American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Who can tell me exactly what Embedded Melee is? Where I can find the rule to read it for myself? and how the game turn in a MP game actually works when employing the rule?

I am about to start a MP game using the Single Phase format (Blitz?)and embedded melee in an HPS game and I don't know how it works.

I don't understand how one splits up the turn between two players AND when melee occurs and when you get to see what your team-mate did in his move.

In a "phased game" such as in the old Talonsoft BG games, one had the opportunity to SEE what the other guy did when he transferred a saved file of the particular phase...move, fire, melee, before the phase is ended...i.e. where he moved his units, what he fired at, what potential melees were in the offing and how they came out. How does all that happen in a single phase Turn?

Thanks.

Major General
Tom Ciampa

Commanding Officer
1st Cav Division
XIV Corps, AoC
Games: TS/BG: AN, BR, CH, GB, SH - HPS: AT, CTH, GB, OZK, SH, VK

Embedded melee is a way to try to diminish the blitz tactics in the HPS games. It's not a written rule in the manual, more of a house rule. First time I came across it was in tournament play over in the Nappy club.

Basically, at some point during your turn you resolve all your melees. Other units can continue moving/firing after those melees, but there's no more melee allowed (except against lone leaders/wagons). Keeps you from meleeing a hex, opening it up, moving units through it to flank another unit, melee it, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Cuts down on the carnage a bit, though you can still blow a hole and move through and cut off units for next turn.

Another option is to do all melees as your last action in your player turn, which works much like phased play.

In an MP game - well, there's the question. We're debating this for our game, and the only way I can see it is for each player to embed a melee phase as they do their turn. A bit trickier as if commands are close together, the first player can blow a hole and the next player move through. So, I'm not sure how it would be best worked - unless the last player did *all* melees. Otherwise, you're doubling the number of emails so you can go back and let everyone do their attacks. It's definitely a question...



Maj Gen Sean Turner
3rd Cavalry Division, "The Bishop's Men"
I Corps
Army of Alabama

We just completed a MP game 5 vs. 4 where each player "embedded" a melee phase in his part of the turn. It usually worked quite well. If you keep some sort of order on the battlefield, there is no issue with one player exploiting the melees of his neighbour. I do recall one situation in which one player meleed a battery after the player before him had pushed a battalion out of the way, both units being sort of on the boundary between the two commands, but that was the only flaw I can remember.

An important point is, of course, that you can not move *during* your melee phase. You move, you do all melees in a row, without any movement interspersed, then you move again, but don't melee any more.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

Thank you both. It does sound fraught with potential for dispute which in a "tournament game..a challenge" is not a comforting thought. Personally I don't see why one can not play HPS games with phased play AS YOU HAVE TO DO SO with Talonsoft BG games. Yes, turns take longer because of file transfers between partners, but so what. What bothers me is that the newer players, meaning post Talonsoft battleground, think phased play in HPS is not practical. Why should that be. There are no more phases in multi-phase HPS play than the old Battleground games. When a tournament is set up, this kind of issue should be made clear and established with no negotiation. What kind of a level playing field can it be with a technique that has the potential to be exploited, pursposefully or inadvertantly, AND when some teams MAY be playing with one format and others with this "embedded melee" single-phase format?

Am I incorrect to think that the MP game Techniques paper linked from the Link Express WILL NOT WORK for HPS games...or is it just a matter of people not having the patience nor willing to take the time for the file transfer among their team-mates? In this case there are only two members on a team which certainly makes it easier than some of the old Talonsoft contests I am aware of.

Thanks again to you both.


Major General
Tom Ciampa

Commanding Officer
1st Cav Division
XIV Corps, AoC
Games: TS/BG: AN, BR, CH, GB, SH - HPS: AT, CTH, GB, OZK, SH, VK

I am now being told that "The Blitz" tactic or capability in Single-Phase (One Turn) play, whatever you wish to call it, has been for the most part largely corrected or minimized by John Tiller changes to the engine in his more recent issues of patches. Does anyone know if this is true? Embedded Melee "rule" or practice notwithstanding, it would be a lot more convenient to not have to use yet one more "house rule" but I am not convinced. Sure would like to hear from the horse's mouth on this one....Rich Hamilton or Rich Walker.

If anyone thinks this is "much ado about nothing" all I can say in defense, is that some casual pick-up MP game between a half a dozen campaigners is one thing, but when a tourny is in progress, competitive by definition, and the actions of one team can so affect the outcome of its whole army side...it would seem that such a glitch ought to be thought out ahead of time and some rule, house or not, be mandated. If it was I missed it in the various announcements.

No more from me...I am ready to play, Blitz or not...but I hope this will be dealt with in the next tourny...or of course one can always choose not to compete.


Major General
Tom Ciampa

Commanding Officer
1st Cav Division
XIV Corps, AoC
Games: TS/BG: AN, BR, CH, GB, SH - HPS: AT, CTH, GB, OZK, SH, VK

Using single phase play significantly simplifies MP games. Especially once you get past two players to a side. Unfortunately, single phased play (all actions occuring during movement) is so poorly handled by the AI and so full of exploits that Multi Play is the only use for it. Phased play is the better system for one on one.

The Embedded Melee phase is an attempt to fix one of the worse problems with the system. HPS has added some new rules on fire before melee to help fix some of its worse abuses. It still is a lousy system. The Napoloen HPS site added about a dozen more rules trying to fix some of the other problems but it gets to complicated.

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

That possibility does exist[:)], but you'll just have to wait. But not long.

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

OK, That is it...no more...this is going nowhere...the challenge starts without Embedded Melee and we will just have to leave any dispute to the judges. Really too bad there wasn't better preliminary orientation for those, however few, that had no experience with a MP HPS games, and some meaningful guidelines on the format and the optional rules. There is always next time....



Major General
Tom Ciampa

Commanding Officer
1st Cav Division
XIV Corps, AoC
Games: TS/BG: AN, BR, CH, GB, SH - HPS: AT, CTH, GB, OZK, SH, VK

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tciampa</i>
Personally I don't see why one can not play HPS games with phased play AS YOU HAVE TO DO SO with Talonsoft BG games.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

One can. I do.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

Actually Dierk, I do too...in fact I now play all my games only via phased play in HPS...when I wrote that I meant that I don't see why one can not play HPS <font color="red"><font size="3">MP</font id="size3"></font id="red"> games with phased play...what a difference the lack of two letters make...so sorry. In fact that is the very reason why I was so concerned about NOT using phased play for the tourny. Single-Phase play seems so much less historical and especially so when you read the irony in what Ken Whitehead wrote below...a sorry kind of attribute...the format's convenience being its only redeeming quality, and which makes MP in HPS, to me, not so attractive a proposition. Perhaps I will feel differently after trying it. But had I realized it before hand I would certainly not have committed to the contest and would have just opted for the BG choice.

Quote from Ken:

<font color="red">single phased play (all actions occuring during movement) is so poorly handled by the AI and so full of exploits that Multi Play is the only use for it. Phased play is the better system for one on one. The Embedded Melee phase is an attempt to fix one of the worse problems with the system. HPS has added some new rules on fire before melee to help fix some of its worse abuses. It still is a lousy system.</font id="red">




<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tciampa</i>
Personally I don't see why one can not play HPS games with phased play AS YOU HAVE TO DO SO with Talonsoft BG games.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

One can. I do.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS



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

Major General
Tom Ciampa

Commanding Officer
1st Cav Division
XIV Corps, AoC
Games: TS/BG: AN, BR, CH, GB, SH - HPS: AT, CTH, GB, OZK, SH, VK

Multi-phased play is an option for 2v2 MP games, but perhaps not for larger teams, where you need to keep things moving and kept simple. I'm playing in a 5v4 MP full Peninsula 7 Days scenario and we are playing in single phase mode and using the embedded melee phase rule (with each player having his own melee 'phase'), and also an orders system with communication delays. All participants fully understand the rules and play in a good spirit and there have been no issues whatsoever. In fact it is one of the most enjoyable games I've played. I think the key to it all is good communication with your opponents and achieving an understanding as to how the game is to be played.

In my opinion the embedded melee concept does iron out the worst aspects of the single phase system, so long as it is fully understood by all particpants in a game. Having said that, I'm looking forward to seeing what solution may be part of future releases and patches.


[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acw/acw.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/aoc/Western_Theater.htm"]Commander, Western Theater, Union Army[/url]

Come to think of it, we *are* doing a 3 vs. 3 MP at Fair Oaks with phased play. I am last player and conduct all fire and melee according to the orders I receive from my teammates. It's a bit tedious for them, I suppose, to write down all the melees they request, but then we have been doing this on the BG engine for years, with even larger teams. The old 2/VIII won at least once in a full BGG (Norris) using this system - 5 Feds vs. 3 Rebs.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

This is very good to hear. Nice to think that when tournaments are held that these things could be explained as simply as you put it, and Dierk puts it...thank you.

I know that there are a few "papers" on MP games and I have read them. I just can't help thinking that maybe it is time for someone to update them with a simple protocol for playing HPS MP games both by Single-Phase play with this embedded melee "rule" and for 2 player teams multi-phase play. Of course once one is aware...the operative word being "aware" ... of these posts. They alone are a useful source of information, yours and Dierk's post and those others recently posted like Sean's about the detail of "embedded melee."

Perhaps I was too long a bureaucrat to not want to have a nice tidy, brief, "directive" linked to the ACWGC page relating to tournaments and a few options. This would certainly make it easier for the newbies who know nothing about them and the veterans who end up having to explain and answer annoying questions rather than getting on to the "playing" part. In ONE pickup game I would imagine the players all have prior MP experience. But in a tourny there must always be at least a few members who sign up and are new to MP play.

Were I to know more about the subject I would author a paper myself. I would also be glad to assist someone else with more experience to prepare something. I am not talking about something like Lars Winstedt's protocol OR even the whole enchilada of the MP Game Techniques paper on the Link Express. [What I found most useful about that paper was the file transfer explanation way, way down near the end of it.] I am advocating a simple step by step file transfer sequence for both formats of HPS play, and an explanation of any "special rules or techniques" that ease play, and perhaps including a couple of menus of optional rules that help balance play...and especially in biased scenarios. Sometimes it is tough enough when one side or the other has an inherent historical disadvantage without agreeing to and playing with optional rules that further handicap one or the other teams. The optional rule thing causes so much acid reflux ("ahh-chi-ta") that I think am at the point of just "ALL ON" for all play.

Frankly, I WAS kind of sorry that I started this whole string, but just as frankly, I now feel that at least some of the posts [probably not mine] will be very useful to anyone searching for this topic on the forum in the future.

Finally, I share the sentiment of the author below regarding an eventual "fix" of some kind making MP a little easier. I am also sure now that once I have more experience with MP games that I will be hooked on them. Clearly there are many going on and, extra the work and time aside, they sound like the players are really enjoying them.



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Antony Barlow</i>
<br />Multi-phased play is an option for 2v2 MP games, but perhaps not for larger teams, where you need to keep things moving and kept simple. I'm playing in a 5v4 MP full Peninsula 7 Days scenario and we are playing in single phase mode and using the embedded melee phase rule (with each player having his own melee 'phase'), and also an orders system with communication delays. All participants fully understand the rules and play in a good spirit and there have been no issues whatsoever. In fact it is one of the most enjoyable games I've played. I think the key to it all is good communication with your opponents and achieving an understanding as to how the game is to be played.

In my opinion the embedded melee concept does iron out the worst aspects of the single phase system, so long as it is fully understood by all particpants in a game. Having said that, I'm looking forward to seeing what solution may be part of future releases and patches.


[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acw/acw.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/aoc/Western_Theater.htm"]Commander, Western Theater, Union Army[/url]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><b></b><b></b><b></b><b></b>

Major General
Tom Ciampa

Commanding Officer
1st Cav Division
XIV Corps, AoC
Games: TS/BG: AN, BR, CH, GB, SH - HPS: AT, CTH, GB, OZK, SH, VK

Good day Gentlemen,

Being new to the HPS Campaign series I wondered just what Embedded Melee was. Thank you all for your illuminating replies to MG Ciampa's query, I now understand what Embedded Melee is and how it works. I see now that it is a method of dealing with the powerful Blitzkrieg tactics. Now however, I realize I don't really understand what's wrong with Blitzkrieg tactics and why they weren't used in ACW fighting.

A fellow newcomer to the HPS series and I were discussing this subject and he asked, "...in a real battle in an assualt or melee would'nt you want your reserves to exploit a breech in the line or blitz forces to exploit a opening created by the assualt force?" I have to agree with him, seems reasonable to me. Yet, it must not be reasonable to all and I found I could not answer why not.

I searched the forums and read what I could find on the Blitz Tactics and am sensing that the problem with them is that they are considered ahistorical. Not having a detailed grasp of the movement, control and timing capabilities of the actual ACW units I am left wondering.

What is it about them that makes the Blitz Tactics ahistorical or perhaps better asked, why couldn't ACW leaders of the day do it?

Please forgive my ignorance,



Capt.R.A.Sickbert,
1st Brigade, 2nd Division
V Corps
Army of the Potomac

Hi, Capt Sickbert,

The problem with blitz has to do with the nature of the IGO-UGO system we have. What happens is the moving player moves troops from the rear their full movement allowance, pushes a blocking unit out of the way, and then marches their front troops full movement through the gap, without the opposing player having a chance to react. I think embedded melee better reflects the realities of combat because it usually took at least twenty minutes of hard fighting to break a line. The exception I can think of is Longstreet's charge at Chickamauga, but that was because Rosecrans inadvertently created a gap in his own line just when Longstreet attacked. Gaps were usually created when units routed, which doesn't happen in the game until the attacker's turn is over.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA