed not to have night assualts. His objective is to exit the map toward Washington. Mine is to stop him. I do not have enough troops to cover every road off the map in strenght. What I am doing is putting Cavalry Scouts on all the roads to observe the enmeny and slow him down. Harassment tactics, slow him down when he runs into my boys the fall back far enough so he can not hurt me, but so he can not get full road movement. In the mean time I move troops to block that part of the road in force further East. My opponent is claiming foul and sieting sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, & 5.1.3. I dissagree with him on his interpertation. I have found this type of tactic acdeptable by the rules and quite common in play. I encourage your input and would like my opponent to post his perspective on the situation. I would hate to see the game end here with bad blood. I just do not think he understands.

Lt Gen Joseph C. Mishurda



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

The rules you cite are concerned with supply wagons and lone officers. How does that relate to the situation you describe? . . . Exactly what does your opponent object to? Your description needs to be more specific.

Sincerely,
Brig Gen Dwight McBride
2nd Brigade/2nd Division
I Corps/AOP/USA

Brig Gen Dwight McBride,

I do not believe those rules apply as they relate to melee and scouting with a lone officer. I do not understand his objection. My opponent would have to answer that question. However, he has stated that he has a grievance with me and that I should pull the post, I thought it was a simple question of rules interpertation. However, I am at a quandry on how to proceed at this point and have contacted my CO Gen Ken Miller. I will not post on this matter until I recieve direction form my superiors.

Lt Gen Joseph C. Mishurda



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

End the game. Thank him for the opportunity to play. Have the game cancelled so no-one gets any points.

Nothing wrong with your tactics from what you described.

Sounds like he is upset that his plans for a clever victory were thwarted.

Find others who would see the present game situation as a challenge that merits great attention to overcome, they are out there.

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

General,

I don't see where any supply wagons or leaders are involved on a technical point. Now, should the cavalry cover roads at night? Well, that's what I would expect them to do historically. I played a Corinth game once where my opponent used his cavalry to do what you are doing during day and evening hours. Didn't bother me much, and in fact I was impressed with the maneuver. The only question then becomes, should an enemy cavalry unit be allowed to assault said units to push them out of the way. I'm sure there must have been some night cavalry 'bumps' during the war, but generally I doubt if either side was actually pushing for such night engagements. Perhaps a compromise can be reached there, even though no night assaults were already agreed on... Infantry, on the other hand, wouldn't get very far in the HPS system since they can't melee the cavalry. But, again, historically I think 100 troopers could drive a column of infantry crazy if they were trying to march at night in any given direction. Particularly since the infantry wouldn't know what was in front of them.

Just a few thoughts.

Col. Ron Virts
2nd Division, 4th Brigade
VI Corps, Army of Shenandoah

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> have contacted my CO Gen Ken Miller<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You have taken the correct course of action, by starting a discussion within your chain of command.

Tactics have had widely and varied discussions on many issues and they are a valuable way for everyone to learn and give opinions.

Rules have also been widely discussed on these boards and they should continue to be discussed.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
General, Commanding, Army of Ohio

ACWGC Cabinet member
</b></font id="gold">

From your description I see no problem with what you are doing. I don't know why you would limit night assaults, as they did happen, but that is between you and your opponent. I don't agree with the morale penalty for the defender in night attacks, particularly when applied to units fired on in the last dusk turn, but that is my humble opinion, based on the lack of success that historically attended those night attacks of which I am aware. I do approve of the fatigue penalty for units attacking at night. I would like to get your opponent's side of the story, but agree with Al Amos on the solution if the situation can't be resolved amicably.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Though I too would like to hear from the other side, I'm not so sure the game should be drawn because one player called foul play. I would let the issue be decided by the commanding officers of both players. I say this because after many hours of play, one player should be entitled to the points. To let this stand as a draw, would invite others to call foul and not suffer a defeat.

Mind you, I'm not taking sides, but I feel the issue should be decided by superiors and not just given up. That would represent a bad example to others.

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

The rules sited apply only to wagons and lone officers being used as road blocks. Since we don't have your opponents statement as to what he sees as the problem it is hard to go further.

But I do see one problem which may be the cause of the misunderstanding. Since you introduced a player rule that there would be no melees at night, he has probably realized that this has considerable side effects including allowing small company size cavalry units to stop brigades of cavalry. I normally modify the "no melee at night" rule with a "except cavalry" so this can't happen. I consider the night melee penalty and disruption sufficient penalty for cavalry actions at night.

But since both players agreed to the "no melee" rule and if the above is the case there is a problem. If I remember the Bull Run scenario correctly choosing to modify or not modify the rule can swing the battle victory result. The Reb player usually has more than enough cavalry to force his way down a road if the Union isn't there in force.

Since you are legally correct it is up to you as to how to handle this. Choices are:

Continue the game as agreed with no melee. If your opponent feels the rule has made the game unwinnable for him, then he can offer to surrender at two levels above the current victory state.

You can offer to wave the no melee rule for cavalry only. This may lead to you being badly beaten by his exit VP's.

You can offer to end the game as a draw and start a new one with new agreed on rules. This is a problem for a Campaign unless you kept a copy of the last strategic turn so you can roll things back.

These problems are why I generally avoid adding player rules other than the club ones. There are to many unanticipated situations in a full campaign that will make the player rules a problem.

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

Sir, I think I understand why your opponent is calling foul. I believe with the no night melee rule in effect and your current tactics, he is getting frustrated by his inability to deal with your cavalry blockers. I consider your tactics valid and perfectly warranted given the situation you described. But putting the shoe on the other foot is how can my opponent effectively counter them. The best way is to put a regiment of cavalry in column and blow through it, but that is foiled by the no night melee rule. He cannot stack cavalry if the road is in disruptive terrain and if all he has is small cavalry regiments then that option is out also. Since his victory might depend on the number of units exited the situation might seem hopeless to him.

Lt. Colonel Jim Woods Jr

I see now. Your blocking him, but because of the no melee rule, he can't push you out of the way. Personally, I thought the built in pdt penalty for night assaults would have been enough to discourage the practise. I'm not sure about Gettyburg, but my games will cause 300 FA points to the attacker. I think Gettysburg is 200. Still, a severe penalty.

But I too would be upset if my retreat was blocked and I was prevented from pushing them out of the way.

I think the engine has progressed enough that few house rules are needed.

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

I'm thinking, as others have said, he's frustrated at you falling back just far enough to deny any sort of rapid road movement. I'm figuring you're falling back just far enough that you don't get flanked by cavalry moving off road either mounted or dismounted if it's forest.

I don't think you're doing anything wrong. As a mtter of fact, if it were me playing you, I'd forget the road and just trudge overland. After a while, you're not going to know where he is. If you stay forward, he might be behind you but if you fall back he might be using the road.

On the other matter, being right and not having bad blood are two different things. It's been my experience with opponents that the "bad blood" feeling never really goes away. Maybe best to call it a draw, chalk it up to a missunderstanding and move on.

Gen. Doug Burke

Sir,

I think you have attempted to use a loophole in a mutually self-imposed house rule to a gamey purpose.

The situation you both find yourselves in is a "gamey" situation, best resolved by his troops doing what they would have in the situation, blowing through you with a melee, and not conulting some mysterious manual imposed by a <b><i>Deus Ex Machina</i></b> which sayeth:

"Thou shalt not assault at night because it was (<b>mostly</b>) never done"

This is not a "<b>mostly</b>" time on the battlefield, and any cavalry commander from the troop to the Division level worth his salt would use his initiative and blow through you on any battlefield, from the days of Mediggo to Mosul today.

So bite the bullet, realize that the situation you are in is because you have attempted to take a house rule and make hay from it in an unrealistic way to the disadvantage of your noble opponent, dispense with approaching the field of battle as a tax code, and fight it out.

So, bow gracefully....

I Advisingly Remain,

<center></center><center><font size="3"><b>Major Patrick Q. Mullen</b></font id="size3">
<font size="2"><font color="orange">Officer Commanding:</font id="orange">
<font color="limegreen"><b>Mullen's Fenian Cavalry </b>(4th Bde)</font id="limegreen">
<font color="yellow">1st Division/II Corps
Army of Mississippi
Western Theater
CSA</font id="yellow">
<font color="red">ACWGC</font id="red"></font id="size2"></center><font color="limegreen"><i>The West is the best; get here and we'll do the rest</i></font id="limegreen"><b>------General James "Jim" Morrison</b>

House rules are meant to introduce realistic play. However I find, as some have noted, that they introduce issues themselves. I prefer to use simple house rules. These games are complicated affairs and one issue solved with house rules create other unsolved situation. Play the game as designed and deal with the so called unrealistic issues. These games are abstractions after all. Night melees (attacks) were not done often because of the command and control, it's dark! With God like control over every unit, even when they are routed, it reduces most house rules to inconsequential. Obvious ones like using wagons to leaders to surround have been dealt with by the engine. Increased fatigue for night melees is a good abstraction.

To answer your question, using units to block roads at night is a valid tactic but to not allow your opponent to clear them is not. The fact that you agreed to no Melees at night is not your problem and would need to be dealt with in accordance to the rules by your opponent. He should not feel bad since he agreed to it. He has to deal with it in the spirit of using house rules. Personnally he should be allowed to melee and if he sent you a note requesting that you wave the no night melees in these situation you should agree. There is always a way to resolve disputes. Just work it out.

By the way I agree with Doug once there is bad feeling it is hard to work out. Been there done thart! Maybe a mutual game end is the way to go.

Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1st Bde, 3rd Div,I Corps
Army of Georgia, CSA

ACWGC President
1997- Oct. 2006

Having read all posts thus far, I think I lean towards the viewpoint of General Whitehead. The prior agreement of no night melee notwithstanding, the modification suggested by Ken to allow cavalry units to melee seems a sensible compromise and fair solution. Afterall we have, I believe, permitted interpretations regarding other rather unreasonable situations on some maps such as allowing melee in column over bridges and on roads through rough terrain when "Horatio at the Gate" tactics can completely tie up a whole army. Also the tactic of incremental retreating and redeploying with small units as a delaying action is nothing new. The Finnish ski troops employed the very same tactic to great success in the Winter War of WWII. I imagine the Russians felt that was a foul too.

I think the important thing here is that it is a game, not reality. The game is governed by rules; those designed and those house rules sanctioned by the club. But as one wiser member of the club said (more or less)in a post that I read months ago...house rules are not perfect nor can there be one for every continency nor will they always please all players. Since this game was begun with a "gentlemanly agreement" which is itself a compromise in the standing rules, why wouldn't a sensible modification such as suggested by Mr. Whitehead about permitting small cav units to melee be acceptable? And just carry on.

To not ignore the diplomatic process, I must also agree with some of the other comments about refering to higher authority, not letting a game spawn bad blood, and not just "giving up" the game rather than working out a mutually acceptable solution, both parties seemingly having valid viewspoints. I also don't think it is proper for anyone to be speaking about taking advantage of loopholes and accusing one of gamey tactics. For one, having read many posts by General Mishurda; I must say that he has always struck me to be an honorable-sounding and ethical officer. I can see how someone on the receiving end of the tactic might well reel from it and take umbrage at its employment, but it nevertheless is not a tactic that is new under the sun. History of all periods has examples of such delaying tactics, perhaps not typically in the ACW...I wouldn't necessarily say...All is fair in love and war, but one should be able to do what works modified in our case by being "within the rules" or working out wrinkles in a fair way as gentlemen. I don't mean that as high-minded or as corny as it may sound.

That all said, again, I think a "homebrewed" house rule employed is also a candidate for a "homebrewed" modification as well when it is a particularly unique and uncommon situation. This together with the other comments about the built in penalties for night actions AND the suggestion of by-passing the offending unit are also solutions. Many a strongpoint was by-passed in history as well...I recall that being done in the Ardennes...twice!

It is such a great club. Seems to me we ought to strive to simply work these things out nicely...which is what is happening...to wit...these posts.


Colonel Tom Ciampa

2nd Bgde,1st Cav
XIV Corps, AoC
Games: TS/BG: AN, BR, CH, GB, SH - HPS: AT, CTH, GB, OZK, SH, VK